This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
"...the government has defined extremism as: “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs."
from 'Tackling Extremism in the UK Report from the Prime Minister’s Task Force on Tackling Radicalisation and Extremism'
Lines of norms and decency seem to be crossed (in the wrong direction) on a daily basis. Not sure what it's like in other countries, but certainly here and in the US certain members of the media (hmmm...what, or whom, might they have in common?) seem determined to undermine and destroy the laws, basic values and humanity that keep us from devouring each other like bacteria on petri dish.
Thoroughly despondent but determined, in my own small way, not to let these people drag down what is a perfectly good country full of good, kind and generous people.
from 'Tackling Extremism in the UK Report from the Prime Minister’s Task Force on Tackling Radicalisation and Extremism'
Lines of norms and decency seem to be crossed (in the wrong direction) on a daily basis. Not sure what it's like in other countries, but certainly here and in the US certain members of the media (hmmm...what, or whom, might they have in common?) seem determined to undermine and destroy the laws, basic values and humanity that keep us from devouring each other like bacteria on petri dish.
Thoroughly despondent but determined, in my own small way, not to let these people drag down what is a perfectly good country full of good, kind and generous people.
98
4
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
How the Mail,Sun and Telegraph headlines can be seen as anything other than incitement to violence is beyond me. They are completely unrepentant and this comes months after Jo Cox's death.
How the Mail,Sun and Telegraph headlines can be seen as anything other than incitement to violence is beyond me. They are completely unrepentant and this comes months after Jo Cox's death.
88
6
In reply to lummox:
I can only assume from the dislikes we've collected that some people would prefer civil war, totalitarianism or anarchy instead of peace, prosperity and kindness.
Just so you know, dislikers, I'd still give you food off my table, clothes off my back and money out of my wallet if you were desperate and in need of succour. At the very least, I have frequently given people who society would see as despicable, my kindness. You can have that, too.
I can only assume from the dislikes we've collected that some people would prefer civil war, totalitarianism or anarchy instead of peace, prosperity and kindness.
Just so you know, dislikers, I'd still give you food off my table, clothes off my back and money out of my wallet if you were desperate and in need of succour. At the very least, I have frequently given people who society would see as despicable, my kindness. You can have that, too.
Post edited at 10:16
60
4
16
2
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
As others have mentioned on the Article 50 thread, "ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE" is straight out of the 1930s.
These are scary times.
As others have mentioned on the Article 50 thread, "ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE" is straight out of the 1930s.
These are scary times.
37
1
In reply to lummox:
From a different angle, but you can add the Mirror to that list. Its a mainstream press problem, not just a right wing press problem and the really worrying thing is that people take that stuff at face value.
> How the Mail,Sun and Telegraph headlines can be seen as anything other than incitement to violence is beyond me. They are completely unrepentant and this comes months after Jo Cox's death.
From a different angle, but you can add the Mirror to that list. Its a mainstream press problem, not just a right wing press problem and the really worrying thing is that people take that stuff at face value.
4
4
In reply to GrahamD:
You'll have to help me out Graham- has the Mirror had a headline inciting violence against those judges as well ?
You'll have to help me out Graham- has the Mirror had a headline inciting violence against those judges as well ?
6
3
In reply to lummox:
That's sweet. Thank you. Being nice to each other, being patient, letting go of the old ego is the only way we're going to make it out of this mess with some semblance of civilisation intact.
That's sweet. Thank you. Being nice to each other, being patient, letting go of the old ego is the only way we're going to make it out of this mess with some semblance of civilisation intact.
8
1
5
1
In reply to GrahamD:
what I don't understand is where the Papers think this smash em up stuff is going to lead to. What does their vision of a happy ending look like? Surely their political vision is not solely about maintaining circulation figures?
what I don't understand is where the Papers think this smash em up stuff is going to lead to. What does their vision of a happy ending look like? Surely their political vision is not solely about maintaining circulation figures?
4
1
In reply to lummox:
That Sun headline is a bit rich isnt it. Going on about loaded foreign elite. Something which can be applied to the owner of the Sun. The other two papers as well for that matter.
Its utterly f*cking bizarre and somewhat scary. You would have thought the judges had actually blocked leaving the EU as opposed to upholding the sovereignty of Parliament which, if some are to be believed, is what Brexit was all about.
> How the Mail,Sun and Telegraph headlines can be seen as anything other than incitement to violence is beyond me.
That Sun headline is a bit rich isnt it. Going on about loaded foreign elite. Something which can be applied to the owner of the Sun. The other two papers as well for that matter.
Its utterly f*cking bizarre and somewhat scary. You would have thought the judges had actually blocked leaving the EU as opposed to upholding the sovereignty of Parliament which, if some are to be believed, is what Brexit was all about.
28
1
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
And Ibsen was already satirising it in 1882. In his play the 'enemy of the people' was actually defending the people against corruption and contamination too.
> As others have mentioned on the Article 50 thread, "ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE" is straight out of the 1930s.
And Ibsen was already satirising it in 1882. In his play the 'enemy of the people' was actually defending the people against corruption and contamination too.
6
In reply to GrahamD:
In another thread, I hypothesised that a lot of this is related to locus of control issues - people who embrace this sort of rhetoric have external loci of control and are much more likely to believe that things that happen to them are a result of luck, fate or external forces. People with more internal LOC attribute events to their own behaviour.
Some research has indicated there is a relationship between anger, depression and external LOC. And if we think about what anger is - often an emotion of self-justification and of blaming other people for a situation.
Why not take this stuff at face value if it integrates into a narrative of learned helplessness?
In another thread, I hypothesised that a lot of this is related to locus of control issues - people who embrace this sort of rhetoric have external loci of control and are much more likely to believe that things that happen to them are a result of luck, fate or external forces. People with more internal LOC attribute events to their own behaviour.
Some research has indicated there is a relationship between anger, depression and external LOC. And if we think about what anger is - often an emotion of self-justification and of blaming other people for a situation.
Why not take this stuff at face value if it integrates into a narrative of learned helplessness?
3
1
9
17
2
In reply to KevinD:
The Sun has darkened her skin for its picture as well.
Really.
To the disliker- do you think they should have put a bone through Gina Miller's nose too ?
The Sun has darkened her skin for its picture as well.
Really.
To the disliker- do you think they should have put a bone through Gina Miller's nose too ?
Post edited at 11:00
3
5
In reply to Pete Pozman:
What is the purpose of a business organisation? To keep the organisation going - a newspaper needs to sell. Your question of their vision of a happy ending does make me wonder...never really thought about it that way before...the unfortunate result of that wondering was a mashup of every dystopian novel I've ever read. Feel a bit unwell now.
Not quite related - but didn't know where else to stick this. This just popped up on my Twitter feed from a professor of political science. Gives more pause for thought: "Remaining left govts in Eur: France: Hollande 4% approval Greece: SYRIZA 20 pts behind in polls Italy: PM falling behind in crunch ref vote"
The loss of effective left and even centre-left opposition is allowing the extreme right to grow in strength and influence.
We need to organise.
What is the purpose of a business organisation? To keep the organisation going - a newspaper needs to sell. Your question of their vision of a happy ending does make me wonder...never really thought about it that way before...the unfortunate result of that wondering was a mashup of every dystopian novel I've ever read. Feel a bit unwell now.
Not quite related - but didn't know where else to stick this. This just popped up on my Twitter feed from a professor of political science. Gives more pause for thought: "Remaining left govts in Eur: France: Hollande 4% approval Greece: SYRIZA 20 pts behind in polls Italy: PM falling behind in crunch ref vote"
The loss of effective left and even centre-left opposition is allowing the extreme right to grow in strength and influence.
We need to organise.
Post edited at 10:51
10
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
just when you think the Daily mail couldn't get any lower.
just when you think the Daily mail couldn't get any lower.
Post edited at 11:15
7
1
In reply to KevinD:
Yes but, some Brexiter on Radio 4 yesterday couldn't believe the hypocrisy of Remainers using this sovereignty line!!!
She seemed to miss the point that either it's sovereignty or it isn't, it shouldn't matter who's calling for it!! Unless of course you change your stance on whether it suits you or it doesn't.
Unfortunately the interviewer didn't press the point.
> That Sun headline is a bit rich isnt it. Going on about loaded foreign elite. Something which can be applied to the owner of the Sun. The other two papers as well for that matter.
> Its utterly f*cking bizarre and somewhat scary. You would have thought the judges had actually blocked leaving the EU as opposed to upholding the sovereignty of Parliament which, if some are to be believed, is what Brexit was all about.
Yes but, some Brexiter on Radio 4 yesterday couldn't believe the hypocrisy of Remainers using this sovereignty line!!!
She seemed to miss the point that either it's sovereignty or it isn't, it shouldn't matter who's calling for it!! Unless of course you change your stance on whether it suits you or it doesn't.
Unfortunately the interviewer didn't press the point.
7
2
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
I was listening to Law in action which talked about this. I am very uncomfortable with this definition. For one I dislike the reference to "British values" such a vague and mercurial thing is open to abuse. Secondly it is a direct attack on free speech and the right to speak out on thing one feels are wrong (even if others disagree). It very much puts me in mind of the anti-communist invetigations of McCarthy's HUAC
I believe that this will be counter productive in the "fight against terrorism"
I was listening to Law in action which talked about this. I am very uncomfortable with this definition. For one I dislike the reference to "British values" such a vague and mercurial thing is open to abuse. Secondly it is a direct attack on free speech and the right to speak out on thing one feels are wrong (even if others disagree). It very much puts me in mind of the anti-communist invetigations of McCarthy's HUAC
I believe that this will be counter productive in the "fight against terrorism"
5
1
1
1
In reply to drunken monkey:
I don't know how the people who work for this paper can live with themselves.
> just when you thing the Daily mail couldn't get any lower.
I don't know how the people who work for this paper can live with themselves.
4
1
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
I take your point and agree about free speech. What is a shame is that liberal-minded people and the left have shied away from engaging with British values, with the net result is that we've let the right steal values, the flag and patriotism. What are we liberals and lefty types left with?
For me, British (or American, since I'm both) those which emerged from the European Enlightenment are good candidates for British values. We come a cropper, I think, because we expect values to be absolute and immutable. They (like ethics and morality) need perpetual discussion defining, negotation, defending, justifying etc.
Similarly - is free speech really an absolute?
If I tell you to murder someone, I am exercising free speech.
If I tell you to harm someone, I am exercising free speech.
If I encourage you to commit treason, I am exercising free speech.
If I say Joe Bloggs is (insert something horrible and offensive here) , I am exercising free speech.
If I say Joe Bloggs committed murder and treason with no evidence, I am exercising free speech, but also perhaps commiting libel or slander (depending on the laws in the place where I do that).
Perhaps each case of free speech has to be examined on its merits - or demerits. Calling these judges 'enemies of the people' maybe is close to libel or slander...? Anyone of a legal mind here?
I take your point and agree about free speech. What is a shame is that liberal-minded people and the left have shied away from engaging with British values, with the net result is that we've let the right steal values, the flag and patriotism. What are we liberals and lefty types left with?
For me, British (or American, since I'm both) those which emerged from the European Enlightenment are good candidates for British values. We come a cropper, I think, because we expect values to be absolute and immutable. They (like ethics and morality) need perpetual discussion defining, negotation, defending, justifying etc.
Similarly - is free speech really an absolute?
If I tell you to murder someone, I am exercising free speech.
If I tell you to harm someone, I am exercising free speech.
If I encourage you to commit treason, I am exercising free speech.
If I say Joe Bloggs is (insert something horrible and offensive here) , I am exercising free speech.
If I say Joe Bloggs committed murder and treason with no evidence, I am exercising free speech, but also perhaps commiting libel or slander (depending on the laws in the place where I do that).
Perhaps each case of free speech has to be examined on its merits - or demerits. Calling these judges 'enemies of the people' maybe is close to libel or slander...? Anyone of a legal mind here?
Post edited at 11:20
4
2
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
Great cartoon in The Times: we want British justice, British laws, British courts ... but not yet!
Three cheers for the rule of law, we must keep on treasuring it.
Great cartoon in The Times: we want British justice, British laws, British courts ... but not yet!
Three cheers for the rule of law, we must keep on treasuring it.
8
1
In reply to Trevers:
I suppose it is the same thing a tobacco sales rep tells themselves. Just supplying what people want (the people that that read the paper), it's just what I do to feed my family...
and some of them are actual fascists.
> I don't know how the people who work for this paper can live with themselves.
I suppose it is the same thing a tobacco sales rep tells themselves. Just supplying what people want (the people that that read the paper), it's just what I do to feed my family...
and some of them are actual fascists.
3
1
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
Considering the Daily Mail is usually the first to go after anyone not obeying the law it is at very least hypocrisy but, as usual, underpinned by a more sinister agenda.
Considering the Daily Mail is usually the first to go after anyone not obeying the law it is at very least hypocrisy but, as usual, underpinned by a more sinister agenda.
8
1
In reply to lummox:
Which Telegraph headline?
> How the Mail,Sun and Telegraph headlines can be seen as anything other than incitement to violence is beyond me.
>Which Telegraph headline?
1
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
My first thought seeing these headlines is that the papers are committing contempt of court
My first thought seeing these headlines is that the papers are committing contempt of court
4
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Presumably "Judges vs the People". Not as bad as the Mail or Sun, but not great.
Presumably "Judges vs the People". Not as bad as the Mail or Sun, but not great.
2
1
1
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Apologies. It was the Express that talks about fighting. The Telegraph is simply contemptuous of senior judges upholding the law and insisting that May is constrained by Parliamentary democracy.
Apologies. It was the Express that talks about fighting. The Telegraph is simply contemptuous of senior judges upholding the law and insisting that May is constrained by Parliamentary democracy.
4
14
1
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Interesting. Is that because the decision is under appeal? (Just had a very quick look at strict liability contempt in that oracle of all information, Wikipedia).
Interesting. Is that because the decision is under appeal? (Just had a very quick look at strict liability contempt in that oracle of all information, Wikipedia).
In reply to drunken monkey:
What none of you seem to understand is that one of those judges is gay! Openly gay! A gay! In the judges!
> just when you think the Daily mail couldn't get any lower.
What none of you seem to understand is that one of those judges is gay! Openly gay! A gay! In the judges!
22
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
I couldn't believe the UKIP spokeswoman on the Today programme this morning, virtually screaming "Sack the judges".
I never believed that I would hear that from a serious political party in this country. How would they expect to govern without the rule of law? I shudder to think.
I couldn't believe the UKIP spokeswoman on the Today programme this morning, virtually screaming "Sack the judges".
I never believed that I would hear that from a serious political party in this country. How would they expect to govern without the rule of law? I shudder to think.
22
7
1
In reply to deepsoup:
And an Olympic fencer! Should have realised those corrupt officials at the IOC would make selling stolen goods an official sport. Or am I confusing them with FIFA?
And an Olympic fencer! Should have realised those corrupt officials at the IOC would make selling stolen goods an official sport. Or am I confusing them with FIFA?
6
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
Perhaps if they were an Olympic dry stone waller, that would be more 'British'? None of that foreign fence malarkey here.
Perhaps if they were an Olympic dry stone waller, that would be more 'British'? None of that foreign fence malarkey here.
2
In reply to RX-78:
You're not kidding:
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/11/04/enemies-of-the-people-brexit-cam...
You're not kidding:
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/11/04/enemies-of-the-people-brexit-cam...
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Sorry - wasn't sure were to put this comment either... Have you all seen Shani's post about Stop Funding Hate?
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=652621
Sorry - wasn't sure were to put this comment either... Have you all seen Shani's post about Stop Funding Hate?
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=652621
1
1
1
1
In reply to The New NickB:
But this was great..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/31/matt-cartoons-november-2016/
But this was great..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/31/matt-cartoons-november-2016/
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
It might be, but I'm not subscribing to the Telegraph to see it.
> But this was great..
It might be, but I'm not subscribing to the Telegraph to see it.
1
1
In reply to deepsoup:
A london bike shop has responded well to that
http://singletrackworld.com/2016/11/soho-bikes-fights-back-against-daily-ma...
> What none of you seem to understand is that one of those judges is gay! Openly gay! A gay! In the judges!
A london bike shop has responded well to that
http://singletrackworld.com/2016/11/soho-bikes-fights-back-against-daily-ma...
4
In reply to The New NickB:
Arrggh
Two guards surprise Guy Fawkes skulking next to a barrel of gun powder in the basement of parliament
"I'm afraid parliament will have to vote before you light the fuse , Mr Fawkes"
Arrggh
Two guards surprise Guy Fawkes skulking next to a barrel of gun powder in the basement of parliament
"I'm afraid parliament will have to vote before you light the fuse , Mr Fawkes"
3
1
In reply to lummox:
I'm not a fan of the Sun either, but it seems they aren't guilty of that particular piece of nastiness.
http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2016/11/04/sun-really-darkened-image-brexit-legal-...
Pity, as my joke about skin going darker in the Sun is now lost forever.
> The Sun has darkened her skin for its picture as well.
I'm not a fan of the Sun either, but it seems they aren't guilty of that particular piece of nastiness.
http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2016/11/04/sun-really-darkened-image-brexit-legal-...
Pity, as my joke about skin going darker in the Sun is now lost forever.
2
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
If ever there was a time for Amanda Palmers song "Dear Daily Mail," this is it. (NSFW!)
youtube.com/watch?v=swIPQFsxte4&
If ever there was a time for Amanda Palmers song "Dear Daily Mail," this is it. (NSFW!)
youtube.com/watch?v=swIPQFsxte4&
3
1
2
1
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
Good to see May's spokesbod has decided not to comment on the hatred being spewed by the press.
Also good to see the retards are busy abusing a US sports commentator on twitter since there must only be one person called Gina Miller in the world, surely?
Good to see May's spokesbod has decided not to comment on the hatred being spewed by the press.
Also good to see the retards are busy abusing a US sports commentator on twitter since there must only be one person called Gina Miller in the world, surely?
2
1
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
The legal profession, understandably, was up in arms yesterday. They were expecting the Lord Chancellor to do her job and defend the courts as a cornerstone of our democracy. (For a much better description of why an independent judiciary is a large part of our democracy, and what the role of Lord Chancellor is might i suggest having a read of the Secret Barrister blog. A very interesting read, and not just about yesterday's shenanigans from our rabid press.) However Ms Truss has been silent. Strangely she has been known to write for the Daily Mail.
There was a very amusing trend on Twitter yesterday #wheresLizTruss. If you have 10 minutes to spare, it's worth a giggle at over a cuppa.
The legal profession, understandably, was up in arms yesterday. They were expecting the Lord Chancellor to do her job and defend the courts as a cornerstone of our democracy. (For a much better description of why an independent judiciary is a large part of our democracy, and what the role of Lord Chancellor is might i suggest having a read of the Secret Barrister blog. A very interesting read, and not just about yesterday's shenanigans from our rabid press.) However Ms Truss has been silent. Strangely she has been known to write for the Daily Mail.
There was a very amusing trend on Twitter yesterday #wheresLizTruss. If you have 10 minutes to spare, it's worth a giggle at over a cuppa.
4
In reply to radar
I'd just popped into ukc from barrister blogger, so popped out again to the secret barrister. Good post, interesting, but also strikes the right tone...indignant but not alienating, if that makes sense.
My favourite so far is Larry the Cat's tweet about #whereisliztruss
Appalling.
I'd just popped into ukc from barrister blogger, so popped out again to the secret barrister. Good post, interesting, but also strikes the right tone...indignant but not alienating, if that makes sense.
My favourite so far is Larry the Cat's tweet about #whereisliztruss
Appalling.
1
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
The Mail and the Express were just reporting what the majority of the public feel, they voted for Brexit and the snobby judges should stop interfering.
The Mail and the Express were just reporting what the majority of the public feel, they voted for Brexit and the snobby judges should stop interfering.
1
43
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
The twitter 'competition' between Larry and Diplomog is quite amusing at times
My favourite #wheresliztruss tweet - (I paraphrase) police are investigating gay fencing club's involvement in disappearance of Lord Chancellor
The twitter 'competition' between Larry and Diplomog is quite amusing at times
My favourite #wheresliztruss tweet - (I paraphrase) police are investigating gay fencing club's involvement in disappearance of Lord Chancellor
2
In reply to Jim 1003:
Are you being sarcastic? (See other thread where I discuss female/American induced sarcasm blind spot. With irony, of course).
If not.
This was not a political decision, but a legal one. The judges were very careful to distance the proceedings from the referendum. This action was brought not to derail the result but to uphold constitutional law and to ensure that due process is followed in triggering article 50 and in formulating what brexit looks like. This means parliament remains sovereign (at least for the moment), the process of brexit is transparent to all of us and that our elected representatives can do their job of representing our interests.
Please tell me what of that you disagree with. Do you prefer an authoritarian state where the executive's decisions are not subject to parliamentary and independent judicial scrutiny? If so, I'm sure you'd enjoy that until being thrown into gaol as a political prisoner.
These people are protecting your rights as a citizen.
Are you being sarcastic? (See other thread where I discuss female/American induced sarcasm blind spot. With irony, of course).
If not.
This was not a political decision, but a legal one. The judges were very careful to distance the proceedings from the referendum. This action was brought not to derail the result but to uphold constitutional law and to ensure that due process is followed in triggering article 50 and in formulating what brexit looks like. This means parliament remains sovereign (at least for the moment), the process of brexit is transparent to all of us and that our elected representatives can do their job of representing our interests.
Please tell me what of that you disagree with. Do you prefer an authoritarian state where the executive's decisions are not subject to parliamentary and independent judicial scrutiny? If so, I'm sure you'd enjoy that until being thrown into gaol as a political prisoner.
These people are protecting your rights as a citizen.
Post edited at 09:34
24
1
In reply to Jim 1003:
How are the judges interfering?
> The Mail and the Express were just reporting what the majority of the public feel, they voted for Brexit and the snobby judges should stop interfering.
How are the judges interfering?
2
1
In reply to Jim 1003:
You got some sort of direct tap into the brain s of the 60 odd million people who live in the UK?
I really don't believe that a majority of the Brexiteers think this is great.
It reminds me a little of the miners strike, when Scargill made it easy for Thatcher by turning it from an issue about mining to an issue about democracy.
This is way bigger than Brexit.
You got some sort of direct tap into the brain s of the 60 odd million people who live in the UK?
I really don't believe that a majority of the Brexiteers think this is great.
It reminds me a little of the miners strike, when Scargill made it easy for Thatcher by turning it from an issue about mining to an issue about democracy.
This is way bigger than Brexit.
5
2
2
2
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
perhaps they aren't protecting him. After all if you were one of the ones who wore a smart brown uniform the snobby judges only stood in your way for a while but you knew that your guide and his newspapers would eventually take revenge on them
perhaps they aren't protecting him. After all if you were one of the ones who wore a smart brown uniform the snobby judges only stood in your way for a while but you knew that your guide and his newspapers would eventually take revenge on them
2
In reply to radar:
Hilarious! Related to that, I like the London pub who put up a sign saying 'openly gay ex-Olympic fencers welcome here'
The feline banter is quite amusing, if decidedly undiplomatic!
Hilarious! Related to that, I like the London pub who put up a sign saying 'openly gay ex-Olympic fencers welcome here'
The feline banter is quite amusing, if decidedly undiplomatic!
2
1
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
Well if the supreme court disagrees with them and overturns it, then it will be a case of snobby interfering judges, won't it?
Well if the supreme court disagrees with them and overturns it, then it will be a case of snobby interfering judges, won't it?
1
20
In reply to Jim 1003:
No.
> Well if the supreme court disagrees with them and overturns it, then it will be a case of snobby interfering judges, won't it?
No.
6
1
In reply to Jim 1003:
It will be a case of due process of law, assuming that they do their job without interference from above.
It will be a case of due process of law, assuming that they do their job without interference from above.
Post edited at 09:52
10
In reply to Jim 1003:
It depends on the judgement! If you read the actual judgement, they do crazy things like provide evidence based on precedence and legal documents going back to at least the 16th century. If it is overturned on equal or greater burden of evidence and precedent which is made clear the judgement of the proceedings, than that is a fair judgement.
If you want someone to blame, blame the govt for instructing their counsel so abysmally.
Could you do me a favour and read the actual judgement? I'd be happy to discuss it with you, I'm still educating myself on this stuff.
It depends on the judgement! If you read the actual judgement, they do crazy things like provide evidence based on precedence and legal documents going back to at least the 16th century. If it is overturned on equal or greater burden of evidence and precedent which is made clear the judgement of the proceedings, than that is a fair judgement.
If you want someone to blame, blame the govt for instructing their counsel so abysmally.
Could you do me a favour and read the actual judgement? I'd be happy to discuss it with you, I'm still educating myself on this stuff.
6
2
In reply to wercat:
Ps. You've not answered my question about what kind of state you want. Genuinely curious!
Ps. You've not answered my question about what kind of state you want. Genuinely curious!
1
1
In reply to Jim 1003:
I didn't realise that the majority of the public were card carrying Nazis
Andy F
> The Mail and the Express were just reporting what the majority of the public feel, they voted for Brexit and the snobby judges should stop interfering.
I didn't realise that the majority of the public were card carrying Nazis
Andy F
22
3
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
Here is the link
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/11/04/liz-truss-is-unfit-for-office-and...
The judges have uphold their oaths of office and done their constitutional duty, truss has done neither. Obviously she won't resign, she won't challenge the PM, and the PM isn't going to rein in the press that support her. An independent judiciary is always an irritation to the executive, but is vital to the rule of law, the last bastion against tyranny and mob rule
Here is the link
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/11/04/liz-truss-is-unfit-for-office-and...
The judges have uphold their oaths of office and done their constitutional duty, truss has done neither. Obviously she won't resign, she won't challenge the PM, and the PM isn't going to rein in the press that support her. An independent judiciary is always an irritation to the executive, but is vital to the rule of law, the last bastion against tyranny and mob rule
18
2
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
Do you think this judgement contradicts the McWhirter case in the 70s ? Pretty sure that held that treaties were a matter of royal prerogative
Unfortunately it's almost 30 years since I studied this, my textbooks have long been sold and I have a dog that needs walking
Do you think this judgement contradicts the McWhirter case in the 70s ? Pretty sure that held that treaties were a matter of royal prerogative
Unfortunately it's almost 30 years since I studied this, my textbooks have long been sold and I have a dog that needs walking
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Not sure, but I shall ha ve a look after doing the Saturday marketing. I've never studied law in my life, but had a very good teacher on the Constituion in HS
Not sure, but I shall ha ve a look after doing the Saturday marketing. I've never studied law in my life, but had a very good teacher on the Constituion in HS
1
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
Exactly my point. "British values" are a mutable thing that vary from person to person. A right-wing BNP voter would have a different concept of these values to that of a British Asian. It would be far better to define what is expected of people (ie. not promoting violence, being prepared to debate issues, ) use language that alienates groups. I agree re. European enlightement.
Free speech is another grey area. As you point out we certainly do not have absolute free speech. Incitment to violence is against the law, as are things that contravene the Equality Act, not to mention slander, injunctions etc. Generally though we are allowed to criticise and caricature people and ideas. Political cartoonists and magazines like Private Eye are thus allowed to continue without fear of jail or (hopefully) of being shot. When we close down debate because it might give offence or "lead to the promotion of extremist views" we are getting onto dodgy ground. Granted there is a difference between being deliberatly offensive, in order to threaten or oppress an individual or minority, and offending a person in power for highlighting misdeeds or suspect ideals (ie that it is ok to oppress women or deny the holocaust) or even causing offence by saying that you do not believe in God or that being gay is ok. As you say things need to be debated on their own merits/de-merits but blanket supression is not goo.
Exactly my point. "British values" are a mutable thing that vary from person to person. A right-wing BNP voter would have a different concept of these values to that of a British Asian. It would be far better to define what is expected of people (ie. not promoting violence, being prepared to debate issues, ) use language that alienates groups. I agree re. European enlightement.
Free speech is another grey area. As you point out we certainly do not have absolute free speech. Incitment to violence is against the law, as are things that contravene the Equality Act, not to mention slander, injunctions etc. Generally though we are allowed to criticise and caricature people and ideas. Political cartoonists and magazines like Private Eye are thus allowed to continue without fear of jail or (hopefully) of being shot. When we close down debate because it might give offence or "lead to the promotion of extremist views" we are getting onto dodgy ground. Granted there is a difference between being deliberatly offensive, in order to threaten or oppress an individual or minority, and offending a person in power for highlighting misdeeds or suspect ideals (ie that it is ok to oppress women or deny the holocaust) or even causing offence by saying that you do not believe in God or that being gay is ok. As you say things need to be debated on their own merits/de-merits but blanket supression is not goo.
1
1
In reply to andy farnell:
When those Papers sneered at Lily Allen and demanded the sacking of Gary Lineker because they expressed sorrow over the plight of refugees who, then, do you imagine their readership to be? Why did the "Mail/Express/Telegraph" feel they needed to describe a High Court Judge as "openly gay"?
The public are carrying copies of the Sun, The Mail, The Telegraph and the Express; that'll have to do until their official party membership cards come through.
Think! Where is all this leading? Your old assumptions about "British Values"and common decency are now defunct.
> I didn't realise that the majority of the public were card carrying Nazis
> Andy F
When those Papers sneered at Lily Allen and demanded the sacking of Gary Lineker because they expressed sorrow over the plight of refugees who, then, do you imagine their readership to be? Why did the "Mail/Express/Telegraph" feel they needed to describe a High Court Judge as "openly gay"?
The public are carrying copies of the Sun, The Mail, The Telegraph and the Express; that'll have to do until their official party membership cards come through.
Think! Where is all this leading? Your old assumptions about "British Values"and common decency are now defunct.
14
2
1
1
1
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
Liz Truss seems aptly named she appeared in here in Calderdale after the Christmas Floods giving vapid statements to the media about flood relief. A local wag in the pub afterwards said isnt a truss something that supports bollocks. We'll await her comments on the conduct of the media with baited breath.
> In reply to radar
> I'd just popped into ukc from barrister blogger, so popped out again to the secret barrister. Good post, interesting, but also strikes the right tone...indignant but not alienating, if that makes sense.
> My favourite so far is Larry the Cat's tweet about #whereisliztruss
> Appalling.
Liz Truss seems aptly named she appeared in here in Calderdale after the Christmas Floods giving vapid statements to the media about flood relief. A local wag in the pub afterwards said isnt a truss something that supports bollocks. We'll await her comments on the conduct of the media with baited breath.
4
1
In reply to Chris the Tall:
It seems to me a disgraceful dereliction of duty from both Liz Truss and the PM. Of course I expected nothing less from the PM who hasn't shown a shred of leadership so far, other than to sneeringly remind us of her tiny mandate at every opportunity.
> Here is the link
> The judges have uphold their oaths of office and done their constitutional duty, truss has done neither. Obviously she won't resign, she won't challenge the PM, and the PM isn't going to rein in the press that support her. An independent judiciary is always an irritation to the executive, but is vital to the rule of law, the last bastion against tyranny and mob rule
It seems to me a disgraceful dereliction of duty from both Liz Truss and the PM. Of course I expected nothing less from the PM who hasn't shown a shred of leadership so far, other than to sneeringly remind us of her tiny mandate at every opportunity.
18
4
In reply to Trevers:
Well it isnt the sort of decision she would be fond of is it? Given her authoritarian tendencies anything which takes power away from her is bound to grate.
Truss has finally managed to dribble something meaningless out.
> Of course I expected nothing less from the PM who hasn't shown a shred of leadership so far, other than to sneeringly remind us of her tiny mandate at every opportunity.
Well it isnt the sort of decision she would be fond of is it? Given her authoritarian tendencies anything which takes power away from her is bound to grate.
Truss has finally managed to dribble something meaningless out.
4
1
In reply to Jim 1003:
The number of people who voted for Brexit actually make up just 27% percent of the public, and pardon my language, but why the f*ck do you think the judges are snobby, it couldn't be a mixture of class prejudice and not liking their ruling on your part, do you think? That doesn't make them snobs.
Take a look at what you're saying, and in what context, this is important, it's about the nature of democracy, and judges following the rule of law is what underpins it, as does the sovereignty of parliament.
It's a part of living in a democracy that rulings we don't like happen, and it doesn't mean the judges are enemies of the people, are snobbish, or interfering.
> The Mail and the Express were just reporting what the majority of the public feel, they voted for Brexit and the snobby judges should stop interfering.
The number of people who voted for Brexit actually make up just 27% percent of the public, and pardon my language, but why the f*ck do you think the judges are snobby, it couldn't be a mixture of class prejudice and not liking their ruling on your part, do you think? That doesn't make them snobs.
Take a look at what you're saying, and in what context, this is important, it's about the nature of democracy, and judges following the rule of law is what underpins it, as does the sovereignty of parliament.
It's a part of living in a democracy that rulings we don't like happen, and it doesn't mean the judges are enemies of the people, are snobbish, or interfering.
Post edited at 19:31
26
2
In reply to Chris the Tall:
According to the judgement, treaties are a matter of royal prerogative unless that have an affect on domestic law. Since withdrawing from the eu would have an effect on domestic law (e.g. U.K. Citizens would no longer have rights under the working times directive, wouldnt be able to appeal to the European court of justice) then it needs to be put to parliament.
> Do you think this judgement contradicts the McWhirter case in the 70s ? Pretty sure that held that treaties were a matter of royal prerogative
According to the judgement, treaties are a matter of royal prerogative unless that have an affect on domestic law. Since withdrawing from the eu would have an effect on domestic law (e.g. U.K. Citizens would no longer have rights under the working times directive, wouldnt be able to appeal to the European court of justice) then it needs to be put to parliament.
11
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Absolutely essential reading- thank you for the link.
The express, mail and star should be required to publish it in order to try to repair the damage they are doing to our democracy
As for the tories- this is their '45 minute claim' moment, for me- rthe point where they did something that I didn't just disagree with on a point of policy, but where they put political gain above the rule of law.
> Here is the link
> The judges have uphold their oaths of office and done their constitutional duty, truss has done neither. Obviously she won't resign, she won't challenge the PM, and the PM isn't going to rein in the press that support her. An independent judiciary is always an irritation to the executive, but is vital to the rule of law, the last bastion against tyranny and mob rule
Absolutely essential reading- thank you for the link.
The express, mail and star should be required to publish it in order to try to repair the damage they are doing to our democracy
As for the tories- this is their '45 minute claim' moment, for me- rthe point where they did something that I didn't just disagree with on a point of policy, but where they put political gain above the rule of law.
8
3
In reply to Jim 1003:
I think you should read this.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/high-court-ruling-article-50-brexit-eu-...
I think you should read this.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/high-court-ruling-article-50-brexit-eu-...
2
1
4
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Somewhat agree with that.
I'm not as virulently anti-Tory as many Brits, not having lived in the country during Thatcher's time and being appalled by Labour's own miss-deeds.
But the subsequent handling of Brexit by the party has been illuminating for all the wrong reasons. I'm not at all surprised by Theresa May acting in this way though and it does seem huge swathes of the country buy in to this idiocy. If there is any silver lining in all this it would be how our Trump-esque political meltdown is looking to the rest of Europe, hopefully discouraging them from taking a similar direction. With some luck even those supporting Brexit will look back on this in years to come with clearer vision.
> As for the tories- this is their '45 minute claim' moment, for me- rthe point where they did something that I didn't just disagree with on a point of policy, but where they put political gain above the rule of law.
Somewhat agree with that.
I'm not as virulently anti-Tory as many Brits, not having lived in the country during Thatcher's time and being appalled by Labour's own miss-deeds.
But the subsequent handling of Brexit by the party has been illuminating for all the wrong reasons. I'm not at all surprised by Theresa May acting in this way though and it does seem huge swathes of the country buy in to this idiocy. If there is any silver lining in all this it would be how our Trump-esque political meltdown is looking to the rest of Europe, hopefully discouraging them from taking a similar direction. With some luck even those supporting Brexit will look back on this in years to come with clearer vision.
3
3
In reply to Armadillo:
What a strange comment!
As someone who earns a living walling I can assure you that these structures are no more exclusively British than are hedgerows and barbed wire fences.
What a strange comment!
As someone who earns a living walling I can assure you that these structures are no more exclusively British than are hedgerows and barbed wire fences.
1
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
What I find absolutely staggering in all of this, is the complete lack of understanding (or deliberate misinterpretation) in some sections of the media, as to what this judgement means?
This is about parliament needing to approve 'the terms of brexit' prior to triggering Article 50, not parliament being allowed to overturn the Referendum result and therefore not trigger article 50.
I don't know about anyone else, but as much as I wouldn't piss on most politicians if they were on fire, I'd sooner have the terms of brexit scrutinised by parliament, than leave it purely in the hands of the Tory wrecking crew of the Three Stooges, Nonsense Johnson and Hilda Baker.
What I find absolutely staggering in all of this, is the complete lack of understanding (or deliberate misinterpretation) in some sections of the media, as to what this judgement means?
This is about parliament needing to approve 'the terms of brexit' prior to triggering Article 50, not parliament being allowed to overturn the Referendum result and therefore not trigger article 50.
I don't know about anyone else, but as much as I wouldn't piss on most politicians if they were on fire, I'd sooner have the terms of brexit scrutinised by parliament, than leave it purely in the hands of the Tory wrecking crew of the Three Stooges, Nonsense Johnson and Hilda Baker.
Post edited at 09:38
8
1
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
Very much so, here's a comparison with a headline from 1930s Germany...
http://i.imgur.com/AYuw41h.jpg
> As others have mentioned on the Article 50 thread, "ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE" is straight out of the 1930s.
Very much so, here's a comparison with a headline from 1930s Germany...
http://i.imgur.com/AYuw41h.jpg
3
In reply to Chris the Tall:
I rather think that it's not only the "Royal" prerogative that is returning to be asserted against Parliamentary democracy from earlier centuries.
I rather think that Trush is holding office as if her tenure is "durante bene placito" rather than "quamdiu se bene gesserint" to make a reference to something I studied so long ago as to be unable to recall it properly. (Time wherof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary, which iirc equates to 1189)
I rather think that it's not only the "Royal" prerogative that is returning to be asserted against Parliamentary democracy from earlier centuries.
I rather think that Trush is holding office as if her tenure is "durante bene placito" rather than "quamdiu se bene gesserint" to make a reference to something I studied so long ago as to be unable to recall it properly. (Time wherof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary, which iirc equates to 1189)
In reply to Luke90:
Thank you very much - I was looking for something like that yesterday but didn't turn it up. I knew it had happened. I fear that some people just don't understand the significance of what is going on.
Charitably I could think that this includes the journalist-demagogues in question but as I don't know them I have to take it at face value and assume it is simply malicious and evil rabble rousing. The government is standing by effectively and letting the "anger of the people" justify and do its work for it. All we need now is some european foreigners to burn a public building and we'll have a closer parallel
Thank you very much - I was looking for something like that yesterday but didn't turn it up. I knew it had happened. I fear that some people just don't understand the significance of what is going on.
Charitably I could think that this includes the journalist-demagogues in question but as I don't know them I have to take it at face value and assume it is simply malicious and evil rabble rousing. The government is standing by effectively and letting the "anger of the people" justify and do its work for it. All we need now is some european foreigners to burn a public building and we'll have a closer parallel
Post edited at 10:15
3
3
In reply to wercat:
I must confess that, only a couple of years ago, I could never have imagined that such an extreme swing to the right could ever happen in 'gentle, moderate' Britain. Or rather, England.
I must confess that, only a couple of years ago, I could never have imagined that such an extreme swing to the right could ever happen in 'gentle, moderate' Britain. Or rather, England.
12
2
2
1
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Don't forget the Welsh, and a fair chunk of NI.
I don't see an extreme swing to the right. The Brexit vote in the UK came from households on less than £20k per year, the unemployed and from areas of low opportunity. Before the 'it was all the fault of the thick people who don't have a degree like me' comments arrive, the Joseph Rountree Foundation found that people with higher levels of skills and education but who lived in low-skilled areas were more likely to have voted for Brexit. This wasn't a swing to the right, it was the culmination of years of neglect that made voters who should be natural supporters of Labour make a protest vote about how they perceived they were being treated.
Not a good decision on their part, and not one I agree with having voted remain. However it was a vote to leave the EU, not for the BNP. There's a 'moral panic' in the press at present. The right wing press is doing the 'enemies of the state' nonsense, the left wing press is telling the story that there are Polish people hanging from lamposts in every town in England. It's not the rise of the far right, it's the rise of hysterical nonsense in the press.
> I must confess that, only a couple of years ago, I could never have imagined that such an extreme swing to the right could ever happen in 'gentle, moderate' Britain. Or rather, England.
Don't forget the Welsh, and a fair chunk of NI.
I don't see an extreme swing to the right. The Brexit vote in the UK came from households on less than £20k per year, the unemployed and from areas of low opportunity. Before the 'it was all the fault of the thick people who don't have a degree like me' comments arrive, the Joseph Rountree Foundation found that people with higher levels of skills and education but who lived in low-skilled areas were more likely to have voted for Brexit. This wasn't a swing to the right, it was the culmination of years of neglect that made voters who should be natural supporters of Labour make a protest vote about how they perceived they were being treated.
Not a good decision on their part, and not one I agree with having voted remain. However it was a vote to leave the EU, not for the BNP. There's a 'moral panic' in the press at present. The right wing press is doing the 'enemies of the state' nonsense, the left wing press is telling the story that there are Polish people hanging from lamposts in every town in England. It's not the rise of the far right, it's the rise of hysterical nonsense in the press.
Post edited at 10:46
8
In reply to Ridge:
You've just equivocated a comic exaggeration of the leftwing papers with a completely factual description of the rightwing papers. That seems a bit unfair.
Anyhow, it's not a moral panic, it's an amoral business decision. The papers that are doing the best job of maintaining readerships in the face of overall declining sales are those that manage to stir up fear and anger.
> The right wing press is doing the 'enemies of the state' nonsense, the left wing press is telling the story that there are Polish people hanging from lamposts in every town in England. It's not the rise of the far right, it's the rise of hysterical nonsense in the press
You've just equivocated a comic exaggeration of the leftwing papers with a completely factual description of the rightwing papers. That seems a bit unfair.
Anyhow, it's not a moral panic, it's an amoral business decision. The papers that are doing the best job of maintaining readerships in the face of overall declining sales are those that manage to stir up fear and anger.
4
2
In reply to Gordon Stainforth & NigeR
I must confess that, only a couple of years ago, I could never have imagined that such an extreme swing to the right could ever happen in 'gentle, moderate' Britain. Or rather, England.
What I find absolutely staggering in all of this, is the complete lack of understanding (or deliberate misinterpretation) in some sections of the media, as to what this judgement means?
The naivety. Its as if both of you never picked up a redtop newspaper in the last 30 years or talked to anyone outside your social mileau.
D
I must confess that, only a couple of years ago, I could never have imagined that such an extreme swing to the right could ever happen in 'gentle, moderate' Britain. Or rather, England.
What I find absolutely staggering in all of this, is the complete lack of understanding (or deliberate misinterpretation) in some sections of the media, as to what this judgement means?
The naivety. Its as if both of you never picked up a redtop newspaper in the last 30 years or talked to anyone outside your social mileau.
D
7
In reply to Lemony:
Mea culpa
Agree completely.
> You've just equivocated a comic exaggeration of the leftwing papers with a completely factual description of the rightwing papers. That seems a bit unfair.
Mea culpa
> Anyhow, it's not a moral panic, it's an amoral business decision. The papers that are doing the best job of maintaining readerships in the face of overall declining sales are those that manage to stir up fear and anger.
Agree completely.
2
In reply to Dauphin:
Not naivety, just disappointment.
However, it begs the question, do redtops or other rags like the Mail & Express, inform or validate opinion?
I think it's probably the latter.
> In reply to Gordon Stainforth & NigeR
> I must confess that, only a couple of years ago, I could never have imagined that such an extreme swing to the right could ever happen in 'gentle, moderate' Britain. Or rather, England.
> What I find absolutely staggering in all of this, is the complete lack of understanding (or deliberate misinterpretation) in some sections of the media, as to what this judgement means?
> The naivety. Its as if both of you never picked up a redtop newspaper in the last 30 years or talked to anyone outside your social mileau.
> D
Not naivety, just disappointment.
However, it begs the question, do redtops or other rags like the Mail & Express, inform or validate opinion?
I think it's probably the latter.
2
1
In reply to Bob Hughes:
Surely withdrawing from the EU doesn't effect domestic law?
The changes will only come into effect when we enact whatever employment laws we replace the EU laws with. It is those new laws will inevitably need to be decided by parliament.
> According to the judgement, treaties are a matter of royal prerogative unless that have an affect on domestic law. Since withdrawing from the eu would have an effect on domestic law (e.g. U.K. Citizens would no longer have rights under the working times directive, wouldnt be able to appeal to the European court of justice) then it needs to be put to parliament.
Surely withdrawing from the EU doesn't effect domestic law?
The changes will only come into effect when we enact whatever employment laws we replace the EU laws with. It is those new laws will inevitably need to be decided by parliament.
In reply to NigeR:
Surely they report it?
> Not naivety, just disappointment.
> However, it begs the question, do redtops or other rags like the Mail & Express, inform or validate opinion?
> I think it's probably the latter.
Surely they report it?
1
1
In reply to NigeR:
Rarely inform, mostly they feed the readers misplaced sense of entitlement and therefore resentment, plus a large white middle class female readership, hence the entitlement. Although weirdly some valuable public interest and justice campaigns in the DM that other organs will not touch.
D
Rarely inform, mostly they feed the readers misplaced sense of entitlement and therefore resentment, plus a large white middle class female readership, hence the entitlement. Although weirdly some valuable public interest and justice campaigns in the DM that other organs will not touch.
D
2
In reply to timjones:
are rights of residence, rights off access to public services not matters of domestic law? Repeal of the legislation that currently confers these rights will leave a void affecting thousands of people.
How is that not a domestic matter?
are rights of residence, rights off access to public services not matters of domestic law? Repeal of the legislation that currently confers these rights will leave a void affecting thousands of people.
How is that not a domestic matter?
In reply to wercat:
There is a strong line of thought that says that we should start out by adopting the current EU laws and then gradually and carefully enact our own amendments over time.
To repeal all EU law in one fell swoop would be a car crash
> are rights of residence, rights off access to public services not matters of domestic law? Repeal of the legislation that currently confers these rights will leave a void affecting thousands of people.
> How is that not a domestic matter?
There is a strong line of thought that says that we should start out by adopting the current EU laws and then gradually and carefully enact our own amendments over time.
To repeal all EU law in one fell swoop would be a car crash
1
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
I think I really hope for an election soon as I think it is the only way to purge some of the evil feeling and resentment in the country. Whatever the result.
I think I really hope for an election soon as I think it is the only way to purge some of the evil feeling and resentment in the country. Whatever the result.
2
In reply to Dauphin:
Can you name one paper that doesn't do that for a chosen political spectrum?
> Rarely inform, mostly they feed the readers misplaced sense of entitlement and therefore resentment, plus a large white middle class female readership, hence the entitlement. Although weirdly some valuable public interest and justice campaigns in the DM that other organs will not touch.
> D
Can you name one paper that doesn't do that for a chosen political spectrum?
4
In reply to timjones:
I think I wrote red tops. You pick your political persuasion. Yeah they all of the newspapers do it. Its the level of jingoism, counter factual analysis and outright (cleverly worded approved by a lawyer) lies in the tabloids though. Hardly a new phenomena to be surprised about.
D
I think I wrote red tops. You pick your political persuasion. Yeah they all of the newspapers do it. Its the level of jingoism, counter factual analysis and outright (cleverly worded approved by a lawyer) lies in the tabloids though. Hardly a new phenomena to be surprised about.
D
1
1
In reply to timjones:
If newspapers just reported what was happening in the world, without any political bias, then we'd have a completely different Press.
We'd also have pink unicorns!
> Surely they report it?
If newspapers just reported what was happening in the world, without any political bias, then we'd have a completely different Press.
We'd also have pink unicorns!
3
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Thatcher's Enemies Within speech must surely be far, far worst?
This is the Head of State, not a jumped up editor.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/03/thatcher-labour-miners-ene...
> I must confess that, only a couple of years ago, I could never have imagined that such an extreme swing to the right could ever happen in 'gentle, moderate' Britain. Or rather, England.
Thatcher's Enemies Within speech must surely be far, far worst?
This is the Head of State, not a jumped up editor.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/03/thatcher-labour-miners-ene...
In reply to winhill:
Thanks for reminding me. Yes, history will, I'm sure, judge her a lot less kindly than her fans can now imagine. I think she was really the start of our present malaise. Just my (moderate) opinion, of course.
Thanks for reminding me. Yes, history will, I'm sure, judge her a lot less kindly than her fans can now imagine. I think she was really the start of our present malaise. Just my (moderate) opinion, of course.
2
3
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
Attacking the judiciary seems like a vital part of that, a British Value worth supporting.
Someone has already mentioned Private Eye, where dozens of careers have been made just by doing that.
AFAIK It was Thatcher who found that policy could be pushed through via the courts, as she often went as far as she could before being tamed ( sometimes) by the Courts. When the rulers decide to challenge through the legal process then it's fair game for everyone else to do the same (hence this action in the first place).
> "...the government has defined extremism as: “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs."
Attacking the judiciary seems like a vital part of that, a British Value worth supporting.
Someone has already mentioned Private Eye, where dozens of careers have been made just by doing that.
AFAIK It was Thatcher who found that policy could be pushed through via the courts, as she often went as far as she could before being tamed ( sometimes) by the Courts. When the rulers decide to challenge through the legal process then it's fair game for everyone else to do the same (hence this action in the first place).
1
1
In reply to wercat:
That all depends on whether we win. I'll let you know. I'll keep you in suspense.
> I think I really hope for an election soon as I think it is the only way to purge some of the evil feeling and resentment in the country. Whatever the result.
That all depends on whether we win. I'll let you know. I'll keep you in suspense.
1
1
In reply to winhill:
There is a rather large difference between attacking specific judgements with supporting evidence and declaring judges to be the enemies of the people.
> Someone has already mentioned Private Eye, where dozens of careers have been made just by doing that.
There is a rather large difference between attacking specific judgements with supporting evidence and declaring judges to be the enemies of the people.
5
In reply to winhill:
No one has said that judges shouldn't be fairly criticized for their decisions. This headline is designed to rob them of their right to do their jobs by making them figures of hate. Deeply subversive of our justice system. Beyond mere reproach.
No one has said that judges shouldn't be fairly criticized for their decisions. This headline is designed to rob them of their right to do their jobs by making them figures of hate. Deeply subversive of our justice system. Beyond mere reproach.
9
1
In reply to wercat:
Looking in to the UK from the outside, albeit with a vested interest in "remain", the chaos that appears to be erupting makes the country resemble Italy or the US at its political worst.
The Red Tops may be considered a central pillar of a free-press, and in many ways representative of the outlook of the average Britain. But that doesn't mean all of what they do is good and healthy. Nor do I think our Red Tops, represent the true meaning of a free press...more like monopolies with huge influence over government mascarading as balanced news. Headlines akin to 1933 Germany are most certainly not a glowing indictment on the political culture of the UK.
Looking in to the UK from the outside, albeit with a vested interest in "remain", the chaos that appears to be erupting makes the country resemble Italy or the US at its political worst.
The Red Tops may be considered a central pillar of a free-press, and in many ways representative of the outlook of the average Britain. But that doesn't mean all of what they do is good and healthy. Nor do I think our Red Tops, represent the true meaning of a free press...more like monopolies with huge influence over government mascarading as balanced news. Headlines akin to 1933 Germany are most certainly not a glowing indictment on the political culture of the UK.
2
1
In reply to Dauphin:
Why should a white middle class female have a particular sense of entitlement? Inverted snobbery is as bad as any other.
You might find talking to a sister in law of mine interesting, with her coming from a small town in the north of England, and having worked as a waitress and bar staff for much of her career, and other fairly lowly service jobs and only managing to be in her current job running a holiday let/B&B type place through teaming up with my brother and having some financial help from my Dad. Class preconceptions are part of why this country is so messed up.
It's as if you've *cough* not 'talked to anyone outside your social mileau' *cough*...
> Rarely inform, mostly they feed the readers misplaced sense of entitlement and therefore resentment, plus a large white middle class female readership, hence the entitlement. Although weirdly some valuable public interest and justice campaigns in the DM that other organs will not touch.
> D
Why should a white middle class female have a particular sense of entitlement? Inverted snobbery is as bad as any other.
You might find talking to a sister in law of mine interesting, with her coming from a small town in the north of England, and having worked as a waitress and bar staff for much of her career, and other fairly lowly service jobs and only managing to be in her current job running a holiday let/B&B type place through teaming up with my brother and having some financial help from my Dad. Class preconceptions are part of why this country is so messed up.
It's as if you've *cough* not 'talked to anyone outside your social mileau' *cough*...
Post edited at 14:20
In reply to Jim 1003:
Interfering by upholding the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament!? Shame on them!
> The Mail and the Express were just reporting what the majority of the public feel, they voted for Brexit and the snobby judges should stop interfering.
Interfering by upholding the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament!? Shame on them!
10
In reply to Dauphin:
I wouldn't know how you could say that, and I'm not going to divulge too much on my family background to see if it fits in with your definition, but I'm interested as it what it might be - and why you think there's a sense of entitlement?
Snobbery and inverted snobbery are equally as bad, one is from a sense of feeling superiour, and the other comes from a place of bitterness - it can seem, and both are a way of 'othering' people who are different in status.
Edit: Unless you have people like Sarah Vine in mind for white middle class women, about whom I'd have to agree on her seeming to have an unattractive sense of entitlement, but the 'class' of middle class has a spectrum - as defined by people who are paid to know about this kind of thing.
I wouldn't know how you could say that, and I'm not going to divulge too much on my family background to see if it fits in with your definition, but I'm interested as it what it might be - and why you think there's a sense of entitlement?
Snobbery and inverted snobbery are equally as bad, one is from a sense of feeling superiour, and the other comes from a place of bitterness - it can seem, and both are a way of 'othering' people who are different in status.
Edit: Unless you have people like Sarah Vine in mind for white middle class women, about whom I'd have to agree on her seeming to have an unattractive sense of entitlement, but the 'class' of middle class has a spectrum - as defined by people who are paid to know about this kind of thing.
Post edited at 19:01
2
In reply to timjones:
The rights are currently conferred on British citizens by EU law. In the absence of any UK law protecting those same rights, initiating a process to withdraw from the EU will affect those rights.
On top of which, some of those rights are impossible to replicate outside of the EU. For example, the right to lobby the European competition commission to investigate anti-competitive practises.
> Surely withdrawing from the EU doesn't effect domestic law?
> The changes will only come into effect when we enact whatever employment laws we replace the EU laws with. It is those new laws will inevitably need to be decided by parliament.
The rights are currently conferred on British citizens by EU law. In the absence of any UK law protecting those same rights, initiating a process to withdraw from the EU will affect those rights.
On top of which, some of those rights are impossible to replicate outside of the EU. For example, the right to lobby the European competition commission to investigate anti-competitive practises.
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
Well thank god May has finally responded and pointed out that whilst it is reasonable to criticise decisions based on evidence declaring judges enemies of the people is unreasonable and unworthy of the press.
Oh wait my mistake she failed to do that.
Well thank god May has finally responded and pointed out that whilst it is reasonable to criticise decisions based on evidence declaring judges enemies of the people is unreasonable and unworthy of the press.
Oh wait my mistake she failed to do that.
9
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
Theresa May has refused to condemn the papers, effectively giving them a thumbs up and free reign to spout whatever further viscous nonsense they chose without accountability.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/06/labour-will-not-block-arti...
This sets an extremely disturbing precedent IMO.
Theresa May has refused to condemn the papers, effectively giving them a thumbs up and free reign to spout whatever further viscous nonsense they chose without accountability.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/06/labour-will-not-block-arti...
This sets an extremely disturbing precedent IMO.
3
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
The language of the red tops and a number of politicians at the moment is the language of intolerance and fascism. And Theresa May is an apologist for that language and the lack of respect for parliament and democracy that it represents. The political tone in England at the moment is worrying. I have to say it is starkly different in Scotland.
The language of the red tops and a number of politicians at the moment is the language of intolerance and fascism. And Theresa May is an apologist for that language and the lack of respect for parliament and democracy that it represents. The political tone in England at the moment is worrying. I have to say it is starkly different in Scotland.
4
In reply to alastairmac:
As long as you are an SNP supporter. If you are not the keep your head down........
As long as you are an SNP supporter. If you are not the keep your head down........
7
3
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
That's really not true now is it neilh. Whatever your political affiliation the political tempo in Scotland has in my experience never been more progressive, involving or internationally outward looking. That's why our voting patterns and attitude to the EU are so different. Unless of course you have some kind of tribal grudge against against a particular party. Or you're a Daily Mail/Daily Express reader.
That's really not true now is it neilh. Whatever your political affiliation the political tempo in Scotland has in my experience never been more progressive, involving or internationally outward looking. That's why our voting patterns and attitude to the EU are so different. Unless of course you have some kind of tribal grudge against against a particular party. Or you're a Daily Mail/Daily Express reader.
Post edited at 19:21
4
1
In reply to alastairmac:
Although when you look at the British Social Attitudes survey the differences really arent that dramatic. The attitude towards the EU can be just as easily be explained in that Scotland has another handy source of blame for its ills which isnt as easy to do in England.
> That's really not true now is it neilh. Whatever your political affiliation the political tempo in Scotland has in my experience never been more progressive, involving or internationally outward looking. That's why our voting patterns and attitude to the EU are so different.
Although when you look at the British Social Attitudes survey the differences really arent that dramatic. The attitude towards the EU can be just as easily be explained in that Scotland has another handy source of blame for its ills which isnt as easy to do in England.
2
2
In reply to KevinD:
I cannot possibly think who you might be referring to...
> ....Scotland has another handy source of blame for its ills which isnt as easy to do in England.
I cannot possibly think who you might be referring to...
In reply to Trevers:
>
Do you think incumbent upon governments to comment on every controversial media headline? Do you think that failure to do so indicates agreement with every such media headline?
I don't think Truss spoke terribly well, but the key thing was to assert the independence of the judiciary, not to go indulge in attacks on the media.
One of the ills of our system is the dictatorship of the hourly media cycle. It's not a good thing.
> Theresa May has refused to condemn the papers, effectively giving them a thumbs up and free reign to spout whatever further viscous nonsense they chose without accountability.
>
Do you think incumbent upon governments to comment on every controversial media headline? Do you think that failure to do so indicates agreement with every such media headline?
I don't think Truss spoke terribly well, but the key thing was to assert the independence of the judiciary, not to go indulge in attacks on the media.
One of the ills of our system is the dictatorship of the hourly media cycle. It's not a good thing.
Post edited at 19:57
1
1
In reply to KevinD:
I don't buy that. I don't think that Scots feel the need to blame anybody for whatever ills you are referring to. We're not part of the "Brexit blame game". If you live or are politically active in Scotland then you'll know that much of the debate now is about our ambitions for the future. As for attitudes being very different. Simply look at recent election results. They speak categorically about the sheer breadth of that difference. We consistently vote for parties and governments that are politically liberal and left of centre. Or look at the balance of opinion on issues like being members of the EU, nuclear weapons, renewable energy, welfare or immigration. And the difference is becoming more marked with every day that passes.
I don't buy that. I don't think that Scots feel the need to blame anybody for whatever ills you are referring to. We're not part of the "Brexit blame game". If you live or are politically active in Scotland then you'll know that much of the debate now is about our ambitions for the future. As for attitudes being very different. Simply look at recent election results. They speak categorically about the sheer breadth of that difference. We consistently vote for parties and governments that are politically liberal and left of centre. Or look at the balance of opinion on issues like being members of the EU, nuclear weapons, renewable energy, welfare or immigration. And the difference is becoming more marked with every day that passes.
2
1
In reply to Trevers:
Interesting. She keeps going about the 'will of the people'. We are 'the people', too!
She's playing dangerous friend-enemy politics. I hope I'm not invoking Godwins Law by drawing attention to Schmitt's thinking on identity politics. :-/
Interesting. She keeps going about the 'will of the people'. We are 'the people', too!
She's playing dangerous friend-enemy politics. I hope I'm not invoking Godwins Law by drawing attention to Schmitt's thinking on identity politics. :-/
1
1
In reply to alastairmac:
To a point. SG policies have increasingly leant towards centralisation with increasing power in the hands of the govt. Don't really feel like a long discussion right now, but HE policy is a good example of this.
To a point. SG policies have increasingly leant towards centralisation with increasing power in the hands of the govt. Don't really feel like a long discussion right now, but HE policy is a good example of this.
1
In reply to alastairmac:
Doesnt really matter if you do or dont. The studies are pretty clear. There is only small differences. A good example is immigration. Whilst Scottish attitudes are slightly more pro it is only slightly and when compared against the difference in numbers becomes difficult to spot at all.
Really? So you cant see any similarity in how Westminster is used as a handy scapegoat vs how Brussels is?
> I don't buy that.
Doesnt really matter if you do or dont. The studies are pretty clear. There is only small differences. A good example is immigration. Whilst Scottish attitudes are slightly more pro it is only slightly and when compared against the difference in numbers becomes difficult to spot at all.
> I don't think that Scots feel the need to blame anybody for whatever ills you are referring to.
Really? So you cant see any similarity in how Westminster is used as a handy scapegoat vs how Brussels is?
2
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
Politicians are, or should be, national role models. I agree with May on the point about freedom of press. She should have gone on to say that criticism should be sober and constructive. She should also have pointed out that encouraging attacks or the sacking of judges for doing their jobs is beneath the dignity of our country. She should have lauded people who behaved correctly and with professionalism from both sides and held them up as models to emulate. Instead, she showed herself to be a craven populist, not a PM for all the people, but only some of them.
Politicians are, or should be, national role models. I agree with May on the point about freedom of press. She should have gone on to say that criticism should be sober and constructive. She should also have pointed out that encouraging attacks or the sacking of judges for doing their jobs is beneath the dignity of our country. She should have lauded people who behaved correctly and with professionalism from both sides and held them up as models to emulate. Instead, she showed herself to be a craven populist, not a PM for all the people, but only some of them.
12
1
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
I don't necessarily disagree. SG policies are far from perfect. But the general political consensus in Scotland is increasingly far removed from what we seem to be seeing and hearing from England at the moment.
I don't necessarily disagree. SG policies are far from perfect. But the general political consensus in Scotland is increasingly far removed from what we seem to be seeing and hearing from England at the moment.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Well given both Truss and Mays inability to defend the judiciary it would look like if they dont completely agree they certainly find it useful.
Do you seriously think that taking over a day to comment on judges being called the enemies of the people is a good thing? Or the papers casually misrepresenting the decision.
> Do you think incumbent upon governments to comment on every controversial media headline? Do you think that failure to do so indicates agreement with every such media headline?
Well given both Truss and Mays inability to defend the judiciary it would look like if they dont completely agree they certainly find it useful.
Do you seriously think that taking over a day to comment on judges being called the enemies of the people is a good thing? Or the papers casually misrepresenting the decision.
4
1
In reply to alastairmac:
True. Beginning to be a bit sorry for leaving. if Soay comes up for sale again, may start my own country.
True. Beginning to be a bit sorry for leaving. if Soay comes up for sale again, may start my own country.
Post edited at 20:38
In reply to KevinD:
I'm guessing you don't live or vote in Scotland? I wouldn't rely on one survey to interpret the political, social and economic health of a nation. Come and spend a bit of time here. Or look at how we've voted over the last twenty five years. You'll see that we're more in tune with the Nordic and Baltic countries than we are with England presently. And Westminster has in my opinion held Scotland back. So not a scapegoat but a "drag" on Scotland realising its potential. Whereas in my opinion the EU has been an ( imperfect ) asset to its members if they have approached it in a positive way.
I'm guessing you don't live or vote in Scotland? I wouldn't rely on one survey to interpret the political, social and economic health of a nation. Come and spend a bit of time here. Or look at how we've voted over the last twenty five years. You'll see that we're more in tune with the Nordic and Baltic countries than we are with England presently. And Westminster has in my opinion held Scotland back. So not a scapegoat but a "drag" on Scotland realising its potential. Whereas in my opinion the EU has been an ( imperfect ) asset to its members if they have approached it in a positive way.
5
1
In reply to timjones:
We already have adopted the current EU laws...
Brexit, hard or soft, will determine how much of that law we modify, and how drastically.
But since there's 40 years of legislation to go through, that will take a lot of parliament's time. The next forty years, perhaps...?
> There is a strong line of thought that says that we should start out by adopting the current EU laws and then gradually and carefully enact our own amendments over time.
We already have adopted the current EU laws...
Brexit, hard or soft, will determine how much of that law we modify, and how drastically.
But since there's 40 years of legislation to go through, that will take a lot of parliament's time. The next forty years, perhaps...?
1
In reply to KevinD:
No, I think it was very bad media management ans when she spoke she should have done so more forcefully. So, why not?
Possibly she's incompetent, or she doesn't want to get into a cycle of battling every inappropriate media headline, or she doesn't want to effectively attack a large proportion of the electorate, or she's scared of the DM. I don;t know but neither do all the people who assume the worst.
> Well given both Truss and Mays inability to defend the judiciary it would look like if they dont completely agree they certainly find it useful.
> Do you seriously think that taking over a day to comment on judges being called the enemies of the people is a good thing? Or the papers casually misrepresenting the decision.
No, I think it was very bad media management ans when she spoke she should have done so more forcefully. So, why not?
Possibly she's incompetent, or she doesn't want to get into a cycle of battling every inappropriate media headline, or she doesn't want to effectively attack a large proportion of the electorate, or she's scared of the DM. I don;t know but neither do all the people who assume the worst.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Ah yes. Always think the best eh? Well unless its anyone other than the tories and especially Labour.
> I don;t know but neither do all the people who assume the worst.
Ah yes. Always think the best eh? Well unless its anyone other than the tories and especially Labour.
3
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
She was very quick to express her outrage with FIFA over poppies, a convenient sideshow. Do you not think the Article 50 ruling is an important issue and highly relevant to her premiership?
It wasn't merely a 'controversial' headline. It was a vicious, highly personal and homophobic attack against individuals, concepts and processes that happen to have slightly undermined her authority, for apolitical reasons. Your point may also stand if she hadn't commented on the media at all. Her failure to condemn the papers comes over as tacit approval.
(Edited)
> Do you think incumbent upon governments to comment on every controversial media headline? Do you think that failure to do so indicates agreement with every such media headline?
She was very quick to express her outrage with FIFA over poppies, a convenient sideshow. Do you not think the Article 50 ruling is an important issue and highly relevant to her premiership?
It wasn't merely a 'controversial' headline. It was a vicious, highly personal and homophobic attack against individuals, concepts and processes that happen to have slightly undermined her authority, for apolitical reasons. Your point may also stand if she hadn't commented on the media at all. Her failure to condemn the papers comes over as tacit approval.
(Edited)
Post edited at 21:58
7
1
In reply to KevinD:
Which bit of "I don't know" don't you understand?
> Ah yes. Always think the best eh? Well unless its anyone other than the tories and especially Labour.
Which bit of "I don't know" don't you understand?
2
In reply to Trevers:
>
Yes, that'll be why I've said she didn't speak forcefully enough. Sorry, obviously I should have gone for the full dummy spit. I'll tell you what, can we have a shorthand code to save writing it out all the time. X for irritated, XX for angry, XXX for outraged, XXXX apoplectic XXXXX for "typical Tory scum".
May Alan could introduce some icons for the purpose?
> She was very quick to express her outrage with FIFA over poppies, a convenient sideshow. Do you not think the Article 50 ruling is an important issue and highly relevant to her premiership?
>
Yes, that'll be why I've said she didn't speak forcefully enough. Sorry, obviously I should have gone for the full dummy spit. I'll tell you what, can we have a shorthand code to save writing it out all the time. X for irritated, XX for angry, XXX for outraged, XXXX apoplectic XXXXX for "typical Tory scum".
May Alan could introduce some icons for the purpose?
Post edited at 22:07
3
4
In reply to Postmanpat:
So you can see why I think that her words have effectively given the media carte blanche to engage in whatever rabble rousing they feel like?
> Yes, that'll be why I've said she didn't speak forcefully enough.
So you can see why I think that her words have effectively given the media carte blanche to engage in whatever rabble rousing they feel like?
5
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Oh I understand that but I just have my doubts you would be taking the same line if another party did something similar and not, instead, assume the worse.
I am also surprised you missed the most obvious reason she would keep quiet. Namely that it was a decision which removed power from her.
> Which bit of "I don't know" don't you understand?
Oh I understand that but I just have my doubts you would be taking the same line if another party did something similar and not, instead, assume the worse.
I am also surprised you missed the most obvious reason she would keep quiet. Namely that it was a decision which removed power from her.
2
1
In reply to Trevers:
The media can do that anyway. It's called the free press. Do you think Paul Dacre is going to tremble in his boots if Theresa May gives him a ticking off?
I agree that she should have spoken out but the most important issue is the independence of the judiciary not criticism of the press.
> So you can see why I think that her words have effectively given the media carte blanche to engage in whatever rabble rousing they feel like?
The media can do that anyway. It's called the free press. Do you think Paul Dacre is going to tremble in his boots if Theresa May gives him a ticking off?
I agree that she should have spoken out but the most important issue is the independence of the judiciary not criticism of the press.
2
3
In reply to KevinD:
Perish the thought.
I'm sure there are more, but actually I doubt that's the reason. It's another of these simplistic arguments. It's unlikely that any single reason but two others are : she fears that Parliament will stop Article 50-which would undermine the democratic process in the eyes of millions (and ironically ultimately empower just the people that the liberal left despises), she fears that Parliament will make the process and the ability to negotiate so difficult that it will result in no deal or a very bad deal.
> Oh I understand that but I just have my doubts you would be taking the same line if another party did something similar and not, instead, assume the worse.
>Perish the thought.
> I am also surprised you missed the most obvious reason she would keep quiet. Namely that it was a decision which removed power from her.
I'm sure there are more, but actually I doubt that's the reason. It's another of these simplistic arguments. It's unlikely that any single reason but two others are : she fears that Parliament will stop Article 50-which would undermine the democratic process in the eyes of millions (and ironically ultimately empower just the people that the liberal left despises), she fears that Parliament will make the process and the ability to negotiate so difficult that it will result in no deal or a very bad deal.
2
5
In reply to Postmanpat:
No, but I don't think pandering to the press's extremes is great for democracy. Of course the truth is that May is the one with plenty to fear.
When the press, which we already know wields huge power in this country, prints the sort of headlines that could be taken as a call to violence, not so long after an MP was murdered by someone who believed her to be a traitor to this country, I think it's of the utmost importance to call them out on it.
Independence of the judiciary doesn't exist in a bubble apart from society. When the press engages in this sort of personal intimidation, that independence may be threatened.
> The media can do that anyway. It's called the free press. Do you think Paul Dacre is going to tremble in his boots if Theresa May gives him a ticking off?
No, but I don't think pandering to the press's extremes is great for democracy. Of course the truth is that May is the one with plenty to fear.
> I agree that she should have spoken out but the most important issue is the independence of the judiciary not criticism of the press.
When the press, which we already know wields huge power in this country, prints the sort of headlines that could be taken as a call to violence, not so long after an MP was murdered by someone who believed her to be a traitor to this country, I think it's of the utmost importance to call them out on it.
Independence of the judiciary doesn't exist in a bubble apart from society. When the press engages in this sort of personal intimidation, that independence may be threatened.
7
1
In reply to Trevers:
I doubt it.
> Independence of the judiciary doesn't exist in a bubble apart from society. When the press engages in this sort of personal intimidation, that independence may be threatened.
>I doubt it.
2
6
6
1
In reply to Trevers:
At this stage, nothing to get hysterical about (and I rather doubt the judges are trembling in their boots either).
Good ammo for kicking the Tory scum though.You can tell me I'm wrong when Fuhrer May appoints Paul Dacre to the High Court.
> Well that's settled then, nothing to worry about.
At this stage, nothing to get hysterical about (and I rather doubt the judges are trembling in their boots either).
Good ammo for kicking the Tory scum though.You can tell me I'm wrong when Fuhrer May appoints Paul Dacre to the High Court.
Post edited at 22:39
2
6
In reply to Postmanpat:
I generally regard you as a respectful and considered poster, with whom I share many differences of opinion but that was pretty childish.
I have never called anybody "Tory scum", though I see many reasons to be angry at their governance.
I generally regard you as a respectful and considered poster, with whom I share many differences of opinion but that was pretty childish.
I have never called anybody "Tory scum", though I see many reasons to be angry at their governance.
9
1
In reply to Trevers:
Fair cop. I apologise, although it wasn't aimed at you personally. Getting a bit exasperated with the Remainers....
> I generally regard you as a respectful and considered poster, with whom I share many differences of opinion but that was pretty childish.
> I have never called anybody "Tory scum", though I see many reasons to be angry at their governance.
Fair cop. I apologise, although it wasn't aimed at you personally. Getting a bit exasperated with the Remainers....
4
4
In reply to Postmanpat:
No harm done.
I accept that the referendum result can't just be reversed, but I'm deeply concerned by many aspects of the way the government is handling Brexit, and the sorts of viewpoints that are being empowered and legitimised by the press and by some politicians who should know better. Voices of reason seem to be being drowned out. Urging caution is not the same as attempting to overturn the decision.
No harm done.
I accept that the referendum result can't just be reversed, but I'm deeply concerned by many aspects of the way the government is handling Brexit, and the sorts of viewpoints that are being empowered and legitimised by the press and by some politicians who should know better. Voices of reason seem to be being drowned out. Urging caution is not the same as attempting to overturn the decision.
8
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Of course you do. It is only to be expected you will take the best possible view of a tory decision preferably with a light seasoning of sneering superiority.
Although I do have my doubts that anyone who would say "she was actually a hard line leaver and xenophobe all along. " is viewing her entirely dispassionately. Given her various speeches and proposed policies in the past the latter needs some consideration. At the minimum she encouraged it particularly for lower paid workers.
As for undermine the democratic process. Sadly that got done earlier this year when multiple visions of the future got promised only one, or possibly none, of which can be delivered. Going to be lots of pissed off people when they find out brexit doesnt mean what they personally thought it would be.
> I'm sure there are more, but actually I doubt that's the reason.
Of course you do. It is only to be expected you will take the best possible view of a tory decision preferably with a light seasoning of sneering superiority.
Although I do have my doubts that anyone who would say "she was actually a hard line leaver and xenophobe all along. " is viewing her entirely dispassionately. Given her various speeches and proposed policies in the past the latter needs some consideration. At the minimum she encouraged it particularly for lower paid workers.
As for undermine the democratic process. Sadly that got done earlier this year when multiple visions of the future got promised only one, or possibly none, of which can be delivered. Going to be lots of pissed off people when they find out brexit doesnt mean what they personally thought it would be.
6
1
In reply to alastairmac:
And what are the sources for your belief that things are vastly different south of the border?
> I don't buy that. I don't think that Scots feel the need to blame anybody for whatever ills you are referring to. We're not part of the "Brexit blame game". If you live or are politically active in Scotland then you'll know that much of the debate now is about our ambitions for the future. As for attitudes being very different. Simply look at recent election results. They speak categorically about the sheer breadth of that difference. We consistently vote for parties and governments that are politically liberal and left of centre. Or look at the balance of opinion on issues like being members of the EU, nuclear weapons, renewable energy, welfare or immigration. And the difference is becoming more marked with every day that passes.
And what are the sources for your belief that things are vastly different south of the border?
3
In reply to captain paranoia:
It's going to be a long drawn out process during which there will be a lot of work for parliament. I'm baffled by the current obsession with who invokes article 50. Does it really matter?
Heaven help us all if we can't even make the first step without squabbling.
> We already have adopted the current EU laws...
> Brexit, hard or soft, will determine how much of that law we modify, and how drastically.
> But since there's 40 years of legislation to go through, that will take a lot of parliament's time. The next forty years, perhaps...?
It's going to be a long drawn out process during which there will be a lot of work for parliament. I'm baffled by the current obsession with who invokes article 50. Does it really matter?
Heaven help us all if we can't even make the first step without squabbling.
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
Why do you assume all remainers are liberal/left/not Tory? Becauses it's not true.
Trevers and several other posters name the valid and important point that criticism and debate are essential and important. It's something that seems to have been forgotten in most western liberal democracies who do not have coalition governments (and no doubt by many there, too).
If I disagree with you (you as in 'one'), I am not disempowering you, I am merely putting the onus on you to provide the evidence or force of argument to persuade me.
Why do you assume all remainers are liberal/left/not Tory? Becauses it's not true.
Trevers and several other posters name the valid and important point that criticism and debate are essential and important. It's something that seems to have been forgotten in most western liberal democracies who do not have coalition governments (and no doubt by many there, too).
If I disagree with you (you as in 'one'), I am not disempowering you, I am merely putting the onus on you to provide the evidence or force of argument to persuade me.
4
1
In reply to KevinD:
Oh, the irony.
> Of course you do. It is only to be expected you will take the best possible view of a tory decision preferably with a light seasoning of sneering superiority.
>Oh, the irony.
2
2
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
I don't understand what you are referring to.
> Why do you assume all remainers are liberal/left/not Tory? Becauses it's not true.
>
I don't because it's obviously not true. I observe from the posts on UKC and discussions and "real life" that it is those of a left wing persuasion who are more likely to revert unhinged vitriol on the topic. It just becomes another stick with which to beat the wicked Tories.> If I disagree with you (you as in 'one'), I am not disempowering you, I am merely putting the onus on you to provide the evidence or force of argument to persuade me.
I don't understand what you are referring to.
2
3
In reply to Postmanpat:
1a. There is recognition that there are not 'wicked' Tories; people from all places on the political spectrum speak favourably of, e.g., Rory Stewart, Chris Patten, Ruth Davidson.
1b. It wasn't those media outlets of the liberal or left-ish persuasion that unleased the 'unhinged vitriol' this week. What I have observed is that extremists at either end of the political spectrum are prone to 'unhinged vitriol'. This is a more accurate assessment then tarring all liberals and left types as being prone to vitriol. (fwiw I'm a socially liberally, fiscally conservative type with strong tendencies to progressive libertarianism).
2. Your post above: "I'm sure there are more, but actually I doubt that's the reason. It's another of these simplistic arguments. It's unlikely that any single reason but two others are : she fears that Parliament will stop Article 50-which would undermine the democratic process in the eyes of millions (and ironically ultimately empower just the people that the liberal left despises)".
If anything, the pro-Leavers constant reliance on ad hominem arguments, i.e., 'Remoaners', is telling. Having nothing of substance to rebut, the pro-Leavers attack people/groups of people. Think about it as is a simple business negotiation. When I negotiate in a difficult situation, my opening gambit is not to call my negotiaing partner an a**h*le (and I can think of a few situtations where it was oh so true and oh so tempting). I accept their point of view and engage in tactics using evidence, persuasion, perspective shifting and compromise. Successful negotiating usually brings about a situation or even simply an understanding that satisfies both parties. Calling me names and attacking my person is not going to get me onboard. Which brings me to my last point related to Schmitt (see post above) about friend/enemy politics.
At the extreme ends of the political spectrum, the places where ad hominem arguments replace good honest debate between actual real people whodisagree, something strange happens. In the middle of the spectrum, there is a belief that people can change and shift position. That enemies can become friends (or even friends enemies) but that there is an understanding between friends and enemies based on constant negotiating, reevaluation etc.
At the distant ends of the spectrum, enemies cannot become friends. They can only be removed. Made to disappear. Got rid of: "The utmost degree of association is the willingness to fight and die for and together with other members of one's group, and the ultimate degree of dissociation is the willingness to kill others for the simple reason that they are members of a hostile group." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schmitt/ "The Concept of the Political and the Critique of Liberalism"
1a. There is recognition that there are not 'wicked' Tories; people from all places on the political spectrum speak favourably of, e.g., Rory Stewart, Chris Patten, Ruth Davidson.
1b. It wasn't those media outlets of the liberal or left-ish persuasion that unleased the 'unhinged vitriol' this week. What I have observed is that extremists at either end of the political spectrum are prone to 'unhinged vitriol'. This is a more accurate assessment then tarring all liberals and left types as being prone to vitriol. (fwiw I'm a socially liberally, fiscally conservative type with strong tendencies to progressive libertarianism).
2. Your post above: "I'm sure there are more, but actually I doubt that's the reason. It's another of these simplistic arguments. It's unlikely that any single reason but two others are : she fears that Parliament will stop Article 50-which would undermine the democratic process in the eyes of millions (and ironically ultimately empower just the people that the liberal left despises)".
If anything, the pro-Leavers constant reliance on ad hominem arguments, i.e., 'Remoaners', is telling. Having nothing of substance to rebut, the pro-Leavers attack people/groups of people. Think about it as is a simple business negotiation. When I negotiate in a difficult situation, my opening gambit is not to call my negotiaing partner an a**h*le (and I can think of a few situtations where it was oh so true and oh so tempting). I accept their point of view and engage in tactics using evidence, persuasion, perspective shifting and compromise. Successful negotiating usually brings about a situation or even simply an understanding that satisfies both parties. Calling me names and attacking my person is not going to get me onboard. Which brings me to my last point related to Schmitt (see post above) about friend/enemy politics.
At the extreme ends of the political spectrum, the places where ad hominem arguments replace good honest debate between actual real people whodisagree, something strange happens. In the middle of the spectrum, there is a belief that people can change and shift position. That enemies can become friends (or even friends enemies) but that there is an understanding between friends and enemies based on constant negotiating, reevaluation etc.
At the distant ends of the spectrum, enemies cannot become friends. They can only be removed. Made to disappear. Got rid of: "The utmost degree of association is the willingness to fight and die for and together with other members of one's group, and the ultimate degree of dissociation is the willingness to kill others for the simple reason that they are members of a hostile group." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schmitt/ "The Concept of the Political and the Critique of Liberalism"
4
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Lest we forget, this whole thread came about because the (right wing) Daily Mail ran a front page calling three judges "Enemies of the People" for doing their jobs.
Can we agree that when major events move their legs, unhinged vitriol gets spread up both cheeks of the political arse?
> I don't because it's obviously not true. I observe from the posts on UKC and discussions and "real life" that it is those of a left wing persuasion who are more likely to revert unhinged vitriol on the topic. It just becomes another stick with which to beat the wicked Tories.
Lest we forget, this whole thread came about because the (right wing) Daily Mail ran a front page calling three judges "Enemies of the People" for doing their jobs.
Can we agree that when major events move their legs, unhinged vitriol gets spread up both cheeks of the political arse?
6
1
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
The process did not start this week, it started many years ago, and the remain camp have relied on ad-homs for years. David Cameron's fruitcakes and loonies, constant attacks on anyone who wants to leave as xenophobes/racists/thick/uniformed, etc, etc (still going!). Do you really think it reasonable to claim the leavers are those who rely on ad-homs and not the remainers, especially based on "remoaners" and the stupid press headlines which only appeared after the referendum campaign?
It would be more reasonable to stop playing the blame game and accept that there's been nastiness on both sides, not try and attribute it to one side.
The process did not start this week, it started many years ago, and the remain camp have relied on ad-homs for years. David Cameron's fruitcakes and loonies, constant attacks on anyone who wants to leave as xenophobes/racists/thick/uniformed, etc, etc (still going!). Do you really think it reasonable to claim the leavers are those who rely on ad-homs and not the remainers, especially based on "remoaners" and the stupid press headlines which only appeared after the referendum campaign?
It would be more reasonable to stop playing the blame game and accept that there's been nastiness on both sides, not try and attribute it to one side.
4
7
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
I'm not sure you're really addressing my point, which is about the "popular reaction" of the remainers. We can all agree that the DM and the Express are full of bile and nonsense. But, on what I would regard as the leftish end of the remain camp, there is an unrestrained willingness to regards leavers, as a group, as "thick" and "xenophobic" .ie to look down on them and/or to completely fail to understand the plethora of reasons why people voted leave. Some of them are on UKC.
There is an astonishing lack of self awareness amongst this element of the remainers (and you seem to be in denial about the ad hominem nature of the remainers arguments). They cannot see that in failing to acknowledge that there are perfectly respectable arguments voting to leave they are not being as liberal or open minded as they seem to think they are. In their utter lack of empathy for the "primal scream" (a term I borrowed from a description of the Trumpites) of the brexiters who feel left behind they are denying all the values that they have claimed to stand for.
Quite obviously the fault is not all on one side and equally obviously the language being used is not helpful to conciliation, but maybe those members of the "liberal left" who have adopted this stance should ask themselves how and why they have become so resented by so many.
> 1a. There is recognition that there are not 'wicked' Tories; people from all places on the political spectrum speak favourably of, e.g., Rory Stewart, Chris Patten, Ruth Davidson.
> 1b. It wasn't those media outlets of the liberal or left-ish persuasion that unleased the 'unhinged vitriol' this week. What I have observed is that extremists at either end of the political spectrum are prone to 'unhinged vitriol'. This is a more accurate assessment then tarring all liberals and left types as being prone to vitriol. (fwiw I'm a socially liberally, fiscally conservative type with strong tendencies to progressive libertarianism).
> 2. Your post above: "I'm sure there are more, but actually I doubt that's the reason. It's another of these simplistic arguments. It's unlikely that any single reason but two others are : she fears that Parliament will stop Article 50-which would undermine the democratic process in the eyes of millions (and ironically ultimately empower just the people that the liberal left despises)".
>I'm not sure you're really addressing my point, which is about the "popular reaction" of the remainers. We can all agree that the DM and the Express are full of bile and nonsense. But, on what I would regard as the leftish end of the remain camp, there is an unrestrained willingness to regards leavers, as a group, as "thick" and "xenophobic" .ie to look down on them and/or to completely fail to understand the plethora of reasons why people voted leave. Some of them are on UKC.
There is an astonishing lack of self awareness amongst this element of the remainers (and you seem to be in denial about the ad hominem nature of the remainers arguments). They cannot see that in failing to acknowledge that there are perfectly respectable arguments voting to leave they are not being as liberal or open minded as they seem to think they are. In their utter lack of empathy for the "primal scream" (a term I borrowed from a description of the Trumpites) of the brexiters who feel left behind they are denying all the values that they have claimed to stand for.
Quite obviously the fault is not all on one side and equally obviously the language being used is not helpful to conciliation, but maybe those members of the "liberal left" who have adopted this stance should ask themselves how and why they have become so resented by so many.
5
4
In reply to Postmanpat:
If anyone ever finds themselves on the side of The Mail, The Sun AND The Express -= endorsing their arguments in particular, I think a recalibration of one's moral compass and possibly one's cognitive skills, is required.
If anyone ever finds themselves on the side of The Mail, The Sun AND The Express -= endorsing their arguments in particular, I think a recalibration of one's moral compass and possibly one's cognitive skills, is required.
16
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
They are also bought and read by millions who presumably hold similar bile-filled, nonsensical views. If you accept this, you can hardly complain when "on the leftish end of the remain camp, there is an unrestrained willingness to regards leavers, as a group, as "thick" and "xenophobic" because many must indeed be thick and/or xenophobic they wouldn't buy such bile and nonsense. In fact, if you throw in ill-informed and zealous as other possibilities, there won't be many brexiters who fail to tick at least one box. Whether pointing out these characteristics is beneficial for persuading people to change position is another question.
I don't think being "liberal" and open minded extends to accepting things like the collapse of the state, economy and open-society just because they were vaguely supported by some in a ill-defined, ill-thought through referendum.
> I'm not sure you're really addressing my point, which is about the "popular reaction" of the remainers. We can all agree that the DM and the Express are full of bile and nonsense.
They are also bought and read by millions who presumably hold similar bile-filled, nonsensical views. If you accept this, you can hardly complain when "on the leftish end of the remain camp, there is an unrestrained willingness to regards leavers, as a group, as "thick" and "xenophobic" because many must indeed be thick and/or xenophobic they wouldn't buy such bile and nonsense. In fact, if you throw in ill-informed and zealous as other possibilities, there won't be many brexiters who fail to tick at least one box. Whether pointing out these characteristics is beneficial for persuading people to change position is another question.
> They cannot see that in failing to acknowledge that there are perfectly respectable arguments voting to leave they are not being as liberal or open minded as they seem to think they are.
I don't think being "liberal" and open minded extends to accepting things like the collapse of the state, economy and open-society just because they were vaguely supported by some in a ill-defined, ill-thought through referendum.
Post edited at 16:00
10
3
In reply to Shani:
Lifts jaw off desk.....Thank you for that random intervention. You forgot the smiley.
> If anyone ever finds themselves on the side of The Mail, The Sun AND The Express -= endorsing their arguments in particular, I think a recalibration of one's moral compass and possibly one's cognitive skills, is required.
Lifts jaw off desk.....Thank you for that random intervention. You forgot the smiley.
1
5
In reply to MG:
Of course I can complain. It's a lazy tarring of 17 million people with a single brush on evidence that is often contradicted by examination and polling of the reasons people voted leave.
Do you honestly believe that the "remain" camp was populated exclusively by economics professors and consitutional lawyers? Sure, more graduates and A/Bs voted remain. Of course they did. The past thirty years have been pretty kind to them.
Most people are pretty poorly educated and informed. That's just the way it is.
So, just to be clear, brexit will cause " the collapse of the state, economy and open-society"?
> They are also bought and read by millions who presumably hold similar bile-filled, nonsensical views. If you accept this, you can hardly complain when "on the leftish end of the remain camp, there is an unrestrained willingness to regards leavers, as a group, as "thick" and "xenophobic" because many must indeed be thick and/or xenophobic they wouldn't buy such bile and nonsense.
>Of course I can complain. It's a lazy tarring of 17 million people with a single brush on evidence that is often contradicted by examination and polling of the reasons people voted leave.
Do you honestly believe that the "remain" camp was populated exclusively by economics professors and consitutional lawyers? Sure, more graduates and A/Bs voted remain. Of course they did. The past thirty years have been pretty kind to them.
Most people are pretty poorly educated and informed. That's just the way it is.
> I don't think being "liberal" and open minded extends to accepting things like the collapse of the state, economy and open-society just because they were vaguely supported by some in a ill-defined, ill-thought through referendum.
So, just to be clear, brexit will cause " the collapse of the state, economy and open-society"?
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Seems quite likely. Scotland will likely leave, economy a mess already, and increase in xenophobic attacks widely reported coupled with marked reluctance of many from EU to now live or stay here.
> So, just to be clear, brexit will cause " the collapse of the state, economy and open-society"?
Seems quite likely. Scotland will likely leave, economy a mess already, and increase in xenophobic attacks widely reported coupled with marked reluctance of many from EU to now live or stay here.
7
3
In reply to MG:
The police announced (well?) over a month ago that the rise of xenophobic attacks was no longer larger enough to warrant weekly coverage. ie. it had abated.
The economy has just completely confounded the negative predictions of the Treasury for the past three months.
You've gone barmy !!
The main reason EU citizens are nervous about the future is the hysteria surrounding xenophobia and residency rights created by the remainers.
> Seems quite likely. Scotland will likely leave, economy a mess already, and increase in xenophobic attacks widely reported coupled with marked reluctance of many from EU to now live or stay here.
The police announced (well?) over a month ago that the rise of xenophobic attacks was no longer larger enough to warrant weekly coverage. ie. it had abated.
The economy has just completely confounded the negative predictions of the Treasury for the past three months.
You've gone barmy !!
The main reason EU citizens are nervous about the future is the hysteria surrounding xenophobia and residency rights created by the remainers.
Post edited at 16:19
4
5
In reply to MG:
or just badly informed and looking for answers to their problems. Oddly enough I am not sure the Brexit elite have a much better opinion of the people though.
> They are also bought and read by millions who presumably hold similar bile-filled, nonsensical views. If you accept this, you can hardly complain when "on the leftish end of the remain camp, there is an unrestrained willingness to regards leavers, as a group, as "thick" and "xenophobic" because many must indeed be thick and/or xenophobic they wouldn't buy such bile and nonsense.
or just badly informed and looking for answers to their problems. Oddly enough I am not sure the Brexit elite have a much better opinion of the people though.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Pound collapsed, inflation coming, budget deficit to be with us for how many more years now?
Oh right! Those who support and value their contribution are to blame, not those shouting about how terrible they are in the press, in party conferences and online. Of course, how silly of me to think otherwise.
> The economy has just completely confounded the negative predictions of the Treasury for the past three months.
Pound collapsed, inflation coming, budget deficit to be with us for how many more years now?
> The main reason EU citizens are nervous about the future is the hysteria surrounding xenophobia and residency rights created by the remainers.
Oh right! Those who support and value their contribution are to blame, not those shouting about how terrible they are in the press, in party conferences and online. Of course, how silly of me to think otherwise.
10
In reply to KevinD:
Yes, I agree, I had "ill-informed" as an option. In fact I am much more sympathetic to that, probably large, group who will suffer from a weak pound, inflation etc. than I am to zealous cheer leaders who will not be much affected.
>Oddly enough I am not sure the Brexit elite have a much better opinion of the people though.
Indeed
> or just badly informed and looking for answers to their problems.
Yes, I agree, I had "ill-informed" as an option. In fact I am much more sympathetic to that, probably large, group who will suffer from a weak pound, inflation etc. than I am to zealous cheer leaders who will not be much affected.
>Oddly enough I am not sure the Brexit elite have a much better opinion of the people though.
Indeed
1
1
In reply to MG:
Possibly, but you said "economy a mess already". It isn't.
It's in your head. Yes there are people doing this at the outer fringes and tabloids, but May's party speech had one single line about immigration. Rudd spoke clearly of the positive contribution of immigration. Every country in the world tries to control immigration. The EU has very tight controls on immigration. It's not xenophobic for a country to want to control immigration.
Yes, tt's people who pretend that having an immigration policy makes a country the fourth bloody reich who are the scaremongers
> Pound collapsed, inflation coming, budget deficit to be with us for how many more years now?
>Possibly, but you said "economy a mess already". It isn't.
> Oh right! Those who support and value their contribution are to blame, not those shouting about how terrible they are in the press, in party conferences and online. Of course, how silly of me to think otherwise.
>It's in your head. Yes there are people doing this at the outer fringes and tabloids, but May's party speech had one single line about immigration. Rudd spoke clearly of the positive contribution of immigration. Every country in the world tries to control immigration. The EU has very tight controls on immigration. It's not xenophobic for a country to want to control immigration.
Yes, tt's people who pretend that having an immigration policy makes a country the fourth bloody reich who are the scaremongers
2
6
In reply to MG: "......., budget deficit to be with us for how many more years now?"
A weaker pound is actually good for our budget deficit. We have been in deficit since the early 80's. Not sure how old you are, but I would imagine you have spent most of your adult life living in a UK with a budget deficit. Surely you weren't counting the days until we were in surplus? (because if so, chances are it's now closer)
Not saying everything's rosie, just this point doesn't really add up.
A weaker pound is actually good for our budget deficit. We have been in deficit since the early 80's. Not sure how old you are, but I would imagine you have spent most of your adult life living in a UK with a budget deficit. Surely you weren't counting the days until we were in surplus? (because if so, chances are it's now closer)
Not saying everything's rosie, just this point doesn't really add up.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Nah, it's more the large scale calls of "go back to your own country" from thousands of people that feel legitimised following this car crash of lies deceit and misinformation that passes as campaigning, fuelled further by the tone of the articles in the country's "news"papers.
Besides reading the articles themselves, of which there's a nice selection already prepped here https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cl-9GaVXIAAnBhq.jpg and here https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cqar6MHWIAA4_dt.jpg a quick glance to the comments section will satisfy your curiosity as to what ideas people now feel acceptable to spout, and the comments on some lovely facebook pages don't leave much to the imagination either, let alone below any post that has anything to do at all with people that is not white, christian, or born in the UK.
The twitters on (both) Gina Miller's accounts and posts after the court ruling are pretty unmistakable as well. but i guess it's not real and must be just hysteria from the remainers...
Guyanian, 'remainical' Gina Miller, with a load of garbage about 'our country'! Bloodty nerve!
— cuzzinharry (@cuzzinharry) November 3, 2016
@LiarMPs For a South American woman Gina Miller to complain about British democracy is such a joke let her go back home to banana republic
— Mickey mcguire (@mikeglasgowuk) November 3, 2016
Gina Miller isn't even British. She should sod off back to wherever she came from and leave #Brexit alone.
— Henrietta (@HenriettaMK) November 3, 2016
"If Gina Miller really doesn't like what the majority voted for on 23rd June then why doesn't she f*** off back where she came from."
We've had enough foreigners telling UK what to do gina miller. Totally selfishly motivated
— verity caldwell-rose (@gentlerosepoppy) November 3, 2016
“She’s not even British! Hope she gets loads of hate mail!!!!!”.
> The main reason EU citizens are nervous about the future is the hysteria surrounding xenophobia and residency rights created by the remainers.
Nah, it's more the large scale calls of "go back to your own country" from thousands of people that feel legitimised following this car crash of lies deceit and misinformation that passes as campaigning, fuelled further by the tone of the articles in the country's "news"papers.
Besides reading the articles themselves, of which there's a nice selection already prepped here https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cl-9GaVXIAAnBhq.jpg and here https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cqar6MHWIAA4_dt.jpg a quick glance to the comments section will satisfy your curiosity as to what ideas people now feel acceptable to spout, and the comments on some lovely facebook pages don't leave much to the imagination either, let alone below any post that has anything to do at all with people that is not white, christian, or born in the UK.
The twitters on (both) Gina Miller's accounts and posts after the court ruling are pretty unmistakable as well. but i guess it's not real and must be just hysteria from the remainers...
Guyanian, 'remainical' Gina Miller, with a load of garbage about 'our country'! Bloodty nerve!
— cuzzinharry (@cuzzinharry) November 3, 2016
@LiarMPs For a South American woman Gina Miller to complain about British democracy is such a joke let her go back home to banana republic
— Mickey mcguire (@mikeglasgowuk) November 3, 2016
Gina Miller isn't even British. She should sod off back to wherever she came from and leave #Brexit alone.
— Henrietta (@HenriettaMK) November 3, 2016
"If Gina Miller really doesn't like what the majority voted for on 23rd June then why doesn't she f*** off back where she came from."
We've had enough foreigners telling UK what to do gina miller. Totally selfishly motivated
— verity caldwell-rose (@gentlerosepoppy) November 3, 2016
“She’s not even British! Hope she gets loads of hate mail!!!!!”.
5
In reply to Mr Lopez:
> Nah, it's more the large scale calls of "go back to your own country" from thousands of people that feel legitimised following this car crash of lies deceit and misinformation that passes as campaigning, fuelled further by the tone of the articles in the country's "news"papers.
>
You need to check the dates on those newspapers. The tabloids have been on about immigrants for years and we prided ourselves as a a friendly tolerant country. If we ever were we still are.>
4
In reply to Postmanpat:
>>The main reason EU citizens are nervous about the future is the hysteria surrounding xenophobia and residency rights created by the remainers.
Actually, it's coming home to finding a bunch of people on your doorstep asking when you're leaving. True story.
Be honest - if that happened to you, how would you feel?
My friend felt pretty awful and I felt pretty awful on their behalf.
>>The main reason EU citizens are nervous about the future is the hysteria surrounding xenophobia and residency rights created by the remainers.
Actually, it's coming home to finding a bunch of people on your doorstep asking when you're leaving. True story.
Be honest - if that happened to you, how would you feel?
My friend felt pretty awful and I felt pretty awful on their behalf.
13
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
So, I'm not pretending there aren't some ar****les out there who have briefly felt empowered to voice their bile but I don't see the evidence that it has become a mass reaction.
> >>The main reason EU citizens are nervous about the future is the hysteria surrounding xenophobia and residency rights created by the remainers.
> Actually, it's coming home to finding a bunch of people on your doorstep asking when you're leaving. True story.
>
I'd feel shit. But show me that this is a prevalent and ongoing happening. My wife is visibly foreign. Many of her friends are foreign. Ditto my daughters. I've asked them about whether they' or their friends have noticed a change in attitudes to foreigners several times and they ask what I'm on about.So, I'm not pretending there aren't some ar****les out there who have briefly felt empowered to voice their bile but I don't see the evidence that it has become a mass reaction.
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
would you like to be apologist for this proposal from the people's UK Party which I heard today on the radio?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04ffymh
This is something I never in my life expected a mainstream politician to be advocating.
But then of course I was brought up badly and spoiled by being taught law by a professor who actually had been in the Balkans during the war fighting the Nazis and so my viewpoint I suppose is invalid
would you like to be apologist for this proposal from the people's UK Party which I heard today on the radio?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04ffymh
This is something I never in my life expected a mainstream politician to be advocating.
But then of course I was brought up badly and spoiled by being taught law by a professor who actually had been in the Balkans during the war fighting the Nazis and so my viewpoint I suppose is invalid
3
In reply to Postmanpat:
I'm not sure why you insist on knowing why EU citizens felt threatened. You seem yo understand little of the timing. My wife heard the news as we woke up the day after the vote and was very very shocked and upset before I'd even had a chance to react myself. Saying it is the remainers who spread fear is shitty rubbish as they are intelligent and informed enough to know what has gone on in Europe in the last hundred years or so! You are helping to keep the fracture going by persisting in "explaining" it all to us for your masters
OH and don't foolyourself that we ought to get over it or that we actually will.
Have you had time to read about Siemens yet?
I'm not sure why you insist on knowing why EU citizens felt threatened. You seem yo understand little of the timing. My wife heard the news as we woke up the day after the vote and was very very shocked and upset before I'd even had a chance to react myself. Saying it is the remainers who spread fear is shitty rubbish as they are intelligent and informed enough to know what has gone on in Europe in the last hundred years or so! You are helping to keep the fracture going by persisting in "explaining" it all to us for your masters
OH and don't foolyourself that we ought to get over it or that we actually will.
Have you had time to read about Siemens yet?
Post edited at 17:23
1
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
How about you check the dates on those newspapers? I'll help you along.
1 - feb 2016
2 - 26 may 2016
3 - 15 June 2016
4 - 16 May 2016
5 - 29 May 2016
You carry on checking dates if you have any point to make, but really, had you done your fact checking before suggesting that other people should do it, along with insinuations, maybe your opinions would carry a bit more weight than they do at the moment. But i guess facts are not as important as they used to be...
> You need to check the dates on those newspapers.
How about you check the dates on those newspapers? I'll help you along.
1 - feb 2016
2 - 26 may 2016
3 - 15 June 2016
4 - 16 May 2016
5 - 29 May 2016
You carry on checking dates if you have any point to make, but really, had you done your fact checking before suggesting that other people should do it, along with insinuations, maybe your opinions would carry a bit more weight than they do at the moment. But i guess facts are not as important as they used to be...
11
1
1
In reply to Bob Hughes:
Unbelievable - perhaps worthy of another thread! No understanding of how a judiciary should operate.
Someone should point out that the judges actually embody Society's wishes which is not "The people's will" at some arbitrary moment
Unbelievable - perhaps worthy of another thread! No understanding of how a judiciary should operate.
Someone should point out that the judges actually embody Society's wishes which is not "The people's will" at some arbitrary moment
1
In reply to Mr Lopez:
What are you on about? You are proving my point. There are headlines in that selection from 2014 and many from pre brexit.. I've no doubt we could find some similar ones from 2010 or before if we wished. That there are also such headlines post brexit just demonstrates not much has changed.
> How about you check the dates on those newspapers? I'll help you along.
> You carry on checking dates if you have any point to make, but really, had you done your fact checking before suggesting that other people should do it, along with insinuations, maybe your opinions would carry a bit more weight than they do at the moment. But i guess facts are not as important as they used to be...
What are you on about? You are proving my point. There are headlines in that selection from 2014 and many from pre brexit.. I've no doubt we could find some similar ones from 2010 or before if we wished. That there are also such headlines post brexit just demonstrates not much has changed.
In reply to lummox:
You'll have to help me out, which paper has had a headline "inciting violence against those judges"?
> You'll have to help me out Graham- has the Mirror had a headline inciting violence against those judges as well ?
You'll have to help me out, which paper has had a headline "inciting violence against those judges"?
In reply to wercat:
> would you like to be apologist for this proposal from the people's UK Party which I heard today on the radio?
>
This is a pretty typical example of witch hunting remainer hysteria. Why would you possibly think that I sympathise with that view? Calm down dear.
2
4
In reply to Postmanpat:
And thomasdixon
Re: that I didn't address your concerns in my previous rather lengthy post.
I noted that extremes of both sides of the political spectrum have the capacity to behave badly. I was trying to help you out by suggesting that ad hominem arguments are not going to persuade me (or anyone else) to empathise with you, particularly in the current rather febrile environment. Your intellect is not worthy of 'but they do it, too'. You're an intelligent man, Postmanpat, and I'm not letting you let yourself down that easily.
Re: the 4th Reich. Schmitt's location in place and time and party affiliation is unfortunate. His work on political identity invaluable. If someone so knowledgeable and alive to the dangers of extremism could find himself a part of the tyrannical machinery he abhorred in his work, it's a sobering thought for the rest of poor schleps.
The reason folk, you, others, are so angry is that politics is not about facts, data or policy. It's about identity, people on all sides feel attacked for who they are, not because they feel passionate about particular ONS data. Cf. Trump in the US. There's also a good, objective article in populism in the Boston Review.
And thomasdixon
Re: that I didn't address your concerns in my previous rather lengthy post.
I noted that extremes of both sides of the political spectrum have the capacity to behave badly. I was trying to help you out by suggesting that ad hominem arguments are not going to persuade me (or anyone else) to empathise with you, particularly in the current rather febrile environment. Your intellect is not worthy of 'but they do it, too'. You're an intelligent man, Postmanpat, and I'm not letting you let yourself down that easily.
Re: the 4th Reich. Schmitt's location in place and time and party affiliation is unfortunate. His work on political identity invaluable. If someone so knowledgeable and alive to the dangers of extremism could find himself a part of the tyrannical machinery he abhorred in his work, it's a sobering thought for the rest of poor schleps.
The reason folk, you, others, are so angry is that politics is not about facts, data or policy. It's about identity, people on all sides feel attacked for who they are, not because they feel passionate about particular ONS data. Cf. Trump in the US. There's also a good, objective article in populism in the Boston Review.
Post edited at 18:00
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
How can you possibly regard criticism of someone from a major political party who advocates politicising the judiciary as a witch-hunt? Try the same headline with say Ken Livingstone and tell me with a straight face you would ignore it!
> This is a pretty typical example of witch hunting remainer hysteria.
How can you possibly regard criticism of someone from a major political party who advocates politicising the judiciary as a witch-hunt? Try the same headline with say Ken Livingstone and tell me with a straight face you would ignore it!
Post edited at 17:53
4
In reply to lummox:
Err no, that isn't what I said. I said that lambasting public figures in a totally unbalanced way was not the preserve of the right wing press. All the red tops do it.
> You'll have to help me out Graham- has the Mirror had a headline inciting violence against those judges as well ?
Err no, that isn't what I said. I said that lambasting public figures in a totally unbalanced way was not the preserve of the right wing press. All the red tops do it.
In reply to wercat:
Yes. Twenty years ago Siemens Brothers (founded and for most of its existence owned) by Germans hadn't existed as an independent company for over 40 years. It was somewhere deep within GEC which itself was within 3 years of failure. I've no idea whether it's brand name still existed but I can't imagine why who regard it as one of the success stories of 1996.
Perhaps you got it confused with the very successful and related German company of the same name which is still very successful in the UK?
> Have you had time to read about Siemens yet?
Yes. Twenty years ago Siemens Brothers (founded and for most of its existence owned) by Germans hadn't existed as an independent company for over 40 years. It was somewhere deep within GEC which itself was within 3 years of failure. I've no idea whether it's brand name still existed but I can't imagine why who regard it as one of the success stories of 1996.
Perhaps you got it confused with the very successful and related German company of the same name which is still very successful in the UK?
1
In reply to MG:
I'm not. I'm regarding his completed unfounded, deeply silly, and abusive suggestion that I would support her as a witch-hunt.
> How can you possibly regard criticism of someone from a major political party who advocates politicising the judiciary as a witch-hunt? Try the same headline with say Ken Livingstone and tell me with a straight face you would ignore it!
I'm not. I'm regarding his completed unfounded, deeply silly, and abusive suggestion that I would support her as a witch-hunt.
In reply to Shani:
Good. Tell me, am I misunderstanding if I infer that you are accusing me of "endorsing the arguments" of the said tabloids, and of so which arguments?
> Sorry!
Good. Tell me, am I misunderstanding if I infer that you are accusing me of "endorsing the arguments" of the said tabloids, and of so which arguments?
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
You are misunderstanding. I meant it as a general comment, notwithstanding the caveat that you have aligned yourself on the side of those three papers i mention.
(So my bad. The apology is sincere).
> Good. Tell me, am I misunderstanding if I infer that you are accusing me of "endorsing the arguments" of the said tabloids, and of so which arguments?
You are misunderstanding. I meant it as a general comment, notwithstanding the caveat that you have aligned yourself on the side of those three papers i mention.
(So my bad. The apology is sincere).
Post edited at 18:35
1
1
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
I think we should be realistic and acknowledge that very little is going to persuade people to change their views, and I'm not asking that they empathise with me. I am suggesting they might empathise with those "left behind" who voted brexit. If my language is intemperate (which it is isn't usually) it is a reflection of my own frustration with the attitude of the remainers and the hope, i guess, that it might just shock them into examining not their view on the EU (there are many positive reasons to have wanted to remain) but on those who voted to leave, who also have many sensible reasons and, in the case of the "left behind" justified frustrations.
Nor is my argument simply "they do it too". it is an argument about imbalance of power.There is an old argument that most of the abuse employed by the left is "punching up" whether it be at the government establishment, or the upper classes, or the patriarchy or the white majority or whatever the target is. It is therefore supposedly justifiable.
What we are seeing now is "punching down" by the privileged classes of the lower classes. The justification is, one assumes, that the lower classes deserve this because they have "punched down" at immigrants and so forth (actually i don't think most of the abusers are aware of what they are doing). I don't accept that. I don't accept that "punching up" is always a justifiable excuse for abuse and I don't accept that "punching down" is justified when aimed a beleagued "out group" despite their views.. (It's perfectly acceptable to punch the tabloid press because they are powerful entities that are fair game.)
But on the basis that "punching up" can sometimes be a justification then the "sneering metropolitan elite" epithet is as good a case as any.
What has happened is that elements of the "remainers" have essentially dehumanised the brexiters, lumped them all into one mass and used this as a justification as abandonment of real discussion of the issues. So have many brexiters, but lets acknowledge that they are both at it.
It is a crucial issue. Simply abusing the "left behind" bigoted morons, whilst it may just be a venting of frustrations, is going to create enormous problems.
> And thomasdixon
> Re: that I didn't address your concerns in my previous rather lengthy post.
> I noted that extremes of both sides of the political spectrum have the capacity to behave badly. I was trying to help you out by suggesting that ad hominem arguments are not going to persuade me (or anyone else) to empathise with you, particularly in the current rather febrile environment. Your intellect is not worthy of 'but they do it, too'. You're an intelligent man, Postmanpat, and I'm not letting you let yourself down that easily.
>I think we should be realistic and acknowledge that very little is going to persuade people to change their views, and I'm not asking that they empathise with me. I am suggesting they might empathise with those "left behind" who voted brexit. If my language is intemperate (which it is isn't usually) it is a reflection of my own frustration with the attitude of the remainers and the hope, i guess, that it might just shock them into examining not their view on the EU (there are many positive reasons to have wanted to remain) but on those who voted to leave, who also have many sensible reasons and, in the case of the "left behind" justified frustrations.
Nor is my argument simply "they do it too". it is an argument about imbalance of power.There is an old argument that most of the abuse employed by the left is "punching up" whether it be at the government establishment, or the upper classes, or the patriarchy or the white majority or whatever the target is. It is therefore supposedly justifiable.
What we are seeing now is "punching down" by the privileged classes of the lower classes. The justification is, one assumes, that the lower classes deserve this because they have "punched down" at immigrants and so forth (actually i don't think most of the abusers are aware of what they are doing). I don't accept that. I don't accept that "punching up" is always a justifiable excuse for abuse and I don't accept that "punching down" is justified when aimed a beleagued "out group" despite their views.. (It's perfectly acceptable to punch the tabloid press because they are powerful entities that are fair game.)
But on the basis that "punching up" can sometimes be a justification then the "sneering metropolitan elite" epithet is as good a case as any.
What has happened is that elements of the "remainers" have essentially dehumanised the brexiters, lumped them all into one mass and used this as a justification as abandonment of real discussion of the issues. So have many brexiters, but lets acknowledge that they are both at it.
It is a crucial issue. Simply abusing the "left behind" bigoted morons, whilst it may just be a venting of frustrations, is going to create enormous problems.
1
1
In reply to Shani:
Fair enough, accepted, but I haven't aligned myself on the side of those papers. I voted to leave but I don't regard that as aligning myself with those papers anymore than I would be if they supported Southgate as England manager and I happened to share that view.
> You are misunderstanding. I meant it as a general comment, notwithstanding the caveat that you have aligned yourself on the side of those three papers i mention.
> (So my bad. The apology is sincere).
Fair enough, accepted, but I haven't aligned myself on the side of those papers. I voted to leave but I don't regard that as aligning myself with those papers anymore than I would be if they supported Southgate as England manager and I happened to share that view.
Post edited at 19:10
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
You're aligned with them, intentionally or not. Unfortunately THEY will have a much greater and more intimate influence on the shape of Brexit than you, whatever your motivations. You've done the hard work for them.
> but I haven't aligned myself on the side of those papers.
You're aligned with them, intentionally or not. Unfortunately THEY will have a much greater and more intimate influence on the shape of Brexit than you, whatever your motivations. You've done the hard work for them.
5
1
In reply to Shani:
Well, in that case I'm also aligned with the Morning Star.....
"Indeed, in the last weeks of campaigning, the arguments of the Remain camp focused largely on one point: don’t associate yourselves with such despicable individuals as Nigel Farage. Now we feel shocked that so many did not seem to mind the association.
Yet does the way in which campaigns were run really tell us what motivated people’s votes?
How do we know that Ukip posters moulded, or even reflected, the motivations of the electorate?
Can the Leave vote really be conflated with a Ukip vote? Remember, in 2010, Ukip won under four million votes, not 17 million.
Did 13 million people turn towards Ukip in less than a year? I don’t think so.
This is the same British public of which 70 per cent said that the government should do more to help those fleeing war and persecution, over 80 per cent of which would welcome refugees into their country, city, street or home and the same public which donated masses of aid to the Convoy for Calais.
What went on in the heads of these people? That is what must be understood."
> You're aligned with them, intentionally or not. Unfortunately THEY will have a much greater and more intimate influence on the shape of Brexit than you, whatever your motivations. You've done the hard work for them.
Well, in that case I'm also aligned with the Morning Star.....
"Indeed, in the last weeks of campaigning, the arguments of the Remain camp focused largely on one point: don’t associate yourselves with such despicable individuals as Nigel Farage. Now we feel shocked that so many did not seem to mind the association.
Yet does the way in which campaigns were run really tell us what motivated people’s votes?
How do we know that Ukip posters moulded, or even reflected, the motivations of the electorate?
Can the Leave vote really be conflated with a Ukip vote? Remember, in 2010, Ukip won under four million votes, not 17 million.
Did 13 million people turn towards Ukip in less than a year? I don’t think so.
This is the same British public of which 70 per cent said that the government should do more to help those fleeing war and persecution, over 80 per cent of which would welcome refugees into their country, city, street or home and the same public which donated masses of aid to the Convoy for Calais.
What went on in the heads of these people? That is what must be understood."
1
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
It obviously didn't seem it to you, but to me the idea that pro-Leavers constantly rely on ad-homs is aimed at us all (pro-Leavers being a group defined by making a particular decision, nothing more) and isn't true. My point (different from PMPs), was that you were doing what you are saying we shouldn't do. It's a false claim, it's an attack, and it's unneeded.
I don't agree. When talking about pro-Leavers you're generalising across a huge range of people and many of them have made their decision on the facts and for very different reasons. If we could move beyond trying to stereotype the other side and actually listen it would help, I think, it's irritating being told over and over why you think something. On this the idea that old people voted out, or poor thick people voted leave is also unhelpful, old people voted both ways, as did the poor, and as did everyone else. The way to figure out why someone voted the way they did is to ask them, not to check what demographic they belong to.
> I noted that extremes of both sides of the political spectrum have the capacity to behave badly. I was trying to help you out by suggesting that ad hominem arguments are not going to persuade me (or anyone else)... "If anything, the pro-Leavers constant reliance on ad hominem arguments. Having nothing of substance to rebut, the pro-Leavers attack people/groups of people."
It obviously didn't seem it to you, but to me the idea that pro-Leavers constantly rely on ad-homs is aimed at us all (pro-Leavers being a group defined by making a particular decision, nothing more) and isn't true. My point (different from PMPs), was that you were doing what you are saying we shouldn't do. It's a false claim, it's an attack, and it's unneeded.
> The reason folk, you, others, are so angry is that politics is not about facts, data or policy. It's about identity, people on all sides feel attacked for who they are, not because they feel passionate about particular ONS data. Cf. Trump in the US. There's also a good, objective article in populism in the Boston Review.
I don't agree. When talking about pro-Leavers you're generalising across a huge range of people and many of them have made their decision on the facts and for very different reasons. If we could move beyond trying to stereotype the other side and actually listen it would help, I think, it's irritating being told over and over why you think something. On this the idea that old people voted out, or poor thick people voted leave is also unhelpful, old people voted both ways, as did the poor, and as did everyone else. The way to figure out why someone voted the way they did is to ask them, not to check what demographic they belong to.
2
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Part of the problem is that politics is now so detached from reality, people end up having completely contradictory views.
They want free movement for themselves in Europe but not the other way around, they want to welcome refugees and skilled foreigners, but they want to keep net immigration down, they want free trade and cooperation but no supra national courts or free movement, they want a good NHS and a good education system, but don't want to pay more taxes to fund it.
And politicians keep over promising, and not delivering, resulting in massive disappointment, frustration, and scapegoating, to the delight of Mr Farage.
Part of the problem is that politics is now so detached from reality, people end up having completely contradictory views.
They want free movement for themselves in Europe but not the other way around, they want to welcome refugees and skilled foreigners, but they want to keep net immigration down, they want free trade and cooperation but no supra national courts or free movement, they want a good NHS and a good education system, but don't want to pay more taxes to fund it.
And politicians keep over promising, and not delivering, resulting in massive disappointment, frustration, and scapegoating, to the delight of Mr Farage.
8
1
In reply to thomasadixon:
A number of studies have shown that Brexit voters tend to be older, have lower educational attainment, a lower income and read the Mail/Express/Sun newspapers (eg by Telegraph which is hardly a left-wing rag so I can't be accused of 'sneering'). However, the biggest correlation is with views on capital punishment which implies that there is something cultural/psychological going on here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36803544
> I don't agree. When talking about pro-Leavers you're generalising across a huge range of people and many of them have made their decision on the facts and for very different reasons. If we could move beyond trying to stereotype the other side and actually listen it would help, I think, it's irritating being told over and over why you think something. On this the idea that old people voted out, or poor thick people voted leave is also unhelpful, old people voted both ways, as did the poor, and as did everyone else. The way to figure out why someone voted the way they did is to ask them, not to check what demographic they belong to.
A number of studies have shown that Brexit voters tend to be older, have lower educational attainment, a lower income and read the Mail/Express/Sun newspapers (eg by Telegraph which is hardly a left-wing rag so I can't be accused of 'sneering'). However, the biggest correlation is with views on capital punishment which implies that there is something cultural/psychological going on here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36803544
Post edited at 20:37
1
3
In reply to thomasadixon:
Oh piss off. You and your bunch of myopic zealots have screwed up the country for decades and now have the gall to try tell everyone to be nice to you. Yes leavers endlessly rely on demonising people: immigrants, judges, EU officials. In fact anyone they don't like. And there's not even the vaguest comparison between posters echoing Nazi propaganda and outright attacks on the rule of law, and whatever insults the remain campaign may have used. And now your proto-facist gang are in power and pissing around without a clue what to do, you have the cheek to start trying to blame those trying to find a way out of mess.
Oh piss off. You and your bunch of myopic zealots have screwed up the country for decades and now have the gall to try tell everyone to be nice to you. Yes leavers endlessly rely on demonising people: immigrants, judges, EU officials. In fact anyone they don't like. And there's not even the vaguest comparison between posters echoing Nazi propaganda and outright attacks on the rule of law, and whatever insults the remain campaign may have used. And now your proto-facist gang are in power and pissing around without a clue what to do, you have the cheek to start trying to blame those trying to find a way out of mess.
11
5
In reply to Pekkie:
In areas of high immigration people doing middling and low skill jobs can come to feel even more like a replaceable cog in the economic machine as they are exposed to greater competition of various kinds with outsiders. Instead of the “one nation” they are beseeched to sign up to they will often see a political class casting aside the common-sense principle of fellow-citizen favouritism.
Areas of low immigration are often depressed former industrial areas or seaside towns where people feel that the national story has passed them by, as it has. Opposition to immigration there is more about the changing priorities of the country and its governing class, priorities that no longer seem to include them"
Richard Goodhart in Prospect magazine
> A number of studies have shown that Brexit voters tend to be older, have lower educational attainment, a lower income and read the Mail/Express/Sun newspapers (eg by Telegraph which is hardly a left-wing rag so I can't be accused of 'sneering'). However, the biggest correlation is with views on capital punishment which implies that there is something cultural/psychological going on here.
>
"The liberal view—often supplemented by the observation that it is areas of lowest immigration that are most opposed to it—also misreads the social psychology of mass immigration. This is less about xenophobia and more about the psychology of recognition.In areas of high immigration people doing middling and low skill jobs can come to feel even more like a replaceable cog in the economic machine as they are exposed to greater competition of various kinds with outsiders. Instead of the “one nation” they are beseeched to sign up to they will often see a political class casting aside the common-sense principle of fellow-citizen favouritism.
Areas of low immigration are often depressed former industrial areas or seaside towns where people feel that the national story has passed them by, as it has. Opposition to immigration there is more about the changing priorities of the country and its governing class, priorities that no longer seem to include them"
Richard Goodhart in Prospect magazine
6
In reply to wercat:
I doubt it will strip them of any rights, this is just a panic response.
But we are free to criticise judges not, just fairly but unfairly as well. We can laugh at their big red noses if we want to. Or their wigs, or their tights.
If we couldn't we'd be in a police state.
Part of that freedom (a British Value) allows for the existence of the Daily Mail and this is much preferable to the idea that criticism of the judiciary should only be 'fair' or requires a standard of manners or evidence.
> No one has said that judges shouldn't be fairly criticized for their decisions. This headline is designed to rob them of their right to do their jobs by making them figures of hate.
I doubt it will strip them of any rights, this is just a panic response.
But we are free to criticise judges not, just fairly but unfairly as well. We can laugh at their big red noses if we want to. Or their wigs, or their tights.
If we couldn't we'd be in a police state.
Part of that freedom (a British Value) allows for the existence of the Daily Mail and this is much preferable to the idea that criticism of the judiciary should only be 'fair' or requires a standard of manners or evidence.
2
In reply to Dauphin:
And aged.
Nearly 75% are aged over 45.
So the modal Daily Mail reader is a post menopausal silver haired biddy whose hobbies include cross-stitching Scottie dogs and a little misanthropy.
> Rarely inform, mostly they feed the readers misplaced sense of entitlement and therefore resentment, plus a large white middle class female readership, hence the entitlement.
And aged.
Nearly 75% are aged over 45.
So the modal Daily Mail reader is a post menopausal silver haired biddy whose hobbies include cross-stitching Scottie dogs and a little misanthropy.
2
1
In reply to MG:
Fancy quoting me demonising any of those people?
Perhaps if you were less of a zealot yourself, and if your side had relied less on the approach you're following now you'd not have lost. It was a mountain to climb (I always thought we'd lose), and the patronising and insulting attitude of the remain campaign did you no favours.
Fancy quoting me demonising any of those people?
Perhaps if you were less of a zealot yourself, and if your side had relied less on the approach you're following now you'd not have lost. It was a mountain to climb (I always thought we'd lose), and the patronising and insulting attitude of the remain campaign did you no favours.
4
3
In reply to thomasadixon:
This line of argument always astounds me from a leaver. You're effectively saying that people voted out not because it made sense or was the better argument, but as a protest against how they perceived they were spoken to, like a child having a tantrum.
> Perhaps if you were less of a zealot yourself, and if your side had relied less on the approach you're following now you'd not have lost. It was a mountain to climb (I always thought we'd lose), and the patronising and insulting attitude of the remain campaign did you no favours.
This line of argument always astounds me from a leaver. You're effectively saying that people voted out not because it made sense or was the better argument, but as a protest against how they perceived they were spoken to, like a child having a tantrum.
6
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
I would rate the damage caused when they realise the elites who they thought they were on their side really aint as far more as a problem. Likewise the way that elite is inflaming the situation and trying to portray anyone who disagrees with them as the enemy.
I have sympathy with people who feel left behind and isolated by globalisation. I have less sympathy for them falling for the arguments spewed by the elites who want to see that increased at their expense.
As for the "one mass" argument. I think you are missing thats the fundamental argument being put forward by the brexit elite and May and co. No way but their way because the people have spoken and, silently amended several paragraphs to say exactly what they think brexit means.
I know you are a fan of globalisation. Dont you feel a bit bad that your brexit view is almost certainly completely at odds with many others who also voted out?
> It is a crucial issue. Simply abusing the "left behind" bigoted morons, whilst it may just be a venting of frustrations, is going to create enormous problems.
I would rate the damage caused when they realise the elites who they thought they were on their side really aint as far more as a problem. Likewise the way that elite is inflaming the situation and trying to portray anyone who disagrees with them as the enemy.
I have sympathy with people who feel left behind and isolated by globalisation. I have less sympathy for them falling for the arguments spewed by the elites who want to see that increased at their expense.
As for the "one mass" argument. I think you are missing thats the fundamental argument being put forward by the brexit elite and May and co. No way but their way because the people have spoken and, silently amended several paragraphs to say exactly what they think brexit means.
I know you are a fan of globalisation. Dont you feel a bit bad that your brexit view is almost certainly completely at odds with many others who also voted out?
1
1
In reply to andyfallsoff:
I think the point is that they elements of the brexiters voted because , to repeat Goodhart's line above, "Areas of low immigration are often depressed former industrial areas or seaside towns where people feel that the national story has passed them by, as it has. Opposition to immigration there is more about the changing priorities of the country and its governing class, priorities that no longer seem to include them" They felt they were not only being ignored but being actively attacked.
It was, to plagiarise, a "primal scream" of frustration.
It would be massively naive to think that most voters in elections on any side vote on an intellectually rational basis.
> This line of argument always astounds me from a leaver. You're effectively saying that people voted out not because it made sense or was the better argument, but as a protest against how they perceived they were spoken to, like a child having a tantrum.
I think the point is that they elements of the brexiters voted because , to repeat Goodhart's line above, "Areas of low immigration are often depressed former industrial areas or seaside towns where people feel that the national story has passed them by, as it has. Opposition to immigration there is more about the changing priorities of the country and its governing class, priorities that no longer seem to include them" They felt they were not only being ignored but being actively attacked.
It was, to plagiarise, a "primal scream" of frustration.
It would be massively naive to think that most voters in elections on any side vote on an intellectually rational basis.
Post edited at 23:02
2
In reply to winhill:
There is a significant difference between criticising and trying to intimidate and incite. The current behaviour is coming rather close to the latter.
> Part of that freedom (a British Value) allows for the existence of the Daily Mail and this is much preferable to the idea that criticism of the judiciary should only be 'fair' or requires a standard of manners or evidence.
There is a significant difference between criticising and trying to intimidate and incite. The current behaviour is coming rather close to the latter.
1
In reply to KevinD:
Well, I can see the irony.
There are two potential problems: one, as I think you are suggesting, is that the "left behind" discover that even if May carries out their wishes brexit is not going to solve their problems whether it reduces the number of immigrants or not. The second is that the establishment continues to ignore them and they resort to supporting increasingly extremist parties.
> I know you are a fan of globalisation. Dont you feel a bit bad that your brexit view is almost certainly completely at odds with many others who also voted out?
>Well, I can see the irony.
There are two potential problems: one, as I think you are suggesting, is that the "left behind" discover that even if May carries out their wishes brexit is not going to solve their problems whether it reduces the number of immigrants or not. The second is that the establishment continues to ignore them and they resort to supporting increasingly extremist parties.
4
1
In reply to andyfallsoff:
I'm saying that remainers failed to argue their case well. Nothing about a protest vote.
> This line of argument always astounds me from a leaver. You're effectively saying that people voted out not because it made sense or was the better argument, but as a protest against how they perceived they were spoken to, like a child having a tantrum.
I'm saying that remainers failed to argue their case well. Nothing about a protest vote.
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
Not sure thats the phrase I would use.
The greater problem is if they realise they have actually been used. That what they thought was very different from what the elite wanted. Keep the globalisation but bin off those tedious laws that actually tried, adequately or not, to protect them from it.
I would say the first part is fairly inevitable. After all it was the EU who tended to put the money in. The second part is slightly worrying. Listening and reading to some of the USA election stuff there seem to be quite a few small town yanks who voted for Obama and are now voting Trump. Since they just want some change.
> Well, I can see the irony.
Not sure thats the phrase I would use.
> There are two potential problems: one, as I think you are suggesting, is that the "left behind" discover that even if May carries out their wishes brexit is not going to solve their problems whether it reduces the number of immigrants or not.
The greater problem is if they realise they have actually been used. That what they thought was very different from what the elite wanted. Keep the globalisation but bin off those tedious laws that actually tried, adequately or not, to protect them from it.
> The second is that the establishment continues to ignore them and they resort to supporting increasingly extremist parties.
I would say the first part is fairly inevitable. After all it was the EU who tended to put the money in. The second part is slightly worrying. Listening and reading to some of the USA election stuff there seem to be quite a few small town yanks who voted for Obama and are now voting Trump. Since they just want some change.
1
1
In reply to KevinD:
I thought it was generally understood that the most of the elite voted "remain"?
So, on the basis that Theresa May is very aware of this issue, it doesn't seem unreasonable to surmise that she is trying to assuage some of their fears by listening to them and by taking some action accordingly.
It may of course be that actually shares their less salubrious views, but I doubt it. It may be that she is just paying lip service, but I doubt that and I fear that she really wants to bring down immigration below 100,000.
So, the bigger problem is that it unlikely she can win them over. I don't think that this is because they were dependent on EU handouts. That money could be replaced by UK funding. It is because the factors that that are restricting their life chances are too big for any government to resist inside or outside of the EU.
> The greater problem is if they realise they have actually been used. That what they thought was very different from what the elite wanted. Keep the globalisation but bin off those tedious laws that actually tried, adequately or not, to protect them from it.
>I thought it was generally understood that the most of the elite voted "remain"?
> I would say the first part is fairly inevitable. After all it was the EU who tended to put the money in. The second part is slightly worrying. Listening and reading to some of the USA election stuff there seem to be quite a few small town yanks who voted for Obama and are now voting Trump. Since they just want some change.
>So, on the basis that Theresa May is very aware of this issue, it doesn't seem unreasonable to surmise that she is trying to assuage some of their fears by listening to them and by taking some action accordingly.
It may of course be that actually shares their less salubrious views, but I doubt it. It may be that she is just paying lip service, but I doubt that and I fear that she really wants to bring down immigration below 100,000.
So, the bigger problem is that it unlikely she can win them over. I don't think that this is because they were dependent on EU handouts. That money could be replaced by UK funding. It is because the factors that that are restricting their life chances are too big for any government to resist inside or outside of the EU.
Post edited at 08:45
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
That is clearly true, and the problem is probably going to get worse. Which makes it even more concerning that this group are being used by the like of brexiters and Trump. Retreat to an inward looking, parochial society isn't going to make things better.
> It is because the factors that that are restricting their life chances are too big for any government to resist inside or outside of the EU.
That is clearly true, and the problem is probably going to get worse. Which makes it even more concerning that this group are being used by the like of brexiters and Trump. Retreat to an inward looking, parochial society isn't going to make things better.
1
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Who are these 'elite'? Not Arron Banks, Viscount Rothermere, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Nigel Farage, Rupert Murdoch, James Dyson, Nigel Lawson, that bloke who founded Landsdowne Hargreaves etc etc? All minted, all love a 'tax efficient' investment plan, none of them will be materially worse off for brexit.
I am definitely not one of the 'elite'. I voted remain because
1. I am certain I will be worse off out of the single market, and absolutely nothing has happened since the vote to allay those fears.
2. I always voted in european elections so didn't ever buy into the 'unelected bureaucrat' tripe.
3. I remember what it was like trying to work in France before the single market - days filling out carnets to prove you weren't smuggling spanners.
4. I have not personally felt negative effects from immigration - lack of housing, difficulty seeing my GP etc.
Unfortunately when the Titanic went down it was mainly first class passengers who got the lifeboats, and I think that will happen all over again.
> I thought it was generally understood that the most of the elite voted "remain"?
Who are these 'elite'? Not Arron Banks, Viscount Rothermere, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Nigel Farage, Rupert Murdoch, James Dyson, Nigel Lawson, that bloke who founded Landsdowne Hargreaves etc etc? All minted, all love a 'tax efficient' investment plan, none of them will be materially worse off for brexit.
I am definitely not one of the 'elite'. I voted remain because
1. I am certain I will be worse off out of the single market, and absolutely nothing has happened since the vote to allay those fears.
2. I always voted in european elections so didn't ever buy into the 'unelected bureaucrat' tripe.
3. I remember what it was like trying to work in France before the single market - days filling out carnets to prove you weren't smuggling spanners.
4. I have not personally felt negative effects from immigration - lack of housing, difficulty seeing my GP etc.
Unfortunately when the Titanic went down it was mainly first class passengers who got the lifeboats, and I think that will happen all over again.
9
1
In reply to thomasadixon:
You're at it again. There is no comparison being accurately calling someone a zealot and the poisonous rhetoric coming from the leave campaign. The butter-wouldn't-melt-in-my-mouth line, routine is deeply dishonest, if depressingly effective. Fortunately the US has probably, just, maybe, seen through the comparable campaign there.
> the patronising and insulting attitude of the remain campaign did you no favours.
You're at it again. There is no comparison being accurately calling someone a zealot and the poisonous rhetoric coming from the leave campaign. The butter-wouldn't-melt-in-my-mouth line, routine is deeply dishonest, if depressingly effective. Fortunately the US has probably, just, maybe, seen through the comparable campaign there.
6
3
In reply to Andy Hardy:
I find it bizarre that otherwise bright people like PP use a narrow, short term set of financial indicators to say 'See, we told you leaving wouldn't be so bad.'
These things are going to play out over the next 50 years. It's exactly like the person who fell from the Empire State heard muttering to himself 'Oh well, so far so good...'
I find it bizarre that otherwise bright people like PP use a narrow, short term set of financial indicators to say 'See, we told you leaving wouldn't be so bad.'
These things are going to play out over the next 50 years. It's exactly like the person who fell from the Empire State heard muttering to himself 'Oh well, so far so good...'
7
1
In reply to Andy Hardy:
"The report from the Centre for Social Justice and Legatum Institute found that people in the £AB£ class £ the middle and upper classes - were the only group which had a majority voting to Remain at the June 23 referendum.
The majority of people in all the other income groups - described as C1, C2, D and E - all voted to leave, the report said. While 57 per cent of voters in the more affluent AB group voted to remain, the proportion in the other four groups was 36 per cent.
It said: "At every level of earning there is a direct correlation between household income and your likelihood to vote for leaving the EU £ 62 per cent of those with income of less than £20,000 voted to leave, but that percentage falls in steady increments until, by an income of £60,000, that percentage was just 35 per cent."
You can read the full report here : http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/core/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/LE...
> Who are these 'elite'? Not Arron Banks, Viscount Rothermere, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Nigel Farage, Rupert Murdoch, James Dyson, Nigel Lawson, that bloke who founded Landsdowne Hargreaves etc etc? All minted, all love a 'tax efficient' investment plan, none of them will be materially worse off for brexit.
>
My comment is not even controversial let alone controvertible. The elite are those with high incomes, higher educational qualifications or more influential positions in society. Demonstrating that there are exceptions , some of them high profile,(and some of them not ie.me) to the rule doesn't make it untrue."The report from the Centre for Social Justice and Legatum Institute found that people in the £AB£ class £ the middle and upper classes - were the only group which had a majority voting to Remain at the June 23 referendum.
The majority of people in all the other income groups - described as C1, C2, D and E - all voted to leave, the report said. While 57 per cent of voters in the more affluent AB group voted to remain, the proportion in the other four groups was 36 per cent.
It said: "At every level of earning there is a direct correlation between household income and your likelihood to vote for leaving the EU £ 62 per cent of those with income of less than £20,000 voted to leave, but that percentage falls in steady increments until, by an income of £60,000, that percentage was just 35 per cent."
You can read the full report here : http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/core/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/LE...
Post edited at 09:08
2
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> I find it bizarre that otherwise bright people like PP use a narrow, short term set of financial indicators to say 'See, we told you leaving wouldn't be so bad.'
>
Er, when did I do that? Post edited at 09:10
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
so.. just to clarify- an income of £60 k qualifies as a member of " the elite " ?
so.. just to clarify- an income of £60 k qualifies as a member of " the elite " ?
2
1
In reply to lummox:
Elite's a meaningless term but such an income is probably in the top 7% or so, so you might expect different priorities from that group.
Elite's a meaningless term but such an income is probably in the top 7% or so, so you might expect different priorities from that group.
In reply to MG:
Earnings is totally meaningless, unless you count Wayne Rooney and Frankie Boyle as being in the super elite.
Earnings is totally meaningless, unless you count Wayne Rooney and Frankie Boyle as being in the super elite.
1
In reply to lummox:
What a weird question. That would represent about the top 10 or 20% of earners (depending on number of children) so arguably yes, it meets the broader of definition "elite". It's what MPs earn, and people consistently describe them as highly paid. I would certainly consider the A class and possibly the B class as "elite" But feel free to choose a narrower definition and find the evidence to undermine the assertion of their voting patterns.
As the report shows, there is a very clear rising correlation between the propensity to have voted to remain and household income. Are you suggesting that this suddenly stops as incomes rise above £60k? If not, then the assertion stands. There is an equivalent correlation to educational attainment.
> so.. just to clarify- an income of £60 k qualifies as a member of " the elite " ?
What a weird question. That would represent about the top 10 or 20% of earners (depending on number of children) so arguably yes, it meets the broader of definition "elite". It's what MPs earn, and people consistently describe them as highly paid. I would certainly consider the A class and possibly the B class as "elite" But feel free to choose a narrower definition and find the evidence to undermine the assertion of their voting patterns.
As the report shows, there is a very clear rising correlation between the propensity to have voted to remain and household income. Are you suggesting that this suddenly stops as incomes rise above £60k? If not, then the assertion stands. There is an equivalent correlation to educational attainment.
Post edited at 09:31
In reply to Postmanpat:
I was just trying to clarify if you were describing those who earned £60k as " the elite." I can think of quite a number of self employed builders, sparkies and similar tradesmen who earn around £60k. Not sure how many of them would describe themselves as part of the elite. I'll ask around.
I was just trying to clarify if you were describing those who earned £60k as " the elite." I can think of quite a number of self employed builders, sparkies and similar tradesmen who earn around £60k. Not sure how many of them would describe themselves as part of the elite. I'll ask around.
3
1
In reply to GrahamD:
It's not meaningless. It's a key part of the jigsaw. I would regard both of those as part of society's elite in that they have wealth (at least in Rooney's case) and or influence that few of us can come anywhere close to matching.
> Earnings is totally meaningless, unless you count Wayne Rooney and Frankie Boyle as being in the super elite.
It's not meaningless. It's a key part of the jigsaw. I would regard both of those as part of society's elite in that they have wealth (at least in Rooney's case) and or influence that few of us can come anywhere close to matching.
Post edited at 09:33
In reply to lummox:
Oh, so just trying to trip me up by putting words in my mouth and then questioning them? Well done. Rolls eyes...
Do you actually dispute the argument about the way the elite voted or the evidence from the report?
The point, of course, is not whether the high earning sparky considers himself in the elite, it's whether in financial terms he is part of the elite. And at least if he is childless, then the numbers say that he is. In broader terms, educational attainment or social influence he/she probably isn't.
> I was just trying to clarify if you were describing those who earned £60k as " the elite." I can think of quite a number of self employed builders, sparkies and similar tradesmen who earn around £60k. Not sure how many of them would describe themselves as part of the elite. I'll ask around.
Oh, so just trying to trip me up by putting words in my mouth and then questioning them? Well done. Rolls eyes...
Do you actually dispute the argument about the way the elite voted or the evidence from the report?
The point, of course, is not whether the high earning sparky considers himself in the elite, it's whether in financial terms he is part of the elite. And at least if he is childless, then the numbers say that he is. In broader terms, educational attainment or social influence he/she probably isn't.
1
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
>As the report shows, there is a very clear rising correlation between the propensity to have voted to remain and household income. Are you suggesting that this suddenly stops as incomes rise above £60k? If not, then the assertion stands. There is an equivalent correlation to educational attainment.
I think 'elite' in this context is mostly to do with educational attainment, and thus employability. I earn c £7k p.a. and yet I'm certainly part of that group that's been fortunate enough to have had an astronomically high-quality level of education compared with the majority of the population.
>As the report shows, there is a very clear rising correlation between the propensity to have voted to remain and household income. Are you suggesting that this suddenly stops as incomes rise above £60k? If not, then the assertion stands. There is an equivalent correlation to educational attainment.
I think 'elite' in this context is mostly to do with educational attainment, and thus employability. I earn c £7k p.a. and yet I'm certainly part of that group that's been fortunate enough to have had an astronomically high-quality level of education compared with the majority of the population.
Post edited at 09:46
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
don't be so precious. I was simply trying to clarify if you meant that such an income meant an individual was part of the elite.
Without reading it, I couldn't comment. As your fellow travellers repeatedly point out though, who needs experts ? : )
> Oh, so just trying to trip me up by putting words in my mouth and then questioning them? Well done. Rolls eyes...
don't be so precious. I was simply trying to clarify if you meant that such an income meant an individual was part of the elite.
> Do you actually dispute the argument about the way the elite voted or the evidence from the report?
Without reading it, I couldn't comment. As your fellow travellers repeatedly point out though, who needs experts ? : )
2
1
In reply to Siward:
I agree, so no need for me to "open my eyes". I am just baffled that even those who support the populist offering seem to agree.
I agree, so no need for me to "open my eyes". I am just baffled that even those who support the populist offering seem to agree.
1
In reply to thomasadixon:
If you are saying (as you appear to be) that if remain had argued their case better then they would have won, then the inference is that they had the better case.
> I'm saying that remainers failed to argue their case well. Nothing about a protest vote.
If you are saying (as you appear to be) that if remain had argued their case better then they would have won, then the inference is that they had the better case.
1
In reply to MG:
There is no single definition but it would include principally inherited wealth, land & titles, position of political & social power/authority, social & familial connections to similarly endowed people & groups, and, would also include income and schooling.
> Elite's a meaningless term ...
There is no single definition but it would include principally inherited wealth, land & titles, position of political & social power/authority, social & familial connections to similarly endowed people & groups, and, would also include income and schooling.
2
In reply to lummox:
I can't imagine why.
No, one of them said "The public have had enough of experts from organisations with acronyms saying that they know what is best that consistently get it wrong". Which is probaby true....
> don't be so precious. I was simply trying to clarify if you meant that such an income meant an individual was part of the elite.
>I can't imagine why.
> Without reading it, I couldn't comment. As your fellow travellers repeatedly point out though, who needs experts ? : )
No, one of them said "The public have had enough of experts from organisations with acronyms saying that they know what is best that consistently get it wrong". Which is probaby true....
1
In reply to lummox:
Define "the elite", anyone who is earning £60k is liekly to be pretty well off from most peoples perspective.
> so.. just to clarify- an income of £60 k qualifies as a member of " the elite " ?
Define "the elite", anyone who is earning £60k is liekly to be pretty well off from most peoples perspective.
1
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Yes, and there will lots of academics who are not part of the financial elite but would be generally regarded as part of the elite of society on the basis of their education.
If one wants to narrow "elite" down to 1% or 5% then you'd be including only those earning several £100k pa or professors or people at the top of other (not necessarily well paid) professions. There doesn't seem to be any reliable evidence of their referendum voting patterns but given the evidence that is available for the top deciles of earners or educational achievers it seems very unlikely that they would buck the trend.
> I think 'elite' in this context is mostly to do with educational attainment, and thus employability. I earn c £7k p.a. and yet I'm certainly part of that group that's been fortunate enough to have had an astronomically high-quality level of education compared with the majority of the population.
>Yes, and there will lots of academics who are not part of the financial elite but would be generally regarded as part of the elite of society on the basis of their education.
If one wants to narrow "elite" down to 1% or 5% then you'd be including only those earning several £100k pa or professors or people at the top of other (not necessarily well paid) professions. There doesn't seem to be any reliable evidence of their referendum voting patterns but given the evidence that is available for the top deciles of earners or educational achievers it seems very unlikely that they would buck the trend.
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I've just reread this. Odd. Numerous times I've said that I'm prepared to accept some short term economic disruption for the sake of the longer term benefits, and that my time horizon is several decades.
I'm assuming your comment was in reference to my rebuttal of MG's claim that the economy is already in a mess? That was just a factual point, not a suggestion that there will not be disruption caused by the process over the transition period.
> I find it bizarre that otherwise bright people like PP use a narrow, short term set of financial indicators to say 'See, we told you leaving wouldn't be so bad.'
> These things are going to play out over the next 50 years. It's exactly like the person who fell from the Empire State heard muttering to himself 'Oh well, so far so good...'
I've just reread this. Odd. Numerous times I've said that I'm prepared to accept some short term economic disruption for the sake of the longer term benefits, and that my time horizon is several decades.
I'm assuming your comment was in reference to my rebuttal of MG's claim that the economy is already in a mess? That was just a factual point, not a suggestion that there will not be disruption caused by the process over the transition period.
In reply to Postmanpat:
>[...]
Pretty much the defining characteristic of any 'elite' group is that there aren't many of them.
>[...]
> If one wants to narrow "elite" down to 1% or 5% then you'd be including only those earning several £100k pa or professors or people at the top of other (not necessarily well paid) professions. There doesn't seem to be any reliable evidence of their referendum voting patterns but given the evidence that is available for the top deciles of earners or educational achievers it seems very unlikely that they would buck the trend.
Pretty much the defining characteristic of any 'elite' group is that there aren't many of them.
2
In reply to MG:
Hence the PM's visit to India.......
> That is clearly true, and the problem is probably going to get worse. Which makes it even more concerning that this group are being used by the like of brexiters and Trump. Retreat to an inward looking, parochial society isn't going to make things better.
Hence the PM's visit to India.......
In reply to Postmanpat:
I think the elite if far more difficult to define and is much bigger than 5%.
I found this chart re voting intentions, that YouGov.co.uk drew up before the referendum, useful:
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/15512/div...
Source: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/03/24/eu-referendum-provincial-england-versu...
> If one wants to narrow "elite" down to 1% or 5% then you'd be including only those earning several £100k pa or professors or people at the top of other (not necessarily well paid) professions. There doesn't seem to be any reliable evidence of their referendum voting patterns but given the evidence that is available for the top deciles of earners or educational achievers it seems very unlikely that they would buck the trend.
I think the elite if far more difficult to define and is much bigger than 5%.
I found this chart re voting intentions, that YouGov.co.uk drew up before the referendum, useful:
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/15512/div...
Source: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/03/24/eu-referendum-provincial-england-versu...
Post edited at 10:23
2
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
>
Thanks. For the purposes of this discussion I agree that a broader definition is useful, although of course just because people are educated or wealthy does not make them right
> I think the elite if far more difficult to define and is much bigger than 5%.
>
Thanks. For the purposes of this discussion I agree that a broader definition is useful, although of course just because people are educated or wealthy does not make them right
In reply to Andy Hardy:
In proportionate terms and then one can argue about what proportion is appropriate. What proportion would you use and why?
But to repeat my question to others: have you any evidence that the voting trends clearly demonstrated by a broader definition of financial, social or educational elite are reversed within a narrower definition of elite?
> >[...]
> Pretty much the defining characteristic of any 'elite' group is that there aren't many of them.
In proportionate terms and then one can argue about what proportion is appropriate. What proportion would you use and why?
But to repeat my question to others: have you any evidence that the voting trends clearly demonstrated by a broader definition of financial, social or educational elite are reversed within a narrower definition of elite?
Post edited at 10:32
In reply to Postmanpat:
No, of course not. Some famous very clever people have made some massive mistakes (e.g Descartes ) - but education does give them a broader perspective of the overall picture. Mountaineering analogy: Someone who's lived in one Alpine valley all their lives without ever going beyond the horizon has a much less complete and true picture of the geography of the mountain region they live in than a mountaineer who has traveled over the skyline in all directions.
[Having wealth has precisely zero to do with understanding.]
> Thanks. For the purposes of this discussion I agree that a broader definition is useful, although of course just because people are educated or wealthy does not make them right
No, of course not. Some famous very clever people have made some massive mistakes (e.g Descartes ) - but education does give them a broader perspective of the overall picture. Mountaineering analogy: Someone who's lived in one Alpine valley all their lives without ever going beyond the horizon has a much less complete and true picture of the geography of the mountain region they live in than a mountaineer who has traveled over the skyline in all directions.
[Having wealth has precisely zero to do with understanding.]
1
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Yes, get back to it! I'm waiting for your book to come out!!
I know one or two plane freaks I can recommend it to.
> PS. Have to get back to work now, so can't discuss further this morning.
Yes, get back to it! I'm waiting for your book to come out!!
I know one or two plane freaks I can recommend it to.
In reply to Postmanpat:
[The book will not be just for plane freaks. It's the story of an extraordinary split personality, one half being a brilliant pilot, the other being (in a sense) a retarded child, whose childish mentality (that no one knew about, except his lover) led eventually and tragically to his death.]
[The book will not be just for plane freaks. It's the story of an extraordinary split personality, one half being a brilliant pilot, the other being (in a sense) a retarded child, whose childish mentality (that no one knew about, except his lover) led eventually and tragically to his death.]
In reply to Postmanpat:
I would use 3 standard deviations from the mean (assuming a normal distribution), which would make it the top 0.3%.
For me "the elite" are those who set the editorial policy and political agenda, or who can use influence to have laws framed which suit them, to the detriment of the general mass of the population. Cleverly (but by no means is it a surprise) those of the elite who control large parts of the media, particularly the print have managed to create bogeymen at both ends of the spectrum hence immigrants are painted as a drain on our resources whilst "the elite" are painted as "out of touch". Handily it enables ad hominen attacks on those who disagree, like the judges in the OP.
So, whilst I agree that the better paid and educated you are the more likely it is you voted remain, simply having a good job and a degree (for instance) does not make you part of the elite.
> In proportionate terms and then one can argue about what proportion is appropriate. What proportion would you use and why?
I would use 3 standard deviations from the mean (assuming a normal distribution), which would make it the top 0.3%.
For me "the elite" are those who set the editorial policy and political agenda, or who can use influence to have laws framed which suit them, to the detriment of the general mass of the population. Cleverly (but by no means is it a surprise) those of the elite who control large parts of the media, particularly the print have managed to create bogeymen at both ends of the spectrum hence immigrants are painted as a drain on our resources whilst "the elite" are painted as "out of touch". Handily it enables ad hominen attacks on those who disagree, like the judges in the OP.
So, whilst I agree that the better paid and educated you are the more likely it is you voted remain, simply having a good job and a degree (for instance) does not make you part of the elite.
3
1
In reply to Andy Hardy:
Oh, well I think that is an extraordinarily narrow definition of the "elite". But even within that definition given that large businesses, the City, the legal profession, the arts establishment and the mainstream political establishment, and the non print media were largely pro remain I think your argument is wrong.
> I would use 3 standard deviations from the mean (assuming a normal distribution), which would make it the top 0.3%.
> For me "the elite" are those who set the editorial policy and political agenda, or who can use influence to have laws framed which suit them, to the detriment of the general mass of the population.
>Oh, well I think that is an extraordinarily narrow definition of the "elite". But even within that definition given that large businesses, the City, the legal profession, the arts establishment and the mainstream political establishment, and the non print media were largely pro remain I think your argument is wrong.
In reply to andyfallsoff:
I said perhaps, it could have been a very different campaign. Most people think of themselves as rational actors, whether they are or not, and act accordingly. If you say that you think X because of Y and the response is that actually you don't, you think X because of Z or A (and that is bad) then you're not going to be convinced. If you say that you think X because of Y and the response is vitriol and nastiness you're not going to be convinced. You are likely to think that they don't have a rational response, and it'll entrench your view, not convince you to change your mind.
That doesn't mean that people voted leave because of a hissy fit, it just means that the other side weren't convincing when challenged.
> If you are saying (as you appear to be) that if remain had argued their case better then they would have won, then the inference is that they had the better case.
I said perhaps, it could have been a very different campaign. Most people think of themselves as rational actors, whether they are or not, and act accordingly. If you say that you think X because of Y and the response is that actually you don't, you think X because of Z or A (and that is bad) then you're not going to be convinced. If you say that you think X because of Y and the response is vitriol and nastiness you're not going to be convinced. You are likely to think that they don't have a rational response, and it'll entrench your view, not convince you to change your mind.
That doesn't mean that people voted leave because of a hissy fit, it just means that the other side weren't convincing when challenged.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/elite
"the richest, most powerful, best-educated, or best-trained group in a society"
Note that isn't "fairly well off" or better than average" it's richest, most powerful, best-educated, or best-trained group.
As I said above, I do not make any contention about the demographics of the vote, better paid / educated > more likely to vote remain. My point is that a good job and a degree do NOT make you part of an "elite".
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/elite
"the richest, most powerful, best-educated, or best-trained group in a society"
Note that isn't "fairly well off" or better than average" it's richest, most powerful, best-educated, or best-trained group.
As I said above, I do not make any contention about the demographics of the vote, better paid / educated > more likely to vote remain. My point is that a good job and a degree do NOT make you part of an "elite".
3
1
In reply to Andy Hardy:
No, but including the top 10% isn't just defining elite as ""fairly well off" or better than average". I'm not saying you are wrong, simply that depending on the context the term can be used differently. There is no fixed definition, and I think in the terms being used by Kevin, or the "liberal elite" it implies more than 0.3%.
You rebutted my point by picking a few names within your definition of elite that voted to leave. I don't think that, given the voting patterns I outlined in my previous post, you have demonstrated that even this narrower elite generally voted to leave.
> "the richest, most powerful, best-educated, or best-trained group in a society"
> Note that isn't "fairly well off" or better than average" it's richest, most powerful, best-educated, or best-trained group.
>No, but including the top 10% isn't just defining elite as ""fairly well off" or better than average". I'm not saying you are wrong, simply that depending on the context the term can be used differently. There is no fixed definition, and I think in the terms being used by Kevin, or the "liberal elite" it implies more than 0.3%.
You rebutted my point by picking a few names within your definition of elite that voted to leave. I don't think that, given the voting patterns I outlined in my previous post, you have demonstrated that even this narrower elite generally voted to leave.
Post edited at 12:04
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
[> I'm a plane freak, who are you writing about?
My great uncle, George Stainforth, famous pilot, killed 1942, broke world speed record in 1931, first person to fly over 400 mph. Not by any means 100% sane. Amazing story.]
[> I'm a plane freak, who are you writing about?
My great uncle, George Stainforth, famous pilot, killed 1942, broke world speed record in 1931, first person to fly over 400 mph. Not by any means 100% sane. Amazing story.]
1
In reply to thomasadixon:
Most political campaigns aren't about changing people's minds. They are about convincing undecideds and motivating those who have decided in your favour to get out and vote.
I think the remain team got the campaign wrong because they utterly failed to speak to people who weren't part of the liberal elite (in the broader sense).
Most political campaigns aren't about changing people's minds. They are about convincing undecideds and motivating those who have decided in your favour to get out and vote.
I think the remain team got the campaign wrong because they utterly failed to speak to people who weren't part of the liberal elite (in the broader sense).
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
Just for the absolute removal of doubt, and for the 3rd time, I agree that the better educated, better paid you are the more likely you were to vote remain. I have never said otherwise., and I accept that this would (in the abscence of evidence to the contrary) imply that just shy of 2/3rds of the UK's richest people voted to remain. I hope that is sufficiently clear.
My point concerns the language that you choose to employ. Elite does not imply a £60K salary and a degree. Elite implies real power and influence and there are a vanishingly small number of people in that position in our population. This is witnessed by the scale of wealth inequality in the UK, the top 1% are massively more wealthy than even the top 10 - 11% http://uk.businessinsider.com/ons-chart-on-wealth-inequality-in-britain-201... To be in the elite you need to be at the upper end of the 1%, which is why I picked 3 s.d.s from the mean - although as we can see there is anything but a normal distribution in the population.
My point is that "elite", "liberal elite" or "metropolitan liberal elite" is as much a cliche as "little Englander". It does not describe the majority of those who voted remain.
Just for the absolute removal of doubt, and for the 3rd time, I agree that the better educated, better paid you are the more likely you were to vote remain. I have never said otherwise., and I accept that this would (in the abscence of evidence to the contrary) imply that just shy of 2/3rds of the UK's richest people voted to remain. I hope that is sufficiently clear.
My point concerns the language that you choose to employ. Elite does not imply a £60K salary and a degree. Elite implies real power and influence and there are a vanishingly small number of people in that position in our population. This is witnessed by the scale of wealth inequality in the UK, the top 1% are massively more wealthy than even the top 10 - 11% http://uk.businessinsider.com/ons-chart-on-wealth-inequality-in-britain-201... To be in the elite you need to be at the upper end of the 1%, which is why I picked 3 s.d.s from the mean - although as we can see there is anything but a normal distribution in the population.
My point is that "elite", "liberal elite" or "metropolitan liberal elite" is as much a cliche as "little Englander". It does not describe the majority of those who voted remain.
5
1
In reply to Andy Hardy:
I know that. I just disagree that there is a precise definition of "elite" or that it is necessarily yours, or that it was what was being discussed.
But it does leaves me wondering why you chose to list the names of members of the narrowly defined elite as voting out. I'd obviously mistakenly inferred that it was intended to rebut the suggestion that the majority of the elite voted remain.
> Just for the absolute removal of doubt, and for the 3rd time, I agree that the better educated, better paid you are the more likely you were to vote remain. I have never said otherwise., and I accept that this would (in the abscence of evidence to the contrary) imply that just shy of 2/3rds of the UK's richest people voted to remain. I hope that is sufficiently clear.
>I know that. I just disagree that there is a precise definition of "elite" or that it is necessarily yours, or that it was what was being discussed.
But it does leaves me wondering why you chose to list the names of members of the narrowly defined elite as voting out. I'd obviously mistakenly inferred that it was intended to rebut the suggestion that the majority of the elite voted remain.
1
In reply to Bob Hughes:
I've been thinking about this and actually i think the remain campaign failed in communicating any message particularly well. I (as a remainer) could tell you that the leave vote stood for immigration control and regaining sovereignty. I couldn't tell you what the remain vote stands for other than warding off the Project Fear beasties which, since it was a very economic argument, just doesn't motivate people.
> I think the remain team got the campaign wrong because they utterly failed to speak to people who weren't part of the liberal elite (in the broader sense).
I've been thinking about this and actually i think the remain campaign failed in communicating any message particularly well. I (as a remainer) could tell you that the leave vote stood for immigration control and regaining sovereignty. I couldn't tell you what the remain vote stands for other than warding off the Project Fear beasties which, since it was a very economic argument, just doesn't motivate people.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
I chose to list hose names because the leave campaign was founded, funded and run by members of the elite. In fact, just like the remain campaign. So constantly linking "elite" to "remain" is wrong. HTH
I chose to list hose names because the leave campaign was founded, funded and run by members of the elite. In fact, just like the remain campaign. So constantly linking "elite" to "remain" is wrong. HTH
2
1
In reply to Bob Hughes:
I think it failed because it failed to give any positive reasons for staying. There was no vision of the benefits of membership. Maybe because they didn't believe for the "left behind" that there are benefits, but they only had to convince a few.
Secondly it concentrated on telling people that they didn't understand and should be fearful: the British tend not to react well to that.
> I've been thinking about this and actually i think the remain campaign failed in communicating any message particularly well. I (as a remainer) could tell you that the leave vote stood for immigration control and regaining sovereignty. I couldn't tell you what the remain vote stands for other than warding off the Project Fear beasties which, since it was a very economic argument, just doesn't motivate people.
I think it failed because it failed to give any positive reasons for staying. There was no vision of the benefits of membership. Maybe because they didn't believe for the "left behind" that there are benefits, but they only had to convince a few.
Secondly it concentrated on telling people that they didn't understand and should be fearful: the British tend not to react well to that.
1
In reply to Andy Hardy:
Oh well, so actually you were agreeing with my comment that "most of the elite voted remain" but just wanted to point out that "most" doesn't equal "all". Fair enough.
Gosh, that wasted both our time
> I chose to list hose names because the leave campaign was founded, funded and run by members of the elite. In fact, just like the remain campaign. So constantly linking "elite" to "remain" is wrong. HTH
Oh well, so actually you were agreeing with my comment that "most of the elite voted remain" but just wanted to point out that "most" doesn't equal "all". Fair enough.
Gosh, that wasted both our time
Post edited at 13:45
In reply to Postmanpat:
I was really pointing out that the "elite" are the one's framing the debate on both sides, and that to categorise all remainers as "the elite" is wrong.
I was really pointing out that the "elite" are the one's framing the debate on both sides, and that to categorise all remainers as "the elite" is wrong.
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
I'm not so sure about that. There are plenty of examples where telling people to be afraid has worked in the UK. To a certain extent the Scottish referendum was won on fear, in 2001 Labour ran pictures of William Hague with Thatcher's hair with the slogan "get out and vote, or they get in".
> Secondly it concentrated on telling people that they didn't understand and should be fearful: the British tend not to react well to that.
I'm not so sure about that. There are plenty of examples where telling people to be afraid has worked in the UK. To a certain extent the Scottish referendum was won on fear, in 2001 Labour ran pictures of William Hague with Thatcher's hair with the slogan "get out and vote, or they get in".
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
You are taking the piss now. Saatchi's campaigns for the Tories, the Scum headlines during Kinnock's time ?
The Tories in the 1960's- if you want a darkie living next to you, vote Labour etc. etc. ?
> Secondly it concentrated on telling people that they didn't understand and should be fearful: the British tend not to react well to that.
You are taking the piss now. Saatchi's campaigns for the Tories, the Scum headlines during Kinnock's time ?
The Tories in the 1960's- if you want a darkie living next to you, vote Labour etc. etc. ?
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
I must say, I think that is a particularly poor analysis.... I think Brexit must have gone to your head!
> I think it failed because it failed to give any positive reasons for staying. There was no vision of the benefits of membership. Maybe because they didn't believe for the "left behind" that there are benefits, but they only had to convince a few.
> Secondly it concentrated on telling people that they didn't understand and should be fearful: the British tend not to react well to that.
I must say, I think that is a particularly poor analysis.... I think Brexit must have gone to your head!
2
In reply to Mike Stretford:
How would your analysis differ? Do you think "project fear" was the best strategy, or don't you think "project fear" existed?
> I must say, I think that is a particularly poor analysis.... I think Brexit must have gone to your head!
How would your analysis differ? Do you think "project fear" was the best strategy, or don't you think "project fear" existed?
2
In reply to lummox:
Yes, that tapped into underlying prejudices. It didn't try to instill prejudices.
> You are taking the piss now. Saatchi's campaigns for the Tories, the Scum headlines during Kinnock's time ?
> The Tories in the 1960's- if you want a darkie living next to you, vote Labour etc. etc. ?
Yes, that tapped into underlying prejudices. It didn't try to instill prejudices.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Of course "project fear" didn't exist. Its just away of demonising a whole load of unpalatable predictions in order to dismiss them.
Of course "project fear" didn't exist. Its just away of demonising a whole load of unpalatable predictions in order to dismiss them.
4
In reply to Postmanpat:
It had the same problem as the Scottish referendum. The benefits of unions are diffuse but pervasive. Pick any individual advantage and the response is "is that it?"; say that things are generally better and the response is "how?", which leads back to individual advantages. By contrast splitters arguments are always grand claims about a) how terrible that lot are and b) how wonderful things will be once they are gone, both of which are easy to make emotional and appealing.
And, "project fear" didn't happen in either case. The disadvantages of splitting were just made plain.
It had the same problem as the Scottish referendum. The benefits of unions are diffuse but pervasive. Pick any individual advantage and the response is "is that it?"; say that things are generally better and the response is "how?", which leads back to individual advantages. By contrast splitters arguments are always grand claims about a) how terrible that lot are and b) how wonderful things will be once they are gone, both of which are easy to make emotional and appealing.
And, "project fear" didn't happen in either case. The disadvantages of splitting were just made plain.
3
In reply to Postmanpat:
Unpalatable though this may seem you are saying things that illustrate how the insults began with the Leave campaign.
They were the first to use the double insult "Project Fear". The bullying way they dismissed possible problems as a dishonest "project". In other words any objection to the idea of leaving was either a dishonest project or irrational fear.
Second part of the insult is that everything is "fear" rather than a rational wish to avoid unsatisfactory consequences.
Do you describe your driving or mode of life as "Project Fear" because you avoid things that are unsafe (eg driving dangerously) or inconvenient (losing money through buying rubbish or gambling it away). Do you live in "a project Fear" of these things or would you say you avoid them for reasons you call rational?
Stop insulting us
Unpalatable though this may seem you are saying things that illustrate how the insults began with the Leave campaign.
They were the first to use the double insult "Project Fear". The bullying way they dismissed possible problems as a dishonest "project". In other words any objection to the idea of leaving was either a dishonest project or irrational fear.
Second part of the insult is that everything is "fear" rather than a rational wish to avoid unsatisfactory consequences.
Do you describe your driving or mode of life as "Project Fear" because you avoid things that are unsafe (eg driving dangerously) or inconvenient (losing money through buying rubbish or gambling it away). Do you live in "a project Fear" of these things or would you say you avoid them for reasons you call rational?
Stop insulting us
5
In reply to Postmanpat:
What utter tosh. You have surpassed yourself.
> Yes, that tapped into underlying prejudices. It didn't try to instill prejudices.
What utter tosh. You have surpassed yourself.
5
1
In reply to GrahamD:
From the Gaurdian's article on the remain campaign: "By September 2015, Coetzee had written the “war book” containing the campaign’s core message: “The choice in this referendum is economic security and global influence as part of the EU, or a leap in the dark. A vote to stay is a vote for certainty.” Brexit meant: “Jobs aren’t safe, prices will rise, mortgages will be at risk, and funding for your local school or hospital will fall. It is a risk not worth taking.”
Late June "Domestic policy ideas – new resources to deal with the pressure of migration on public services; a cross-party commission; stronger enforcement of the minimum wage – were knocked back by Downing Street on the grounds that they would not resolve the problem that EU membership involved surrender of border control, and might instead just highlight that fact. It was settled: the strategy could not be changed. Either they persuaded enough people to believe their arguments on the economy, or they were going to lose."
"Cooper remembers asking several key figures in the campaign to name the five most powerful facts showing the UK was better off staying in. ‘They struggled to come up with any,’ he recalls.
Taking what they believed were the correct lessons from the Scottish referendum and the 2015 election campaign, the team designed a campaign based on the perceived economic risk of Brexit.
Dubbed ‘Project Fear’ by the Press, the plan was to strike hard and fast with a succession of dire economic warnings."
Sorry, from DM but it's Cooper's version of events.
The campaign had tied itself into focusing on the economic downsides of leaving, and when it discovered through polling that its own words were not trusted it relied on "independent experts" to provide the evidence.
> Of course "project fear" didn't exist. Its just away of demonising a whole load of unpalatable predictions in order to dismiss them.
From the Gaurdian's article on the remain campaign: "By September 2015, Coetzee had written the “war book” containing the campaign’s core message: “The choice in this referendum is economic security and global influence as part of the EU, or a leap in the dark. A vote to stay is a vote for certainty.” Brexit meant: “Jobs aren’t safe, prices will rise, mortgages will be at risk, and funding for your local school or hospital will fall. It is a risk not worth taking.”
Late June "Domestic policy ideas – new resources to deal with the pressure of migration on public services; a cross-party commission; stronger enforcement of the minimum wage – were knocked back by Downing Street on the grounds that they would not resolve the problem that EU membership involved surrender of border control, and might instead just highlight that fact. It was settled: the strategy could not be changed. Either they persuaded enough people to believe their arguments on the economy, or they were going to lose."
"Cooper remembers asking several key figures in the campaign to name the five most powerful facts showing the UK was better off staying in. ‘They struggled to come up with any,’ he recalls.
Taking what they believed were the correct lessons from the Scottish referendum and the 2015 election campaign, the team designed a campaign based on the perceived economic risk of Brexit.
Dubbed ‘Project Fear’ by the Press, the plan was to strike hard and fast with a succession of dire economic warnings."
Sorry, from DM but it's Cooper's version of events.
The campaign had tied itself into focusing on the economic downsides of leaving, and when it discovered through polling that its own words were not trusted it relied on "independent experts" to provide the evidence.
1
In reply to MG:
Oh, I agree. It's much easier to be negative than to be positive but it doesn't make it the right policy.
> It had the same problem as the Scottish referendum. The benefits of unions are diffuse but pervasive. Pick any individual advantage and the response is "is that it?"; say that things are generally better and the response is "how?", which leads back to individual advantages. >
Oh, I agree. It's much easier to be negative than to be positive but it doesn't make it the right policy.
1
In reply to wercat:
Anyway, about that Siemens company that was so crucial to British electronics industry 40 years after it ceased its existence as an independent company. Any news...?
> Unpalatable though this may seem you are saying things that illustrate how the insults began with the Leave campaign.
>
Of course the tabloids were insulting. Why would I pretend otherwise??!!>
> Do you describe your driving or mode of life as "Project Fear" because you avoid things that are unsafe (eg driving dangerously) or inconvenient (losing money through buying rubbish or gambling it away). Do you live in "a project Fear" of these things or would you say you avoid them for reasons you call rational?
>
No, but nor do I encouarge people to for a cycle on the grounds that if they get in a car they are bound to die. I tell them how much more pleasurable cycling is.>
Anyway, about that Siemens company that was so crucial to British electronics industry 40 years after it ceased its existence as an independent company. Any news...?
2
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
So all that rather shows that there wasn't a coordinated 'project fear'. In retrospect it was always going to be easier to sell "cake tomorrow" rather than "actually we are doing allright here, Europe is the most integrated it has been in history, lets carry on with what we are doing"
So all that rather shows that there wasn't a coordinated 'project fear'. In retrospect it was always going to be easier to sell "cake tomorrow" rather than "actually we are doing allright here, Europe is the most integrated it has been in history, lets carry on with what we are doing"
3
In reply to lummox:
So the brexiters already believed that leaving brexit would collapse the economy?
> What utter tosh. You have surpassed yourself.
So the brexiters already believed that leaving brexit would collapse the economy?
3
In reply to Postmanpat:
you said that the examples I used weren't about instilling new fears in voters. They clearly were.
you said that the examples I used weren't about instilling new fears in voters. They clearly were.
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
The remain campaign was half warnings on the consequences of leaving, half listing the positives of EU membership. I think people do take the positives for granted, so leave worked with that, and were successful in labelling it all as 'Project Fear'.
Remain couldn't offer a brighter future, just more of the same, where as Leave could and did promise the moon on a stick. They were unbounded, so went for what made the best sound bites, positive and negative (NHS, 70 million Turks ect).
Leave could play the nationalist/jingoistic card over and over again, remain had no equivalent.
Then there's the influence Murdoch/Dacre, and the Labour leadership issue.
As others have said, fear of the unknown works well with people in general (including Brits). However, if we are honest, it was all remain had. They did list the positives over and over again, but it was never going to chime with enough people after a long slow recovery from a deep recession. Bad timing.
> How would your analysis differ? Do you think "project fear" was the best strategy, or don't you think "project fear" existed?
The remain campaign was half warnings on the consequences of leaving, half listing the positives of EU membership. I think people do take the positives for granted, so leave worked with that, and were successful in labelling it all as 'Project Fear'.
Remain couldn't offer a brighter future, just more of the same, where as Leave could and did promise the moon on a stick. They were unbounded, so went for what made the best sound bites, positive and negative (NHS, 70 million Turks ect).
Leave could play the nationalist/jingoistic card over and over again, remain had no equivalent.
Then there's the influence Murdoch/Dacre, and the Labour leadership issue.
As others have said, fear of the unknown works well with people in general (including Brits). However, if we are honest, it was all remain had. They did list the positives over and over again, but it was never going to chime with enough people after a long slow recovery from a deep recession. Bad timing.
4
In reply to Postmanpat:
They certainly had plenty of experts predicting it, but what's that compared to the lure of taking your country back? As it stands it may well take the country back - several decades!
> So the brexiters already believed that leaving brexit would collapse the economy?
They certainly had plenty of experts predicting it, but what's that compared to the lure of taking your country back? As it stands it may well take the country back - several decades!
3
In reply to lummox:
No,my point was that they were about ramping up existing fears which means that they were playing to a willing audience. Quite clearly a lot of people understandbly resented even that.
I accept that it's a subtle and unprovable distinction.
> you said that the examples I used weren't about instilling new fears in voters. They clearly were.
No,my point was that they were about ramping up existing fears which means that they were playing to a willing audience. Quite clearly a lot of people understandbly resented even that.
I accept that it's a subtle and unprovable distinction.
In reply to wercat:
That is what he does but then he complains when he is given the same treatment back. He is a well trained Torybotapparachnik.
> Stop insulting us
That is what he does but then he complains when he is given the same treatment back. He is a well trained Torybotapparachnik.
5
In reply to GrahamD:
They didn't sit down and dub it project fear but they decided that their best way forward was to focus on the economy and the best way to get their point across on that was to focus on the negatives of leaving. To be fair it's seems to be the standard advice of political campaign strategists.
Anyway, if you don't believe me, listen to Nicola!
"In a lunchtime speech to industry group Wacl, Sturgeon, who is campaigning for the UK to stay in the EU, outlined why she believed that a positive case should be made for the country’s continued EU membership.
Taking a swipe at the Remain effort, which is led by PM David Cameron, Sturgeon claimed: "Miserable and negative fear-based campaigning isn’t very effective."
She pointed to the way the unionist vote fell away during the 2014 Scottish independence campaign, claiming those on the ‘No’ side "squandered a 20-plus point lead in the opinion polls" because of their negative focus.
The EU referendum, she said, offered the opportunity to leave a "positive legacy of democratic engagement" in a similar way to the ‘Yes’ push in Scotland.
"Let’s make it a positive campaign that seeks to inspire people to stay," she urged."
> So all that rather shows that there wasn't a coordinated 'project fear'. In retrospect it was always going to be easier to sell "cake tomorrow" rather than "actually we are doing allright here, Europe is the most integrated it has been in history, lets carry on with what we are doing"
They didn't sit down and dub it project fear but they decided that their best way forward was to focus on the economy and the best way to get their point across on that was to focus on the negatives of leaving. To be fair it's seems to be the standard advice of political campaign strategists.
Anyway, if you don't believe me, listen to Nicola!
"In a lunchtime speech to industry group Wacl, Sturgeon, who is campaigning for the UK to stay in the EU, outlined why she believed that a positive case should be made for the country’s continued EU membership.
Taking a swipe at the Remain effort, which is led by PM David Cameron, Sturgeon claimed: "Miserable and negative fear-based campaigning isn’t very effective."
She pointed to the way the unionist vote fell away during the 2014 Scottish independence campaign, claiming those on the ‘No’ side "squandered a 20-plus point lead in the opinion polls" because of their negative focus.
The EU referendum, she said, offered the opportunity to leave a "positive legacy of democratic engagement" in a similar way to the ‘Yes’ push in Scotland.
"Let’s make it a positive campaign that seeks to inspire people to stay," she urged."
2
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Lol, where have you been all my life? Boff! Get back in yer gopher hole....
> That is what he does but then he complains when he is given the same treatment back. He is a well trained Torybotapparachnik.
Lol, where have you been all my life? Boff! Get back in yer gopher hole....
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Well done for reinforcing my point. You are actually Jens from 8a.nu and I claim my £5.
As I can't reply twice to the same post I have to edit.
Your comebacks are becoming less clever these days, have your daily briefings become less detailed?
Well done for reinforcing my point. You are actually Jens from 8a.nu and I claim my £5.
As I can't reply twice to the same post I have to edit.
Your comebacks are becoming less clever these days, have your daily briefings become less detailed?
Post edited at 15:45
1
1
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Boff, boff....(who the hell he? ed)
> Well done for reinforcing my point. You are actually Jens from 8a.nu and I claim my £5.
Boff, boff....(who the hell he? ed)
1
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Well, I could never say the same for you
> As I can't reply twice to the same post I have to edit.
> Your comebacks are becoming less clever these days, >
Well, I could never say the same for you
3
In reply to Postmanpat:
I think you are indulging in a bit of your own jingoism here. Leave's Project 'Project Fear' was very effective in neutralising what was always going to be Remains best campaign strategy. I don't buy this 'British bulldog doesn't react well to being threatened' style, I'm surprised you're going in for it. Remain's campaign didn't backfire, it just couldn't compete with what Leave had going for it (see my post above).
> Secondly it concentrated on telling people that they didn't understand and should be fearful: the British tend not to react well to that.
I think you are indulging in a bit of your own jingoism here. Leave's Project 'Project Fear' was very effective in neutralising what was always going to be Remains best campaign strategy. I don't buy this 'British bulldog doesn't react well to being threatened' style, I'm surprised you're going in for it. Remain's campaign didn't backfire, it just couldn't compete with what Leave had going for it (see my post above).
Post edited at 15:49
4
1
1
1
In reply to Mike Stretford:
It wasn't so much "British bulldog" as "cussed miserable and cantankerous", as opposed to eg. Americans who tend to be more upbeat and like a sunny Reaganite message. Well, they did until this time around!
I accept that the positive spin is always hard, but remainers on UKC seem full of concerns about what we are about to lose. I dont really see why the campaign could have demonstrated this these were the things that EU has given us. The problem being,as I suggested, that for the "left behind" there isn't a lot.
> I think you are indulging in a bit of your own jingoism here. Leave's Project 'Project Fear' was very effective in neutralising what was always going to be Remains best campaign strategy. I don't buy this 'British bulldog doesn't react well to being threatened' style, I'm surprised you're going in for it. Remain's campaign didn't backfire, it just couldn't compete with what Leave had going for it (see my post above).
It wasn't so much "British bulldog" as "cussed miserable and cantankerous", as opposed to eg. Americans who tend to be more upbeat and like a sunny Reaganite message. Well, they did until this time around!
I accept that the positive spin is always hard, but remainers on UKC seem full of concerns about what we are about to lose. I dont really see why the campaign could have demonstrated this these were the things that EU has given us. The problem being,as I suggested, that for the "left behind" there isn't a lot.
1
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
I don't think it's just the 'left behind', though I agree many would think they had nothing to lose. Leave campaigners would dismiss the positives as not being under threat, that we would continue to have these things. They successfully turned 'listing the positives' into part of 'Project Fear'.
> I accept that the positive spin is always hard, but remainers on UKC seem full of concerns about what we are about to lose. I dont really see why the campaign could have demonstrated this these were the things that EU has given us. The problem being,as I suggested, that for the "left behind" there isn't a lot.
I don't think it's just the 'left behind', though I agree many would think they had nothing to lose. Leave campaigners would dismiss the positives as not being under threat, that we would continue to have these things. They successfully turned 'listing the positives' into part of 'Project Fear'.
Post edited at 16:38
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
Not sure how clear it is. Whilst there are plenty who voted remain there was a large number of the media barons, hedge fund types etc who funded the out campaigns.
Well she has been actively stoking the fears for several years so I am guessing she is aware. Shame the action taken has mostly been just to stoke rather than solve.
I could learn to sing as well. In theory
Both are equally unlikely. The UK governments have had plenty of opportunity to try and boost the abandoned parts of the UK. They havent instead preferring to focus on the SE. Although that exaggerates it since plenty of there is ignored as well.
I am not so sure. What it would require though is treating globalisation and free trade with the same atittude as many other countries eg play lip service but be flexible on application.
> I thought it was generally understood that the most of the elite voted "remain"?
Not sure how clear it is. Whilst there are plenty who voted remain there was a large number of the media barons, hedge fund types etc who funded the out campaigns.
> So, on the basis that Theresa May is very aware of this issue, it doesn't seem unreasonable to surmise that she is trying to assuage some of their fears by listening to them and by taking some action accordingly.
Well she has been actively stoking the fears for several years so I am guessing she is aware. Shame the action taken has mostly been just to stoke rather than solve.
> So, the bigger problem is that it unlikely she can win them over. I don't think that this is because they were dependent on EU handouts. That money could be replaced by UK funding.
I could learn to sing as well. In theory
Both are equally unlikely. The UK governments have had plenty of opportunity to try and boost the abandoned parts of the UK. They havent instead preferring to focus on the SE. Although that exaggerates it since plenty of there is ignored as well.
> It is because the factors that that are restricting their life chances are too big for any government to resist inside or outside of the EU.
I am not so sure. What it would require though is treating globalisation and free trade with the same atittude as many other countries eg play lip service but be flexible on application.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
I use the same vague terms as is often used to attack anyone questioning Brexit. Which seems to mostly mean anyone in decision making or positions of influence. Its a bit like career politician which somehow gets redefined not to include Farage.
> No, but including the top 10% isn't just defining elite as ""fairly well off" or better than average". I'm not saying you are wrong, simply that depending on the context the term can be used differently. There is no fixed definition, and I think in the terms being used by Kevin
I use the same vague terms as is often used to attack anyone questioning Brexit. Which seems to mostly mean anyone in decision making or positions of influence. Its a bit like career politician which somehow gets redefined not to include Farage.
1
In reply to Andy Hardy:
That's the meaning of 'elite' that I'd use.
I'm educated and a reasonable earner, but I have no power or influence (any more than any other elector), so I certainly don't consider myself 'elite'.
> Elite implies real power and influence and there are a vanishingly small number of people in that position in our population.
That's the meaning of 'elite' that I'd use.
I'm educated and a reasonable earner, but I have no power or influence (any more than any other elector), so I certainly don't consider myself 'elite'.
In reply to captain paranoia:
I'm not particularly educated, and also a reasonable earner. I don't consider myself 'elite' in the slightest either. However I'm acutely conscious that I'm doing a damn sight better than most of the UK population, and to anyone working a zero hours contract in some shitty warehouse I'm a rich bastard who spends his days polishing my arse on a chair.
I voted remain, but with no great belief in the European project and purely from self interest. My savings and pension plans are going to take a hammering, and I'm not naive enough to think that brexit isn't a golden opportunity for the real elite to hoover up even more wealth. In the short term we're f***ed, although in maybe 30 years time leaving the EU might in hindsight have been a good move.
However those less fortunate than me have don't have savings, or careers or half decent pensions, and remaining in the EU wouldn't have changed that. They voted for what they saw as the only possible option. To be frank, being lectured to and derided by people who were doing very nicely out of the EU and on five times their income only strengthened their resolve to vote leave.
Where we go from here is the big question.
> That's the meaning of 'elite' that I'd use.
> I'm educated and a reasonable earner, but I have no power or influence (any more than any other elector), so I certainly don't consider myself 'elite'.
I'm not particularly educated, and also a reasonable earner. I don't consider myself 'elite' in the slightest either. However I'm acutely conscious that I'm doing a damn sight better than most of the UK population, and to anyone working a zero hours contract in some shitty warehouse I'm a rich bastard who spends his days polishing my arse on a chair.
I voted remain, but with no great belief in the European project and purely from self interest. My savings and pension plans are going to take a hammering, and I'm not naive enough to think that brexit isn't a golden opportunity for the real elite to hoover up even more wealth. In the short term we're f***ed, although in maybe 30 years time leaving the EU might in hindsight have been a good move.
However those less fortunate than me have don't have savings, or careers or half decent pensions, and remaining in the EU wouldn't have changed that. They voted for what they saw as the only possible option. To be frank, being lectured to and derided by people who were doing very nicely out of the EU and on five times their income only strengthened their resolve to vote leave.
Where we go from here is the big question.
5
In reply to Ridge:
Debatable. The EU is far from perfect but does include some attempts to protect the worse off. Either via direct investment or some workers rights protection. It was often the UK who watered down both of these so voting out in response is somewhat odd.
The flip side is that they were being told by people on five plus times their income about how things would be better and why the EU was to blame for their ills.
> However those less fortunate than me have don't have savings, or careers or half decent pensions, and remaining in the EU wouldn't have changed that.
Debatable. The EU is far from perfect but does include some attempts to protect the worse off. Either via direct investment or some workers rights protection. It was often the UK who watered down both of these so voting out in response is somewhat odd.
> They voted for what they saw as the only possible option. To be frank, being lectured to and derided by people who were doing very nicely out of the EU and on five times their income only strengthened their resolve to vote leave.
The flip side is that they were being told by people on five plus times their income about how things would be better and why the EU was to blame for their ills.
3
In reply to Ridge:
I can see why people might think that way, but when the collapsed pound starts to translate into supermarket prices, and then later again when the stumbling economy starts to translate into cuts to health and welfare, I worry that a lot of people are going to find out that they had a lot more to lose than they thought.
> However those less fortunate than me have don't have savings, or careers or half decent pensions, and remaining in the EU wouldn't have changed that. They voted for what they saw as the only possible option. To be frank, being lectured to and derided by people who were doing very nicely out of the EU and on five times their income only strengthened their resolve to vote leave.
I can see why people might think that way, but when the collapsed pound starts to translate into supermarket prices, and then later again when the stumbling economy starts to translate into cuts to health and welfare, I worry that a lot of people are going to find out that they had a lot more to lose than they thought.
4
In reply to KevinD:
Good point, however the watered down protection seems marginal at best, and the EU was useful for blaming things on, (bit like Health & Safety). Out of the EU means the government lose their excuse that 'it's the EUs fault' and will be expected to deliver. They won't deliver of course, but they won't be able to blame it on the EU.
True, but the brexit message was that their views were important, not that they were thick bigots who shouldn't be allowed to vote.
> Debatable. The EU is far from perfect but does include some attempts to protect the worse off. Either via direct investment or some workers rights protection. It was often the UK who watered down both of these so voting out in response is somewhat odd.
Good point, however the watered down protection seems marginal at best, and the EU was useful for blaming things on, (bit like Health & Safety). Out of the EU means the government lose their excuse that 'it's the EUs fault' and will be expected to deliver. They won't deliver of course, but they won't be able to blame it on the EU.
> The flip side is that they were being told by people on five plus times their income about how things would be better and why the EU was to blame for their ills.
True, but the brexit message was that their views were important, not that they were thick bigots who shouldn't be allowed to vote.
In reply to Ramblin dave:
I agree.
> I can see why people might think that way, but when the collapsed pound starts to translate into supermarket prices, and then later again when the stumbling economy starts to translate into cuts to health and welfare, I worry that a lot of people are going to find out that they had a lot more to lose than they thought.
I agree.
In reply to Ridge:
well, yes but that the UK has a big part to play in that. So hoping things will get better is optimistic shall we say.
You want to bet?
Although a lot of their message did seem to treat them like idiots. Which might be, when they fell for it, some called them thick. I am really not sure of how many remainers were calling them thick bigots as well. There were certainly some but a lot seemed to be noise thrown around by the exit elites.
> Good point, however the watered down protection seems marginal at best,
well, yes but that the UK has a big part to play in that. So hoping things will get better is optimistic shall we say.
> They won't deliver of course, but they won't be able to blame it on the EU.
You want to bet?
> True, but the brexit message was that their views were important, not that they were thick bigots who shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Although a lot of their message did seem to treat them like idiots. Which might be, when they fell for it, some called them thick. I am really not sure of how many remainers were calling them thick bigots as well. There were certainly some but a lot seemed to be noise thrown around by the exit elites.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Yes, I was wrong - but not through confusing it with the current company. I just hadn't realized it had already gone.
or just as likely my memory let me down
Yes, I was wrong - but not through confusing it with the current company. I just hadn't realized it had already gone.
or just as likely my memory let me down
Post edited at 08:43
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...