UKC

I was talking to a mate in the beer garden. He said the reason people voted Brexit and might well elect Trump president of the "free world" is that they are sick to death of being lied to by politicians.
My question is: Why, when they are sick of being lied to, do the people look round for the most grotesquely obvious liars around and vote for them with maximum enthusiasm. Mussolini, Hitler, Boris, Farage, Le Pen, Trump. Why?

In reply to Pete Pozman:

Yes, interesting. They are strangely convincing.

In reply to Pete Pozman:

My theory is that firstly, many people are naturally drawn to promises of easy solutions because they don't understand how complicated the problems are, and therefore how complicated the solutions are. Secondly, if they don't like the status quo and feel that they have no control over an issue, they want to see someone doing something, anything, if it turns out that the promised easy solution doesn't solve the problem or has unintended negative consequences then they switch their allegiance to the next charismatic person who offers an easy solution, and blame their previous champion for being incompetent, a liar, corrupt, or all three. Thirdly, rather like religious cults, people become tribalistic, their own identity becomes projected onto the figurehead and the feeling of belonging to a collective of like minded individuals, they become blind to the movement's failings, because it implies failings in themselves, and they become very defensive.

In reply to Pete Pozman:

I think it has more to do with people like Trump and Le Pen seem to stand for a change from the status quo. Which when you are disenfranchised with the whole system and feel ignored, seems like an attractive option no matter how unpalatable that change might be. I think it's the whole this is Sh*t so this guy promising to radically change things must be better.

In reply to Pete Pozman:

This almost like why would I bother - any sentence that starts with "I was talking to mate down the pub" is always going to lead a coherent and sensible discussion ..... Not.

Hitler clearly is out there on his own and for the sake of balance I'd add Stalin and Mao to his category - ideologically driven and a complete disregard for human lives to achieve whatever goals they've set themselves.
Mussolini wasn't nice but less so than Hitler, more of the third world tyrant than global monster.
Trump, Boris, Farage, and le Pen not even close and that sort of comparison is disingenuous at best - not one of them will suspend/overturn democracy, they are not willing to kill millions to achieve their aims. Are they politicians (well three of them are - Trump is a businessman). Do they tell the truth, probably not, but you are allowed to think for yourself and not believe everything you're fed off the telly.

In reply to Pete Pozman:

People crave simplicity and certainty and the leaders you mention give them that - by unequivocally blaming "others" for all the problems. Try to explain that there is no simple solution, that we have to accept compromise, difficulties etc and they switch off and go back to their beer

In reply to cander:

I certainly think that all those contemporaries are on some sort of continuum with Hitler, Stalin and the rest - to think otherwise is dangerously naive.

Once b*stards like Farage, Trump and the rest are prepared to tell outright lies - and be caught out, time and again, and not be remotely embarrassed or apologetic - they have crossed a line beyond which democratic politics becomes impossible to sustain. 'Conventional' politicians, for all their faults, their obfuscations, their evasiveness are in a different league.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

They all appear to be on a continuum of small minded bullshit, the Leave / Remain campaigning seemed to encapsulate this nicely, appeals to emotions, security, safety, vague notions of prosperity and nationhood/ nationalism. Its the politics of the swing voter, of the middle ground, political correctness and technocracy, no realistic discourse articulated either on the right or left. May immediately launched into the same rhetoric on her appointment as P.M. while handing key cabinet jobs to the right of her party. Fundamentally dishonest, they can't stop themselves.

D

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Take a stroll through 20th century history and ponder on the outcomes of the tyrants in Germany, Russia and China, the millions of lives lost, wounded and dislocated through the uncontrolled ambition of psychopaths. The difference between those and the Democratic right is a gulf that possibly some people can't imagine, even your Sainted Tony B with the fire power available to him couldn't begin to approach the lethality of the tyrants. It's a ridiculous comparison to make between Nigel Farage (retired from politics), Boris Johnson (never killed a soul), Marie le Pen (Racist - but French so probably will go for a long lunch rather than invade anywhere) and the tyrants. Donald Trump - well he's a worry, but he hasn't got any power.

I'm not naive, a long way from it, I see so much hysterical guff on here all because the British people exercised their democratic rights to decide the future of their country - the dangerous people are the ones who don't accept losing a democratic vote and try to overturn the outcome or erode the validity of the outcome to suit their own agenda not those who won it. A few people need to examine their commitment to the principle of democracy.

In reply to cander: If you think Farage has retired from 'politics' you truly are naive. Do you know where he was last week?

And of course the examples cited are not as lethal as Hitler, Pol Pot and all the rest. But their flagrant lies have put us all on a slippery slope.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Nope. The slippery slope was erected by the immaculate, suited, coiffured, smooth talking technocrats of the last 30 years, Farage et al are merely the emollient.

D

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Farage hasn't got anywhere to go, UKIP are dead unless Labour implodes (note to Labourites - try to not do that) and the Tories don't need or want him. I'm thinking rumours of a trip to the jungle are not exaggerated.

You said you think they are on a continuum with Hitler etal- you're wrong and you've just said so in the last post - try to be consistent.

In reply to cander:

I think ukip have plenty places to go I) labour are spectacularily imploding 2) May is unlikely to deliver the key reforms that made the still yet unaddressed issues (by mainstream parties) surrounding Brexit a populist platform. More neoliberal trade, taxation and social protections stripped away including no changes in immigration is unlikely to increase the size of middle class or its happy fuzzy outlook.

D

In reply to Dauphin:

Then we have to disagree on that - UKIP are a one issue party and that issue has gone away.

Labour has got the same problem as it always had - the Militant Tendency AKA Momentum AKA Trotskyites are trying once again to take over the party - the older heads saw the outcome of this under Micheal Foot thats why the PLP has revolted. It took Neil Kinnock to break the Militant Tendency with Tony Blair administering the Coup de grace. Labour has to be a centre left party, currently there isn't anyone strong enough to mobilse the centre left and eject the Momentum cadre - it might be Chukka but he strikes me as too urbane for the knife fight, but come the moment come the man so to speak - someone will take the lead.

May will be successful, she will win a landslide in the next election, immigration will be controlled and I'm pretty sure Merkel and Hollands successors will help because thats how they'll win their elections.

In reply to cander:

What the heck are you talking about? Try to be coherent man (or woman)


I don't think Stalin and Mao got themselves into power by lying to the people. That's not saying they weren't liars. Hitler did. He was an angry little sh*t who managed to get himself a gang and manoeuvre himself into control. Nobody took him seriously till it was too late

Third world? My point isn't anything to do with comparative monstrosity. It is about ridiculous, stupid men saying outlandish things and somehow securing the trust of the populace. Trump and Boris are utterly and obviously preposterous but people are gagging to believe whatever utter tosh they spout. A child in a nursery could spot Trump is a wrong 'un but millions of Americans think he's bludy marvellous.


is it?

"not one of them will suspend/overturn democracy, "

won't they?


"Trump is a businessman)."

is he?

" Do they tell the truth, probably not, but you are allowed to think for yourself and not believe everything you're fed off the telly."

Yes it would be really good if people did actually think for themselves and not believe everything they're fed. That's my point.

In reply to cander:

Reading the Sun today (not my usual reading I might add) it was advising Theresa May to call an early election so to 'destroy' the Labour Party (their word not mine). It sounds like Rupert and his cronies would like a single party state. Turkey comes to mind where democracy has just been 'rescued'.

In reply to Removed Userjess13:

Yes "democracy"...
If people are told the truth and they vote on the basis of truth, that's democracy.
If they are tricked and lied to unashamedly by a bunch of unscrupulous liars and led into a catastrophe that is not democracy.

In reply to Removed Userjess13:

Labour is full of good people who whilst I don't particularly agree with their policies in detail are well capable of running the country to the benefit of most of the population (same as the conservatives and liberals). The momentum people have always been around as I pointed out. Labour needs to remove them and move back towards the centre. Harold Wilson and Jim Callahan were men of their time but that Labour Party in the pockets of the unions simply doesn't work now. Neil Kinnock and Tony Blair both knew this and saw the need to bring labour to the centre which they did and made the party completely current and electable. The electorate need to have confidence in a party that can manage the economy - New labour did that (it's actually not Blair or Browns fault the world credit market and banking system imploded). The Iraq war unraveled it for Tony Blair, which is actually a bit unfortunate as Saddam Hussain got exactly what he had coming, but the inability of the Americans to think through the post war settlement scuppered New Labour.

Nobody wants a single party state, democracy is a useless system, but it's a damn sight better than any of the alternatives.

We are nothing like Turkey.

Labour needs to put Corbyn and his cronies into the party they belong in - the socialist workers party where they can languish without wreaking the Labour Party.

In reply to Pete Pozman:


Ah, you visited the oracle, the font of all wisdom, the zenith of philosophy. No wonder you're always so erudite.


Because the mainstream middle of the road, bland, boring, cautious, "my job comes first', politicians (Cameron, Corbyn, May, Milliband, whoever's in the Lib Dems these days,) just offer more of the same bullshit with no chance of change.

In reply to Big Ger:

So you're in favour of Mussolini,Hitler,Boris,Farage,Le Pen.Trump. Yes you'll get change with this crew but you can bet it wont be for the good. I think you can add Putin to that list.

In reply to cander:


Everyone is on the continuum - that's what continuums are for!

In reply to Pete Pozman:


Have you had your blood pressure checked since the referendum? I'm surprised you haven't had a heart attack yet.
FFS please give it a rest. We all know what you think by now, at least give it a few months to see how things pan out before you bore us further with your interminable whinging.

In reply to Pete Pozman:

Pure speculation on behalf of your mate after a few beers. He might as well said people voted to remain because he heard the tooth fairy told them to.

In reply to Removed Userjess13:


Where did I say I was in favour of them?

In reply to cander:

I'm not buying the militant tendency line. Where have these communists been for 30 years, camping out in the countryside singing the red flag, regrouping and multiplying underground? At its height SWP had less than 10,000 members yet a hundred thousand neo trots come out of nowhere and join the labour party to keep Corbyn getting out of bed in the morning. I think you'll find there's something else happening, many of the same feel aggrieved by Brexit and want a voice via opposition party to oppose that, others will be anti globalisation and expressinng their views on that through the leftish wing of the labour party, many of the same people would of voted for Brexit. There's plenty of disenfranchised professional middle class voters who can barely afford a house or kids who would not have felt comfortable with the right wing and daily mail calling for Brexit yet are feeling the pain of globalisation, they are hoping Corbyn or at least the leftish remnants of the labour party may fight for their corner.

D

In reply to Pete Pozman:

Education, education, education.


National intelligence test results.
- England: FAIL
- Wales: FAIL

In reply to Jim Fraser:
Does saying that make you feel superior to the people of Wales and England who voted out?

Obviously it must.

In reply to cander:


Why has it?

Is there a border?

Has immigration ended?

Has the UK left the EU?

The Tories want single market access, the things UKIP have stood for will almost certainly still be there.

In reply to cander:





Sorry to say but that's really naive if you think someone like Trump is not capable of killing millions.

In reply to RomTheBear:
Trump isn't in power you clot

In reply to Roadrunner5:

The Tories are the most Eurosceptic party by a mile, Theresa May won't last past lunch time if she doesn't take the UK out of the EU.

There is very clearly a border - try taking your family to France today.

Immigration won't end - it will be controlled.

In reply to Dauphin:

Once again I disagree, the militant tendency/momentum are the Trotskyite wing of Labour - they don't belong in labour they belong in the SWP. When New Labour was in power how could they attack them, Tony Blair was far too switched on to give them oxygen and the unions would never support them because there was a labour government whilst not entirely sympathetic to the unions a whole lot less hostile than the conservatives. Once Tony Blair had gone blimey did Labour hit the buffers - one person can make that much difference. Corbyn is also making that much difference but not in a good way. Labour will be massacred in the next election, oh the joy of being a Tory.

Living in the North, I don't see any of your disenfranchised middle class professionals who can't afford a house, they can if they've got a job and are sensible with their money, I know young teachers buying their first house, pretty nice ones too - living in the south, I understand house prices are higher but that's the market not the government - Corbyn won't let you afford a house you haven't got enough money to buy - he just won't/can't.

People need to get over the Brexit vote, it was the clearest democratic decision this country has ever taken - decision made. Come and live up North - eat pies not croissants.

In reply to Big Ger:


Fancy a beer?

In reply to cander:


But...but...but... The Amerigan Peeble seem to be even more gullible than our lot. They prefer lies to truth. My point was we've seen this before and it's coming again. It's the unthinkable but the World faces the prospect of The Wizard of OZ manque having his finger on the nuclear button.
Just when we need cool heads we elect a man who has absolutely nothing between his ears and there are very clever men promoting him.

In reply to Pete Pozman:

Well we/they haven't elected Trump yet Pete, and don't believe all you read in the papers about the US. For sure they have massive issues with gun control, xenophobia, the military industrial complex and unbridled capitalism; but, in the face of massive opposition, it is also the country that elected a black president before we elected a black PM; is definitely within a shout of electing a woman president (and will definitely do so if Michelle stands); it gave us the Marshall plan, the Peace Corps, Bernie Sanders and the Simpsons. They're not all rednecks.

In reply to cander:

And so what ? How does that relate in any way to my reply ?

In reply to RomTheBear:

He can hardly kill millions without an army can he - or do you know something that we don't know?

In reply to cander:

That doesn't mean he is not capable of it. and In fact, no you don't need an army to kill millions.

In reply to RomTheBear:

he's completely incapable of it because he hasn't got the capability - clot

In reply to RomTheBear:

On what basis is Hillary Clinton any "safer" ?

In reply to cander:

Very short sighted if you think he is not capable of winning an election.
One can be capable of doing something without having the means (yet) to do it. I suggest you check a dictionary.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


She is at least sane.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I wait until it happens thank you, and even if he wins he'd find it pretty difficult to go off on one and start launching nukes around the world.

In reply to RomTheBear:
how could I shoot you if I didn't have a gun?

PS have the last word - I know you like that.

In reply to cander:

You're stating the obvious but that's not what I've said.

In reply to cander:

You can be capable of shooting someone and not have a gun. Check a dictionary and the differents meaning of "capable".

In reply to Cander: not yet anyway. I am a bit torn - I suspect he could be harmless enough as he really doesn't think about what he'd really do and in reality wouldn't do much. Then again a combination of his hair brain economics and pretty banal foreign policies ( do nothing to save money) could easily put the Us in a financial mess and have some pretty nasty effects outside the US.

You are quite right that you can't equate Trump with Hitler, nor Farage, Le Pen et al. But Hitler didn't appear in a vacuum, and these politicians seem determined to recreate an environment where a new Hitler can appear.

Re. Trust in politics - thank the media, wiki leaks, Internet et al. But even now in 'the pub ' isn't there a thread called lying politicians - this all sums up so no one is trusted - not politicians, journalists, police, doctors, judges, priests , anyone

In reply to cander:

It's worth bearing in mind that the US military, when encouraged by gung-ho Presidents, were happy to embark on massive military interventions that would - and did - result in 'collateral damage' to civilian populations likely to number in the 100s of 1,000s. At least twice in my lifetime.

If Trump were to be elected and wanted to make the grand gesture - invade Syria, say, or respond aggressively to Iran or North Korea, the US military do not have a good track record of discouraging such behaviour.

In reply to cander:



No problem. Not sure what was your point other than insulting me.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I know Rob. I was recently leading a completely charming group of Americans, all better educated and more civilised than me, and they were quite ashamed about the Trump phenomenum. Most of them were Republicans too.
I've never met the kind of USA twit who shouts "Trump! Trump! Trump!" but I've never been to the states. I only meet the Americans who have the broad mindedness to travel abroad.
The guy on this thread who told me to calm down has a point though. Like many others I have been sub-clinically depressed about Brexit. And the bloke who cited "Education ..." has a point too, but then I was teacher so now wonder if I did enough to show that there could be a kinder world. Boohoo!

In reply to cander:




She may take them out of the EU that doesn't mean immigration will be controlled you clot..

And yes the border is still open. Can people in the EU still just move to the UK? Yes.

And little englander, try the other way. The queues are at Dover, much less coming the other way.

So UKIP will still be a party as there is little chance the government will further commit national suicide.

In reply to pec:



Dude, this is my thread. Why are you on it?

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Keep dreaming, there is no option for Brexit lite

Of course immigration will be controlled - the automatic EU right to enter and settle will not exist - every foreigner will be treated exactly the same unless the British government agrees an exception - and as you disingenuously already know nothing will change until article 50 is invoked and the negotiations are completed.

A border has to be between two countries and therefore two sides to the border - in the case of the English channel at the crossing points for example Dover and Calais so the French are enforcing additional border controls hence the border is effective, and my point stands if you think there isn't a border load your family into a car head down the M20 shouting Schengen out of the window - remember to take drinks and sandwiches.

I'm hardly a little Englander - owning houses in England and France, having worked all over the world I'm well aware how other countries are - I do however think England is the best one.

UKIP is dead unless labour breathes new life into it- sorry if that upsets you (actually I'm not sorry at all).

By the way - post a profile.

In reply to Pete Pozman:

It's not your thread - it's Alans - he owns everything on here - welcome to capitalism, go to uk.rec.climbing if you want freedom.

In reply to Roadrunner5:



Actually there isn't anything they can politically gain by NOT committing national suicide, or rather, national self harm.
Backpedalling on freedom of movement to remain in the single market would be seen a high treason by the brexiteers, and would be a huge boost for UKIP.
Only thing the Tory can do really is to deliver a hard brexit and try to control the damages, and keep Scotland in the UK by force. What worries me is, who are they going blame for the economic reality catches up.

In reply to RomTheBear:




Migration, the economy, sovereignty all play their mutually incompatible part in the mix. But the referendum was on membership of the EU and on that alone.

I know you're worried about the outcome for you personally but I think your judgement is clouded by that fear. Revolution is for the French, that's not how we do things here. Or to quote Clinton, "It's the economy, stupid"

In reply to cander: I tend to agree with you

I'm not sure why so many think the immigration problem won't be controlled more? Forget Brexit and just look at whats happening all over Europe. Borders going up, this "free movement of people" is just the dying embers of a futile dream IMO. Hollande has just said France is now at war with ISIS. ok, probably a soundbite but how does shengen fit into that narrative eh? We are now seeing almost daily attacks in Europe (hopefully not anymore...but lets face it...), they have lost control and the public will demand they get it back.

I can see a new zeitgeist forming in Europe if this continues, with problem immigration being at the center of it. Talk of economic impacts misses the point spectacularly. Worrying times.

In reply to Pete Pozman: not aure if anyone noticed that little comment over the weekend that for sure article 50 will be triggered before the next election. A sliding timescale if ever there was

In reply to BnB:

The question was on EU membership. But the referendum itself was very much centred around myth on immigration and sovereignty.


That's exactly what I was told on these forums two years ago when I argued the UK was going to leave the EU. That it would never happen, reason will prevail, etc etc... I don't think so, I think you are grossly overestimating the ability of the British electorate to make sensible choices. It used to be the case - but global terrorism, dismal education system, gross inequality, poor politics, and demographics have changed things.

I'm not really worried about the outcome personally - I've found a good job in Cyprus and I'm moving there in three months. But I'm worried for all those like me who feel European first and are now stuck in Little England.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Holy shit you're moving to Cyprus, the country that froze bank accounts, has one of the most corrupt banking systems in the world, was awash with Russian mafia money, and is a short boat ride from Syria and Turkey - make sure you get your Irish passport first!

Could you bring a couple of drinks over we're sitting by the pool actually we will be in two weeks - taking the kids and grand kids to Pathos and I'm going to droll over the troodos ophiolite complex.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:




Because all these attacks were by nonEU or French citizens. There EU border policy was not a factor

In reply to RomTheBear:



But the decision has been placed back in the hands of those with whom it should have stayed in the first place. It no longer rests with your ignorant masses.

In reply to RomTheBear:
People who choose to move here are not stuck in Little England.
They can go back to where they came or somewhere 'better'.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


And you think the nationalists across Europe will be saying just that?

In reply to baron:



And I'm sure you can't wait for them to gtfo, but I wasn't talking about people who chose to move here. I'm talking about my British friends who will have lost the automatic right to work and live into any EU country, they, will pay the price.

In reply to BnB:


But that does not matter any longer, there is nothing the Tories can gain politically by doing a fake Brexit.

In reply to Pete Pozman:

Should we be comparing Boris, Farage, Le Pen and Trump with Mussolini and Hitler?

In reply to Pete Pozman:



I'm not a massive Michael Moore fan, but if you want to depress yourself further : http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/11156794.html

In reply to RomTheBear:


How about losing their very lifeline: contributions from the City? How will those be holding up if financial passporting is waived for a nod to the "foreigners out" mob

Besides, what you call a fake Brexit others would call a reclaiming of sovereignty. I do think you're panicking rather.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I read the Moore piece yesterday. Very perceptive I thought.

In reply to Pete Pozman:


You don't own the forum, its a public space.
The post referendum analysis has been done to death. Do yourself and the rest of us a favour, give it a rest until something of actual substance crops up.

In reply to BnB:

No doubt some in the city will pressure for them to retain passporting. But there are opposite forces and more than enough generous brexiteers donors. And IMO, the overriding factor is whatever allows them to remain in power and survival. Not ending freedom of movement would be a huge UKIP boost the Tory party can't afford.


?? What I mean by fake Brexit would be a Norway type option. Ie fax democracy, far from reclaiming sovereignty (that was never lost), it would be an actual loss of sovereignty.
Sorry but I don't see that happening, it would split the Tory party, and boost ukip. Only way out of this for the Tories is to leave the single market, try to get a sophisticated FTA, and try to do damage control. That's pretty much seems to be the plan if you look at the cabinet.

In reply to Pete Pozman:


Not half!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Black population of USA 12%

Black population of UK 3%

Hardly remarkable.

In reply to pec:
I think I was posing a question about voters' willingness to go for preposterous cartoon character like buffoons and hand them power with no idea how they will use it. I linked current liars to liars of the past such as Hitler and Mussolini with an implication that similar consequences may ensue. I am especially worried about Trump at the moment. Aren't you?
Please start a thread on a lighter topic by all means. Maybe I'll find something inconsequential to contribute that is more to your taste.

In reply to Pete Pozman:

It was a referendum, nobody was voting for anyone.

In reply to Big Ger:


You're buying. I'm sitting at your feet listening.

In reply to Lion Bakes:
What about Trump? Read the original post.

In reply to cander:


Not by a country mile was it that. Of the three UK-wide referendums which have been held to date, it has by far the slimmest margin. The exit majority in 2016 was far slimmer than the remain majority was in 1975 (67%).

Of the other referendums (ie single-issue public votes, not elections) which have been held in the UK only the first Scottish devolution referendum in 1979 and the Welsh devolution referendum in 1997 have had slimmer margins.

Given that the title of this thread is "Truth and Lies", I thought it worth pointing these numbers out.

(The 51.62% majority in 1979 Scottish devolution referendum did not meet the criteria for winning as it did not represent 40% of the electorate, as laid down in the act of parliament under which the referendum was carried out. FWIW, the 51.89% majority in the 2016 EU referendum represented 37.47% of the electorate.)

In reply to Martin W:

Oops just checked you're right - shouldn't believe everything I read in the papers

In reply to Big Ger:




I am incredibly angry that England, and especially Wales, have allowed themselves to be dragged to such a position.

In reply to Dauphin:


My own views for being a Corbyn supporter (who voted remain) are largely that it's very difficult to insert any distance between some of the Labour Party and the Conservatives. Take Angela Eagle - Voted for Iraq, against any investigation into Iraq, voted for austerity, and for the welfare cuts. I'd be interested for her to explain to me how she is different from a tory with an identical voting record.

Much talk is made of Corbyn being Marxist, communist, etc. I actually don't think Corbyn is that left wing. I'm a bleeding heart liberal and agree with him on most matters. Much of the stuff he proposes is pretty mainstream views as near as the other side of the channel. He is being portrayed a LOT further left than he actually is.

In reply to cander:


None of them have had the chance yet......

In reply to John_Hat:

The main thing about Corbyn is his incompetence as a leader. His politics is a secondary issue. Labour MPs may find they are stuck with a leader, following the leadership contest, who still can't cut the mustard against the Tories. In which case, if they are to "get behind the party" they just have to sit there and while away the next 4 years until they are massacred at the polls as they were in Scotland.

In reply to Pete Pozman:
I disagree. If we were voting for a president then I would agree, but the leader of the party is not the be-all and end-all.

As I've said before on here, what Cameron thought on health was a lot less important than what J Hunt thought on health. A leader's personal policies are not necessarily what gets put forward - they may need to compromise to get it through parliament. I would actually say this is more the case with Corbyn than others, as he appears to believe a lot more in free votes than three line whips.

I would also agree if the leader had total mind control over the MPs, that he could force them to do and say anything he wished. But he doesn't.

There is nothing to stop an MP, whether they agree or disagree with Corbyn, campaigning against the tories, standing up in the chamber and making speeches against the tories, attacking the tories, and generally making life difficult for the tories. They don't have to "just sit there".

There is nothing to stop an MP saying "actually, our leader is a bit useless in some areas, I'll try and help them out and make up for areas where they are weak, whilst accepting that they are strong in certain areas (relationships with membership and unions) where I am weak".

However they appear to more prefer a different strategy.

In reply to John_Hat:

I have to disagree. Corbyn has spent his entire (well paid) career pretty much taking money under false pretences; gaining and keeping his seat and as a member of the PLP and then choosing to act as free agent anyway. Occasional crises of conscience , like Iraq, I can understand ... But 500 crises?

Politics is the art of the possible, and there's very little that is going to be possible with the LP in its current state. The Tories were in disarray for months, and yet can anyone recall a single moment where Corbyn credibly held them to account or even, heaven forbid, challenged them for power? He has preferred to act like the student politician that he is, solely preaching to the converted and letting the party - and the country - go to hell in a handcart.

In reply to John_Hat:


True, but not particularly relevant when it comes to elections. The electorate won't vote for a party that is as divided as the Labour Party is at the moment. The leader is the face of any election campaign, and must be an asset to the party. At the moment, Corbyn can't be described as an asset, simply because he doesn't command the respect of enough MPs. He's not in a position to demand party loyalty, since he's voted against party policy numerous times - most recently in the Trident debate.
Given all that, his presence makes it far too easy for the Tories and the redtops to attack and denigrate the party. Elections aren't won by detailed policy analysis, they're won by some nebulous concoction of personality, sound bites and sales pitches based on perceptions of what voters want to hear. An appearance of unity doesn't go amiss either Sadly, Labour is coming a very poor second in all those categories and will continue to do so until there's a leader who can get the whole party pulling in the same direction.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


Ah, so anyone who didn't vote your way, must "have allowed themselves to be dragged to such a position".

Your disdain for the UK population who think other than the way you do shines through once more.

This is why Remain lost the vote.

In reply to Big Ger:




So not on any meaningful economic policy, infrastructure strategy or investment policy. Just some dislike of a perceived attitude of some of the population. Which I suspect illustrates the point Jim was making,

In reply to Big Ger:




"No stopping booming Britain" shouts the Daily Express today, citing official figures, which show a 0.6% growth in the second quarter. Closer analysis of the figures show that this happened in April, although the Express is not so strident about proclaiming that fact. A counter argument appears in the Guardian but, of course, fewer people read the Guardian.
And so it continues...
This is why Remain lost

In reply to Pete Pozman:
The express have also made this lamb deal a post Brexit trade deal..

In reply to pec:



Well of course you are correct, he doesn't own the forum. It is indeed a public space, and he can start another thread on this if he wants.

No one is forcing you to click on the link, or read the content, or post replies, but yet you have done all of these. Why is this?

In reply to GrahamD:


So;
National intelligence test results.
- England: FAIL
- Wales: FAIL

Doesn't mean what it says then?

In reply to Pete Pozman:




So people were influenced by which paper they read, and the "Leave" supporting papers are liked by more people than the "Remain" ones.

What would you do to change this?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

An interesting essays giving some back-of-envelope examples on just where Trump could take us.

https://medium.com/@theonlytoby/history-tells-us-what-will-happen-next-with...

In reply to Pete Pozman:



Closer analysis could be a lot more worrying. Government and others keep coming out with this sort of optimism but the reality is that UK GDP or GNI figures are consistently dire in relation to neighbouring countries. Worse than our neighbours but I use the term dire because most of them do not have the advantages that the UK has yet they still overtake us.

Of the eleven neighbouring and nearby countries across NW Europe, F to SF, D to IS, we are always near the bottom, often 11th. (World Bank GNI figures used.)

Ireland? Iceland? Still with problems but soaring off ahead of the UK. Finland in trouble? Some recent struggles, narrow industrial base and limited natural resources but well ahead of the UK.

When will you idiots learn to use your vote for something that is likely to work?

In reply to Pete Pozman:

There's an Obama speech which, even though talking about current US politics, it wouldn't be out of place if it were talking about the referendum either.

youtube.com/watch?v=UjGUUGw0pQ8&

In reply to Jim Fraser:

Employment rates are probably a much better indicator of an economy's health than GDP. And in this metric the UK is a clear leader. Yes, zero hours contracts, blah blah, but there's a reason Poles are heading here rather than France, our closest competitor by size.

In reply to BnB: I have often wondered on economic health. Certainly employment is higher in the UK, but many seem dissatisfied (squeezed middle), and too many zero hours jobs, unstable employment and so on. Add in the productivity gap of theUK, seeming inexorable rise in hours and stagnant pay I get the feeling the UK is trying to go down the value chain a bit? Curious on your opinion.

In reply to wbo:

A simplified view would be that the UK has divided into Information and Traditional economies. The former thriving as evidenced by the wages not just of bankers, but IT specialists, engineers and lawyers (or £375,000 for overtime hospital consultants). The latter struggles in competition with the low-wage economies of Asia.

Brexiters would blame migrants for holding back wages, where in IT we can't even get enough Indian software engineers now UKBA has cracked down on non-EU migrants. Frankly the UK's economic woes could be greatly eased just by ensuring school leavers didn't enter the jobs market thinking IT means computer programming and therefore isn't for them.

In reply to BnB:
Hmm, well not everyone can be a high value consultant so reconciling people's desires for a rising standard of living (whatever that means in a society that's increasingly consumerist) with a decreasing value of their work will be a challenge. Is Britain prepared to accept a lower standard of living?
I think one of the big challenges going forward is for those in group 1. I look at so many industries, roles such as the majority in the city, banking and just think that it's so ripe for automation - I can easily see staff numbers in the city being radically reduced,. I think many people are unsuspecting of what will come in the next 10, 20years

So what will people do.? Universal wage? This is a good discussion, but I am taking my kids rafting

In reply to wbo:


Research into Brexit voters' motivation appears to suggest yes. Would that be a bad thing (a non-cataclysmic drop in living standards that is, not Brexit)?

In reply to Pete Pozman:


You said above about, believing everything the press prints and how bad it is yet you seem to agree with them on JC.

Considering he hasn't been given a chance by them since he was democratically voted leader by the members, I think it's a bit rich to spout the same rubbish that he's not electable. This has not been tested and a great many of the traditional Labour electorate still support him, whereas they didn't support Milliband.

We keep being told that it's the far left supporting JC and they trying to take over the party, if you look at what he's suggesting it's probably a little to the right of the Social Democrats.

If his supporters were only left wing looneys there'd be about 10,000 if that. The SWP has 6,000 members, so where do the other 420,000 Labour members come from, if not people looking for a change.

Stop believing the shite you're fed, support democracy and look forward to a different kind of government.

It's not about JC particularly it's about what he's trying to do, people are getting hung up on, whether he bows low enough or has his shirt button done up, instead of listening to his policies and his vision for a fairer society.

In reply to krikoman:

If we had the faintest idea what his vision is then we might take him a bit more seriously. Perhaps you can help. Don't spout about "tackling inequality", Theresa May has already promised to do that. What actually is he proposing to do? When my wife, a lefty liberal for her whole life, read this morning's suggestion of unionising every substantial office building in the UK for the collective bargaining of wages she spat her tea out.

In reply to krikoman:

I've seen him at PMQs and I remember his performance and stances during the referendum campaign. I agree with about half of what he stands for and don't disparage most of the other half but the guy does not have the stature nor the quick wittedness to mix it with the big beasts in politics. He needs to make way for a comrade who does. At present he is just sitting on it and by this is wrecking Britain's left wing project

In reply to BnB:


That's bollocks. Recent research is showing that poverty is increasing despite high employment and poverty often occurs in families with both parents working.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/working-families-are-the-new-poo...

In reply to Matt Rees:


I wasn't talking absolute values, but rather wondering what was the best metric for comparing different economies. In Scandinavia they might measure the quality of their economy by the happiness of their citizens. I'd argue that in a recession-wracked continent, keeping the vast majority of the population gainfully (if inequitably) employed is a good measure of relative success. Of course the working poor exist, but they are usually (not always) better off than the non-working poor, wouldn't you say? Thanks for the jaunty expletive though.

In reply to BnB:

Yes, we've done well.... relative to a bunch of countries who started in a much worse position and had imbecilic fiscal policy imposed on them. That said, I suppose we did choose not to join the euro and had a pretty good stimulus to start with. I'm sure you'll join me in ra using a glass to.... G Broon

In reply to wbo:


Has there ever been a time when the UK was full of happy and fulfilled workers, all whistling a merry tune as they joyfully commuted to their full time, full hours, full paid, work?

In reply to BnB:

People's Quantitative Easing (PQE), which means money is spent on infrastructure rather then Banks, so it creates jobs and in turn raises more taxes.

A stronger NHS, with less privatisation.

Two I can think of off the top of my head.

In reply to wbo:

There is no shortage of demand for brain power and high value skills. It really is just a matter of teaching them, but unfortunately demographics are such that governments are more interested in giving pension increases to already well off pensioners instead of piling money in the education system.

In reply to krikoman:




Seriously? Is that it? After a year as opposition leader the best he can come up with is "a stronger NHS"? Without any explanation how this will be achieved?

You might as well have said "motherhood and apple pie"? Where's the detail. You've got an audience here, convince us.

In reply to BnB:



Don't forget justice and fairness and equality and everybody being nice and gentle to each other and better everything and ending climate change and jelly with every meal and allotments for all and other really nice stuff and other things and ........well you get the gist....

In reply to RomTheBear:


I really don't think the education system is the problem, nor that pouring extra money into it is the solution. Labour's much vaunted policy of "Education, education, education" produced nothing in the way of improvement in academic attainment.

You can't make people brighter but you can apply their skills better. It's the transition from education into employment that is so poorly managed in this country. It's unfair just to blame the government when everyone from parents, careers advisors, employers, and the media do their best to f*ck up our children's futures. But the buck does stop at the top.

Germany has traditionally excelled in guiding youngsters into appropriate employment and we could learn a lot from their experience. I'm not holding my breath though.

In reply to BnB:

Actually academic attainment increased significantly during that period, England catching up with Scotland and NI.


Where did you get this idea that we can't make people brighter ?


I agree this is one of the main problem. But this doesn't detract from the fact that we need high levels of literacy and numeracy in the first place. England has some of the least numerate and literate young adults in the developed word, according to international tests. That results in low skills and low pay jobs.

In reply to RomTheBear:


You mean grade inflation. I am close to a lot of academics (my brother is a professor and my mother played a key role in the development of the national curriculum) and they despair at the lack of genuine progress. As did Chris Woodhead. Are you aware that, since tuition fees were introduced, 1st class degrees have increased 400% - 800% in many major universities. Some of that will be down to pupils working harder to get their money's worth, the rest is down to what my Manchester University senior lecturer friend describes as the "they've paid for their degree so we'd better make sure they get it" factor.


Intelligence is innate. Knowledge is acquired


Of course

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'd missed that. Put me right off him. I detest jelly. I bet he's proposing turkish delight at tea time too. Yuck.

In reply to MG:


Turkish delight??!! Ugh, that's my vote lost......

In reply to krikoman:
I'm not sure if corbyns popularity is largely just because he offered something different, rather than his politics.

In the US many Sanders supporters suddenly jumped to a libertarian candidate. Sanders is a social democrat who wants capitalism but with federal regulations, that was his core politics, a libertarian wants total free market. Politically they only have minor similarities.

I actually think his political position wasn't that important to people, more they just jumped on his bandwagon as he was different

In reply to Postmanpat:


If I vote Corbyn can I have yours. Yum

In reply to BnB:

I agree - see my point regarding numeracy and literacy skills.


Sorry but that's utter rubbish, although there are obvious innate differences, things like logic, planning, problem solving, creativity, thinking abstractly, learning, communication skills and all these things that make up intelligence are (rather evidently in fact) improved by education and lifelong learning.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Then we each have a different definition of intelligence. What you've listed as components sound very much like acquired skills to me, rather than innate abilities, although there's obviously common ground between them.

In reply to BnB:

Well if you define intelligence strictly as "innate abilities", then of course intelligence is innate.
But that would be an incredibly narrow definition far from any widely accepted definition of the word in the English language.
So maybe you were referring to was "innate abilities" instead of "intelligence".

But in any case education is all about making the best of whatever innate potential is there.

In reply to BnB:


As in the saying, you can't polish a turd ?
( which you can it turned out)

In reply to Jim C:



I assume you mean let it harden for several million years first

In reply to BnB:


youtube.com/watch?v=yiJ9fy1qSFI&

In reply to RomTheBear:

I prefer the results of my more patient suggestion

In reply to RomTheBear:
The mythbusters programme was exactly what I was referring too when I said that you CAN polish a turd. ( always worth another view

So the argument still remains that if you have an uneducated unintelligent person , you cannot, just with education, make it more intelligent, they are still just better educated with facts.

That is , you cannot, through education, 'polish a turd ' ( make more intelligent) someone that is not already intelligent

In reply to Jim C:

I reckoned it was.


Actually, no, the argument doesn't remain.


What a load of nonsense ! I'm not sure what kind of school you've been to, but education is far from just giving facts, it's teaching you how to think logically and abstractly, learn efficiently, plan, create, analyse, communicate, interact.... All of these are components of what makes a person intelligent.

In reply to RomTheBear:




You forgot: "insisting on having the last word"

In reply to BnB:


Are we not supposed to reply to your posts or give counter arguments ?

In reply to BnB:


That becomes rubbish as soon as you have an economy where an ordinary unembellished job does not provide enough money for an ordinary unembellished independent life. That unfortunately is where we are in the UK.

In reply to Jim Fraser:
Thats the root of the problem for many. But for many the idea of an ordinary unembellished lifestyle is rather different to what it was thanks to the wonders of commercialism, and far from ordinary compared to their earning potential

To Big Ger - well they had job stability but were miserable in other ways. The good loddes weren't that good for many.

To Rom/BnB - having been in the position to work with a lot of highly paid knowledge workers some were fantastic, some were not and having tried to recruit them many people were notgoing to get there. Can you teach creativity, the thinking required to make innovative solutions? I don't believe so.
Many knowledge Jobs described as such aren't really, they're glorified , repetitive admin and computer data manipulation jobs. Many of these (and I look towards the city) are ripe for automation in the near mid future - what then for the balance of employment and pay against what's perceived as a normal standard of living?

In reply to RomTheBear:

"Intelligence is innate. Knowledge is acquired" was not my comment/assertion, I was just probing what the OP meant by the way of the ( unpolished Turd ) analogy

In reply to Jim C:


I was responding to this :

"So the argument still remains that if you have an uneducated unintelligent person , you cannot, just with education, make it more intelligent, they are still just better educated with facts. "

In reply to Rom, Jim et al. well it's possible. I have , on a couple of occasions encountered a couple of experts on xxx modeling. Well they weren't, they knew how to drive the decidedly creaky software. They could not however parameterise it properly as they did not understand what different parameters were, and what the effects of tweaking them were. Non expert experts.

Of course it might be the case they could be taught bug they seemed quite resistant. I have also unearthed a few gems . But it ain't gonna be everyone.

In reply to wbo:


A large part of this is that the value of a house is not that it keeps the rain off and keeps you warm. We have lost sight of what is fundamental to secure human existence. That is central and fundamental amongst the big issues facing people in modern Britain.

At the other end of the scale, the minutiae of administrative fascism cause as much stress and proscription amongst the disadvantaged. Consider council tax legislation that cannot cope with somebody who has nothing. Evidence is required and nothing is just nothing: there is no evidence.

In reply to wbo:



I have seen the same, but in my experience those who were not that great naturally weeded out, or moved to management, where they usually end up doing a much better job.


Sorry but that's a ridiculous statement. Of course you can. To solve problems an find creative solutions comes and improve with practice, and training your working memory, and that's part of what education (and not just "instruction") is all about. Speaking for myself, I am quite convinced that for example having learned several languages made me a bit more mentally flexible and creative. Maybe I'm deluded but it's the feeling I have. But I think there is some strong empirical evidence supporting it.


I agree. But there is also no shortage of business, environmental, and human problems to solve.

In reply to wbo:


You'll find that if they ever lose their job they'll struggle to find anything as good.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I'm sure you're right. On the subject of 'innate' inteligence and language, there's a book by Oliver Sacks called 'Seeing Voices' which discusses the experience of the profoundly deaf in some detail. The link between learning language (a first language at least) and various cognitive abilities, reasoning in particular, is profound indeed.

In reply to RomTheBear:

But that would be an incredibly narrow definition far from any widely accepted definition of the word in the English language.

I thought you were French...?

In the context of educational psychology (which is the context here), 'intelligence' is generally accepted to have that narrower meaning of 'innate cognitive skill', rather than the more general meaning in common use which includes learned behaviour. That's jargon for you, I'm afraid.

IQ test design tries very hard to keep knowledge out of the tests (but usually fails in a number of ways; experience of certain problem classes, requirement for use of language and word meaning, etc).

Then there's the problem of different types of intelligence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences

In reply to captain paranoia:


Not sure what my nationality has to do with it ?


Actually I'd be curious to see where you've read that this would be the accepted definition in that context, and I'm not sure why you think the context here was educational psychology. It's was a general discussion about job market, abilities, wages, and education, nothing as specific or technical as educational psychology.


Firstly intelligence is not defined by IQ test.
Secondly, there is a broad range of different IQ tests and most attempt to measure both fluid intelligence and crystallised intelligence.



Exactly.

In reply to RomTheBear:


It was a tongue-in-cheek observation about a Frechman commenting on the sbtle distinctions of the meaning of English words...


I read most of the discussion to have an educational context.

'Education, education, education'
'Academic'
'Can't teach'
'So the argument still remains that if you have an uneducated unintelligent person , you cannot, just with education, make it more intelligent, they are still just better educated with facts.'

Think what you like; I'm not bothered enough to argue.

In reply to captain paranoia:

Still don't see what that has to do with it, but Ok...
It's hardly a subtle distinction. Check a dictionary.







Nice cherry picking