Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Sharpe's Fox]

17 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

If it brings a bit of common sense back to British politics I'm all for it.

 

 

 

“Common sense” my dudes

[fuchsntf]

On Saturday, January 06, 2018 at 19:55, toddybad said:

"But if we didn't have to pay the debt interest we could give the rich a tax cut"

I dont think UK has debts, the non paying tax companies, and the super rich, are just looking after,

 

All that lovellllly  money..!!!

I have laboured, more than I have conserved....liberally speaking !! 

I feel quite Green, when trying to help Float this great sinking

 Island, and get UKIPS when I cant swallow correctly.

 

 

 

[Buce]

Toby Young resigns. 

[Bellend Sebastian]

16 minutes ago, Buce said:

Toby Young resigns. 

When the dust settles I think he'll be able to sit back and feel pride at a job well done

[Guest MattP]

40 minutes ago, Buce said:

Toby Young resigns. 

Great shame, another one hounded out because of what he said rather than what he did, did more for the poorest students than most MP's will do in a lifetime. Watching someone who built a school he would be happy to see his own kids sent to harangued by politicians who send their own kids to posh private schools was hard to bare for me at times.

 

What a decent piece in the Spectator about him this week - https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/announcing-a-change-to-toby-youngs-spectator-column/

Quote

Quote

 

A few years ago, we had a bit of a problem with Toby Young’s column – one that never quite went away. He started writing for us regularly shortly after he’d written a book called How to Lose Friends and Alienate People about his complete failure to make it big in New York. His column was called Status Anxiety and the idea was to showcase his self-deprecating humour, while exposing the pieties of those who take themselves and high society too seriously. From the offset, readers loved it.

But in the last few years, Toby’s life has taken a different turn. He dedicated himself to setting up new schools for disadvantaged children, schools that he’d be happy sending his own kids to. He set up the West London Free School and co-founded three others, schools big enough to help 2,000 pupils. And this was no bourgeois bubble: a fifth of the pupils would qualify for free school meals.

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––

 

 

Toby had found a new direction for his energies. His column all of a sudden started being about the nature of poverty and the shape of opportunity, educational theories and the challenges that confront those who want to change the system. There came a point, about five

years ago, when each of his columns was about education in Kenya, where he had gone on some schools enterprise. I sent him a polite email asking if he’d lay off education a bit and lighten up in general.

It wasn’t that Toby’s column went off the boil – it was always fascinating, original, refreshing and funny. But it wasn’t quite consistent with the original “Status Anxiety” billing. In fact, those words seemed to be written for another character. Toby had once been a boulevardier, and his book about failed social climbing was such a success that it was made into a Hollywood film featuring Gillian Anderson, Megan Fox and Jeff Bridges. Anyone else might have dined out on that for ages – perhaps for evermore – but in all the years I’ve known Toby, he has never mentioned the book or the film to me. Education? He never shuts up about it. He’s the same guy: he’s not pious nor aggrandising, he likes a laugh, he still sends himself up. But the Toby Young that I’ve known is motivated by a desire to change the system, which you can do with enough grit and bloody-mindedness. He doesn’t mind a fight (indeed, he’s sometimes a bit too keen on them), he doesn’t mind being mocked, nor hated. He doesn’t mind being a bete noir for the left, especially when he knows his critics will rise to the bait. Every time.

Most people try to show the best parts of their character and conceal the rougher edges. With Toby, oddly, it’s the other way around. He does’t mind being seen as a rogue, and doesn’t talk much about (for example) how he has been patron of the residential care home that his brother (who has learning disabilities) has lived in for 20 years. I’m afraid he’s one of these people with enough energy, talent and flair to make a success of whatever he turns his mind to. And he has dedicated himself to creating opportunities for kids who badly need them.

When I reviewed the papers on the Andrew Marr show this morning, Polly Toynbee claimed that he just set up the school so his own kids could go there. If he had done, I thought, wouldn’t that have been amazing? What if every wealthy parent unable to find a decent state school in their neighbourhood had done the same? What if Diane Abbott had done so in Hackney, instead of sending her son private? What if David Cameron had used his connections to do so, instead of sending his son to St Paul’s when he was out of No10? But to set up a school, to create choice in education, is simply a massive undertaking – meaning a year (or five) of battles and a high risk of failure. It takes a certain type of person to have the stamina for that fight.

That’s why Toby Young is such a good choice to be one of the 15 non-executive members on the board on the Office for Students: if the government is interested in change, in new providers entering the system, they’ll face all kinds of opposition from vested interests resistant to change. And if you want to know how to overcome this, in the interests of the students, then Toby Young is your man.

When I picked up the newspapers today, and yesterday, I just did not recognise the Toby Young they were hyperventilating about. Someone who (according to one profile) only cares about himself. If so, why would he go to so much trouble for hundreds of children from families that he doesn’t know? Why would he be running the New Schools Network, a charity, and give up better-paid, easier work to make time for it?.

Don’t get me wrong: those tweets of Toby’s were pretty awful. Here is a guy who has made enough mistakes (and off-colour jokes) to fill a book, and inspire a film – so he always going to have a hideous hostages to fortune in a cache of 40,000 tweets dating back several years. In the digital era, throwaway remarks last forever if they’re posted on social medial.

The efforts to blacken Toby’s name have been quite remarkable, enabled by our new digital age. This Twitterstorm has sucked Fleet St into the maelstrom. One newspaper “revealed” a Spectator article of Toby’s published in 2001; someone else dredged up a 1987 essay. At one stage, the top ten articles in our online archive (going back to 1828) were all Toby Young’s, as his army of detractors were hard at work. He’ll have written millions of words, often playing the provocateur. Put together the most damning 250 and you’l have some pretty potent ammo. But that’s no way to get the measure of anyone.

People should be judged by what they do with their lives, not by the worst of their bad jokes. And it might drive Toby’s critics mad, but he has done more for others in the last few years than most of his critics will do in a lifetime.

The words “Status Anxiety” have, to be honest, not quite fitted Toby’s column for some time now: he’s not anxious about his status. If he was so worried about what people thought about him, he’d have pursued a different path. Another phrase – No Sacred Cows – better sums up his approach to social reform, and life in general. His column will be renamed as of next week.

 

---

[Guest MattP]

Does he know something that we don't? Has Barnier told him that this is impossible? the impression I get is we could stay in it still if we were prepared to abide by the four pillars.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/08/jeremy-corbyn-eu-single-market-after-brexit

 

Quote

 

Jeremy Corbyn has insisted the UK cannot be a member of the single market after Brexit, disappointing some of his pro-European Union MPs.

The Labour leader told colleagues that it was not possible to stay in the single market, as he set out his Brexit policy to the parliamentary party on Monday night.

Some within Labour have been increasing calls for Corbyn to listen to the party’s pro-EU membership and commit to staying in the trading bloc.

But Corbyn stressed that this was not an option, as he addressed the reasons why he would not attend a single market summit convened by the Scottish National party’s Westminster leader Ian Blackford.

A senior Labour source said: “The single market is not a membership club that can be joined so we seek through negotiation to retain the benefits of the single market.

“As he said in his letter back to Ian Blackford, the summit rests on the falsehood that the single market is a membership organisation which you can join, which it is not. Our approach for a jobs-first Brexit, which involves retaining the benefits of the single market, is through negotiation with the EU.”

His comments prompted frustration from some pro-EU MPs in the meeting, who believed that Corbyn had been persuaded to keep the door open to staying in the single market for longer than the transitional period after Brexit.

One Labour MP said: “The key thing is about keeping all the options on the table when it comes to the single market and customs union. It is clear from recent polling that an overwhelming majority of Labour members, supporters and voters believe this.”

 

 

[Bellend Sebastian]

The best thing Toby Young has done is still the article he did about his friends not going to his stag do

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/the-day-i-stopped-believing-in-the-friendship-myth/

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Does he know something that we don't? Has Barnier told him that this is impossible? the impression I get is we could stay in it still if we were prepared to abide by the four pillars.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/08/jeremy-corbyn-eu-single-market-after-brexit

 

 

 

I've just learned something. I thought that Norway, Iceland & Liechtenstein were in the Single Market, but not so, apparently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Single_Market#Integration_of_non-EU_states

 

However, it clearly IS an option to negotiate an agreement on similar terms, short of full Single Market membership (the Wiki link lists the exclusions affecting the aforementioned EEA countries).

I gather that there's doubt about whether the EEA would allow us to join as we'd unbalance the organisation, as a much larger economy than the others. Obviously, any of these agreements would be anathema to Tory Hard Brexiteers, but that's another issue.

 

Some other reasons for Corbyn's comments:

1) Pure party politics: He wouldn't want to be joining an initiative apparently set up by the SNP, when they are key rivals from whom Labour hope to take a lot of seats.

2) Temporary tactics: The Labour leadership will be aware that there has yet to be any major shift in public opinion away from Brexit, so may want to avoid alienating Brexiteer Labour voters by seeming too keen on the Single Market.

3) Left-wing economic policy: The Left is hostile to the restrictions on national govt policy under EMU/Single Market. The second Blair govt would have been in breach of EMU rules requiring the deficit to be less than 3% of GDP, never mind the sort of deficit that Corbyn might want to run (temporarily!) to fund investment - though other major EU countries are still in breach of that rule and have somehow avoided the draconian fines imposed for non-compliance, never mind the hard-line action faced by Greece. Likewise, they'd have concerns over restrictions on nationalisation and govt support for national industries (though other EU members find ways around that).

 

I imagine that the Labour leadership's favoured option would be outside the EU/Single Market, but with a close relationship - retaining good single market access and most regulatory protection but with more economic freedom for the national govt. Alternatively, I'm sure they'd be happy to remain in the EU but with greater economic freedom for national govt, but the EU would probably reject that idea. They'd be less happy with simply carrying on as now, as full EU members with all the restrictions that entails - even if their more centrist MPs would be content with that.  

Edited 9 January 2018 by Alf Bentley

[Guest MattP]

50 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

I've just learned something. I thought that Norway, Iceland & Liechtenstein were in the Single Market, but not so, apparently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Single_Market#Integration_of_non-EU_states

 

However, it clearly IS an option to negotiate an agreement on similar terms, short of full Single Market membership (the Wiki link lists the exclusions affecting the aforementioned EEA countries).

I gather that there's doubt about whether the EEA would allow us to join as we'd unbalance the organisation, as a much larger economy than the others. Obviously, any of these agreements would be anathema to Tory Hard Brexiteers, but that's another issue.

 

Some other reasons for Corbyn's comments:

1) Pure party politics: He wouldn't want to be joining an initiative apparently set up by the SNP, when they are key rivals from whom Labour hope to take a lot of seats.

2) Temporary tactics: The Labour leadership will be aware that there has yet to be any major shift in public opinion away from Brexit, so may want to avoid alienating Brexiteer Labour voters by seeming too keen on the Single Market.

3) Left-wing economic policy: The Left is hostile to the restrictions on national govt policy under EMU/Single Market. The second Blair govt would have been in breach of EMU rules requiring the deficit to be less than 3% of GDP, never mind the sort of deficit that Corbyn might want to run (temporarily!) to fund investment - though other major EU countries are still in breach of that rule and have somehow avoided the draconian fines imposed for non-compliance, never mind the hard-line action faced by Greece. Likewise, they'd have concerns over restrictions on nationalisation and govt support for national industries (though other EU members find ways around that).

 

I imagine that the Labour leadership's favoured option would be outside the EU/Single Market, but with a close relationship - retaining good single market access and most regulatory protection but with more economic freedom for the national govt. Alternatively, I'm sure they'd be happy to remain in the EU but with greater economic freedom for national govt, but the EU would probably reject that idea. They'd be less happy with simply carrying on as now, as full EU members with all the restrictions that entails - even if their more centrist MPs would be content with that.  

Happy New Year Alf, hope you have a good 2018, you certainly deserve one.

 

Me too (No I've not been touched by Harvey Weinstein, but I learnt that about those countries as well), I'm sure I've heard so many politicians in the debate over the last 18 months claim that those countries are in the single market, they certainly can't be considered to be full members of it.

 

I think the reasons are a combination of all three you have mentioned, the third is certainly the reason for him and McDonnell personally and I'd imagine he's been happy to obfuscate on the position before this just to keep his MP's and voting core outside the north happy, if this is true from the PLP meeting that I think he's finally being pushed into a position by those people in the party, it's going to be a hard position to balance as I'd hazard a guess 85%+ of them would vote to keep Labour in the single market in a free vote.

 

I think this year could be a little bit more interesting than people think, I have no doubt Corbyn is a committed Eurosceptic (his voting record backs this up more than even guys like Farage) and despite the talk of his position being solid I still think this could end up seeing him face another leadership challenge with the whole contest based on whether the Labour membership want a leader who backs staying in the single market or one who doesn't, even with his huge fanbase I think he could lose that given just how pro-EU the Labour party membership is, people forget even a hopeless nobody like Owen Smith still got 39% of the vote against him. Politics is often brutal and even those who have done good things can be discarded.

 

From a selfish point of view, assuming we don't have another election until 2022 I'd be happy for Labour to continue to ride high in the polls and do well in the local elections if it meant keeping him there until we have left the European Union.

[Alf Bentley]

12 minutes ago, MattP said:

Happy New Year Alf, hope you have a good 2018, you certainly deserve one.

 

Me too (No I've not been touched by Harvey Weinstein, but I learnt that about those countries as well), I'm sure I've heard so many politicians in the debate over the last 18 months claim that those countries are in the single market, they certainly can't be considered to be full members of it.

 

I think the reasons are a combination of all three you have mentioned, the third is certainly the reason for him and McDonnell personally and I'd imagine he's been happy to obfuscate on the position before this just to keep his MP's and voting core outside the north happy, if this is true from the PLP meeting that I think he's finally being pushed into a position by those people in the party, it's going to be a hard position to balance as I'd hazard a guess 85%+ of them would vote to keep Labour in the single market in a free vote.

 

I think this year could be a little bit more interesting than people think, I have no doubt Corbyn is a committed Eurosceptic (his voting record backs this up more than even guys like Farage) and despite the talk of his position being solid I still think this could end up seeing him face another leadership challenge with the whole contest based on whether the Labour membership want a leader who backs staying in the single market or one who doesn't, even with his huge fanbase I think he could lose that given just how pro-EU the Labour party membership is, people forget even a hopeless nobody like Owen Smith still got 39% of the vote against him. Politics is often brutal and even those who have done good things can be discarded.

 

From a selfish point of view, assuming we don't have another election until 2022 I'd be happy for Labour to continue to ride high in the polls and do well in the local elections if it meant keeping him there until we have left the European Union.

 

Thanks for your good wishes, Matt. Likewise, I wish you personal contentment and prosperity in 2018 (together with political disappointment, of course! ).

 

The Labour civil war you depict could happen, but maybe only if there is a big shift in public opinion against Brexit or against leaving the Single Market? If that happens, I suspect that it may only happen very late on. I think it would be stupid politics for Labour centrists to try to force Corbyn towards a "stay in the single market" stance now. What exactly would they want him to do? He's not in power so cannot influence decisions, except through votes on parliamentary legislation. Do they want him to lead a public campaign to convince voters that we need to stay in the Single Market? Would many voters listen to that? Most are just getting on with their lives and waiting to see what Brexit negotiations deliver, surely? I can only see such a campaign achieving anything if Brexit starts to have a major, obvious impact on people's lives (serious job losses etc.) and/or if it becomes clear we're only going to be offered a deeply damaging deal.

 

From a Labour perspective, I hope that the centrists keep their voices down, at least unless there is such a shift in public opinion. If such a shift does occur, I'd hope that Corbyn & co would compromise and not adopt some anti-single market stance.

He could easily shift to supporting a second referendum on the negotiated deal and to the UK remaining "in or close to" the single market/customs union - with Remain as an option if the shift in opinion was truly dramatic or if a referendum rejected the negotiated deal? He knows that most of his MPs, most of his party members and a majority of his voters support Remain, never mind the single market....would he really risk losing the potential opportunity to lead a left-wing Labour govt by taking a rigid anti-single market stance opposed by his MPs, members and voters? Although he has Eurosceptic tendencies, I think you might be over-estimating their importance vis-a-vis the chance to implement left-wing policies (even if he didn't expect to ever have that chance originally).

 

One or other wing of the Labour Party would have to act really stupidly to cause a Labour civil war (though I certainly wouldn't rule that out! ). The odds on a Tory civil war look much shorter to me, as I cannot see us being offered a "have cake and eat it" deal....so the Tories will have to decide whether they want a Hard Brexit or a Soft Brexit, an existential issue for many Tories on both sides. Gove's implication that the Tories could accept a Soft Brexit deal in the short-term and then seek to make it Harder over coming years might be their means of avoiding a civil war. We could still be discussing Hard and Soft Brexit when we're in our care homes, if we last that long!    

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

41 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

Me too (No I've not been touched by Harvey Weinstein,

 

 

I appreciate that this was just an aside and that I'm creating a diversion, but....

 

Am I the only one who's made a bit queasy by all this suddenly loud Hollywood commitment against sexual harassment? It's a good thing in itself, of course, provided that it is maintained and that it doesn't go too far.

But, as with Savile, I find myself wondering why nobody raised the issue much earlier, given the apparent scale of the problem and the serious offences committed.

 

As with Savile, I can appreciate why many women (and men) said nothing, because they felt powerless against powerful men, feared for their nascent careers or simply lacked the personal bravery required.

But how come NOBODY stuck their heads above the parapet until very recently? Some of the women (and men) who were victims or witnesses were mature people with successful careers who had power, wealth and influence in their own right.

 

Maybe it's just a comment on the timidity of humanity, similarly to how only a minority opposed the Nazis in power or supported the French Resistance in the early years?

A depressing thought, if so. I'd like to think a larger minority would be capable of standing up to power....

[David Guiza]

As you have said this instance is similar to Savile, many women perhaps felt as though he was untouchable. Most of these actors were probably in a conundrum between doing the right thing and not having an income or bottling their emotion and not becoming Hollywood outcasts, such was the power of the man it seems. Hollywood is a cut throat business, there are hundreds of talented actors whom are ignored because their face doesn't fit. Plus, when it is just one person they can often be laughed off in the way that Amber Heard was by some following her allegations against Johnny Depp. 

 

You could make the same argument for the countless number of women whom have been assaulted in some shape or form by their employer/senior authority. If it's a decision between having a job and security and not, then doing the right thing isn't always that straight forward.

 

Besides, this is all overshadowing the greatest moment of the awards ceremony which was undoubtedly the greatest actor of all time showing his face -Tommy Wiseau. 

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, David Guiza said:

As you have said this instance is similar to Savile, many women perhaps felt as though he was untouchable. Most of these actors were probably in a conundrum between doing the right thing and not having an income or bottling their emotion and not becoming Hollywood outcasts, such was the power of the man it seems. Hollywood is a cut throat business, there are hundreds of talented actors whom are ignored because their face doesn't fit. Plus, when it is just one person they can often be laughed off in the way that Amber Heard was by some following her allegations against Johnny Depp. 

 

You could make the same argument for the countless number of women whom have been assaulted in some shape or form by their employer/senior authority. If it's a decision between having a job and security and not, then doing the right thing isn't always that straight forward.

 

Besides, this is all overshadowing the greatest moment of the awards ceremony which was undoubtedly the greatest actor of all time showing his face -Tommy Wiseau. 

I wonder if any were willing participants that thought it would further their careers though and are now on the bandwagon for similar reasons. I’m not finger pointing or victim blaming, just speculating.

[Guest MattP]

47 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Thanks for your good wishes, Matt. Likewise, I wish you personal contentment and prosperity in 2018 (together with political disappointment, of course! ).

 

The Labour civil war you depict could happen, but maybe only if there is a big shift in public opinion against Brexit or against leaving the Single Market? If that happens, I suspect that it may only happen very late on. I think it would be stupid politics for Labour centrists to try to force Corbyn towards a "stay in the single market" stance now. What exactly would they want him to do? He's not in power so cannot influence decisions, except through votes on parliamentary legislation. Do they want him to lead a public campaign to convince voters that we need to stay in the Single Market? Would many voters listen to that? Most are just getting on with their lives and waiting to see what Brexit negotiations deliver, surely? I can only see such a campaign achieving anything if Brexit starts to have a major, obvious impact on people's lives (serious job losses etc.) and/or if it becomes clear we're only going to be offered a deeply damaging deal.

 

From a Labour perspective, I hope that the centrists keep their voices down, at least unless there is such a shift in public opinion. If such a shift does occur, I'd hope that Corbyn & co would compromise and not adopt some anti-single market stance.

He could easily shift to supporting a second referendum on the negotiated deal and to the UK remaining "in or close to" the single market/customs union - with Remain as an option if the shift in opinion was truly dramatic or if a referendum rejected the negotiated deal? He knows that most of his MPs, most of his party members and a majority of his voters support Remain, never mind the single market....would he really risk losing the potential opportunity to lead a left-wing Labour govt by taking a rigid anti-single market stance opposed by his MPs, members and voters? Although he has Eurosceptic tendencies, I think you might be over-estimating their importance vis-a-vis the chance to implement left-wing policies (even if he didn't expect to ever have that chance originally).

 

One or other wing of the Labour Party would have to act really stupidly to cause a Labour civil war (though I certainly wouldn't rule that out! ). The odds on a Tory civil war look much shorter to me, as I cannot see us being offered a "have cake and eat it" deal....so the Tories will have to decide whether they want a Hard Brexit or a Soft Brexit, an existential issue for many Tories on both sides. Gove's implication that the Tories could accept a Soft Brexit deal in the short-term and then seek to make it Harder over coming years might be their means of avoiding a civil war. We could still be discussing Hard and Soft Brexit when we're in our care homes, if we last that long!    

 

 

 

Civil Wars all round is possible, I still think the Labour "moderates" will give it one last push to regain control of the party, I still don't think the talk of de-selections are a myth, I'm sure they'll happen if they are given the chance.

 

This would be the perfect subject to challenge Corbyn on, it's something they can win on with a good candidate.

 

38 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

I appreciate that this was just an aside and that I'm creating a diversion, but....

 

Am I the only one who's made a bit queasy by all this suddenly loud Hollywood commitment against sexual harassment? It's a good thing in itself, of course, provided that it is maintained and that it doesn't go too far.

But, as with Savile, I find myself wondering why nobody raised the issue much earlier, given the apparent scale of the problem and the serious offences committed.

 

As with Savile, I can appreciate why many women (and men) said nothing, because they felt powerless against powerful men, feared for their nascent careers or simply lacked the personal bravery required.

But how come NOBODY stuck their heads above the parapet until very recently? Some of the women (and men) who were victims or witnesses were mature people with successful careers who had power, wealth and influence in their own right.

 

Maybe it's just a comment on the timidity of humanity, similarly to how only a minority opposed the Nazis in power or supported the French Resistance in the early years?

A depressing thought, if so. I'd like to think a larger minority would be capable of standing up to power....

The whole thing sickens me to be honest, I honestly don't know how they even have the balls to try and now front up to this in front of the World when so many of them knew.

 

People like Oprah Winfrey (you can find ten photos of her enjoying the company of Harvey Weinstein while she knew) and Meryl Streep (led the standing ovation for Roman Polanksi after he had sodomised a 13 year old girl) leading this crusade, it's beyond belief.

 

Melanie Phillips hits the nail on the day in the paper today.

Quote

 

Never mind the movies: the theatricality and demand for applause at the Golden Globe awards in Los Angeles at the weekend took place on the red carpet. Actors wore black outfits to signal their solidarity with victims of the sexual harassment scandals that have consumed Hollywood.

 

It’s hard to recall a more egregious display of vanity signalling than the black dress protest. It was “please snap me while I pose in my conscience”. MeToo! MeToo!

Shortly before the awards there was a crisis. Forget Iran, Syria or North Korea. So many Hollywood consciences needed to be on display that designers and stylists were reported to be running out of black attire and having to rush in more from their fashion bases in New York.

 

One stylist who dresses Mariah Carey told The Hollywood Reporter: “We are all fighting for the same black dresses.” MeToo! MeToo!Oprah Winfrey’s hair stylist said the pressure was “incredibly stressful”. Another said stylists would be having sleepless nights over how to showcase their clients in black garments. “It has to be creative. How can I stand out?”

 

How indeed. You’ll be relieved to know that Angelina Jolie was in feather-trimmed black tulle, Laura Dern was in black Armani and Gal Gadot wore a tuxedo-inspired Tom Ford gown.

Whatever happened to the idea that women shouldn’t be defined by what they wear? According to Eva Longoria, wearing black was “a moment of solidarity, not a fashion statement . . . This time the industry can’t expect us to go up and twirl around.” Oh but they did, Eva, they did; this time, though, it was a meaningful twirl.

 

It didn’t stop, though, at mere attire. Many female actors brought a female activist as a date and chose to be photographed arm-in-arm with other women.

This was solidarity not just against men outed as sex-pests but against all men. Receiving a lifetime achievement award, Oprah Winfrey spoke about “a culture broken by brutally powerful men” whose “time is up”. Now Oprah is being touted as the Democratic presidential candidate for 2020. SheToo!

 

The hypocrisy is epic. Many actors expressing such outrage use sexual chemistry to attract the predatory male movie executives they then profess to despise. They habitually wear outfits that leave little to the imagination, split upwards or downwards or utterly transparent. What’s more, many of the movies and TV series in which they appear, some of them having forgotten to put on any clothes at all, have long crossed the line into soft porn.

 

Among all the exaggerated outrage, however, there have been victims of real, horrific, sexual violence. Yet many of those blustering in black at the Globes knew about this behaviour but kept quiet about it in order not to jeopardise their careers.

When Roman Polanski won the Oscar for best director in 2003, he wasn’t present at the ceremony. He had fled to France after being charged in 1977 with rape, sodomy and other offences against a
13-year-old girl, and had pleaded guilty to engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

 

When his award was announced, however, Meryl Streep, among others, leapt to her feet to give him a standing ovation. No matter: there she was at the Globes displaying her principles and courage by wearing a long black gown instead.

Where is this outrage going to draw a line? The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is in disarray over the fact that, having expelled Harvey Weinstein for his sexual aggression, they face similarly having to ban dozens of A-listers — Kevin Spacey, Dustin Hoffman, Ben Affleck and many more — who have been outed (with some denials) in the Great Casting-Couch Terror.

 

The director Woody Allen has been accused by his adopted daughter Dylan of molesting her. David Krumholtz, who co-starred in Allen’s recent film Wonder Wheel, tweeted a few days ago that he deeply regretted doing so as it was “one of my most heart-breaking mistakes. We can no longer let these men represent us in entertainment, politics, or any other realm. They are beneath real men.”

 

When feminists objected that it was a bit late now to have second thoughts, Krumholtz said he had donated his Wonder Wheel salary to the protesters “without a tweet”. Which he nevertheless told us.

Laura Dern used her acceptance speech for her best supporting actress award to urge: “May we teach our children that speaking out without the fear of retribution is our culture’s new north star.”

 

Yet the causes regularly promoted by such luvvies — climate change, Black Lives Matter, anti-colonialism, anti-Islamophobia, LGBT issues — are being advanced by condign retribution, such as character assassination or social and professional ostracism, against any who dares speak against them.

 

Moreover, Hollywood’s finest don’t don black outfits to protest against men in the developing world who not only abuse but slaughter women, men and children.

Millions of women around the world really do suffer in cultures where male violence towards women is a given; but on those victims, these Hollywood hypocrites are silent.

In cultures they choose to present as victims of western colonialism, they simply ignore the all-too real oppression of women. They profess “solidarity” with oppressed women; but of course, it’s really all about themselves.

 

 

Edited 9 January 2018 by MattP

[David Guiza]

20 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I wonder if any were willing participants that thought it would further their careers though and are now on the bandwagon for similar reasons. I’m not finger pointing or victim blaming, just speculating.

I'd imagine so, yes, but then you could argue that the fact Weinstein or whomever entertained people on that basis is awful. Seems like a really toxic industry on many accounts. 

[Bryn]

The Globes thing screams of self importance. Hopefully the lasting impression of the movement is of the eradication of genuine sexual harassment and abuse, and the complete absence of memory of any of these bandwagon jumpers.

[Strokes]

7 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

I'd imagine so, yes, but then you could argue that the fact Weinstein or whomever entertained people on that basis is awful. Seems like a really toxic industry on many accounts. 

Oh absolutely, I’m definitely not attempting to defend or explain him. Just really thinking on from alfs point above.

[Guest MattP]

9 minutes ago, Bryn said:

The Globes thing screams of self importance. Hopefully the lasting impression of the movement is of the eradication of genuine sexual harassment and abuse, and the complete absence of memory of any of these bandwagon jumpers.

It will end it, in Hollywood. It's just the other few billion women around the rest of the World who'll still suffer from it because no one can be bothered to speak up for them, I'm not even sure most of these actresses realise there is a World outside California.

 

The only positive is it's saved us from 34 Donald Trump or Climate Change lectures for a couple of years everytime someone wins an award for acting.

Edited 9 January 2018 by MattP

[Alf Bentley]

42 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

As you have said this instance is similar to Savile, many women perhaps felt as though he was untouchable. Most of these actors were probably in a conundrum between doing the right thing and not having an income or bottling their emotion and not becoming Hollywood outcasts, such was the power of the man it seems. Hollywood is a cut throat business, there are hundreds of talented actors whom are ignored because their face doesn't fit. Plus, when it is just one person they can often be laughed off in the way that Amber Heard was by some following her allegations against Johnny Depp. 

 

You could make the same argument for the countless number of women whom have been assaulted in some shape or form by their employer/senior authority. If it's a decision between having a job and security and not, then doing the right thing isn't always that straight forward.

 

Besides, this is all overshadowing the greatest moment of the awards ceremony which was undoubtedly the greatest actor of all time showing his face -Tommy Wiseau. 

 

I absolutely take your point that there were many reasons why many women (and men - not forgetting the likes of Spacey) felt unable to say anything.

I also take your point that countless women (and some men) in much less glamorous jobs have been abused by employers/authority. I'd say there's more reason to understand why more of them say nothing, when most have little or no power and are more likely to be on their uppers if they lose their job.

 

It's the fact that almost none of these people (witnesses, as well as victims) spoke up before - and are so full of loud, self-righteous solidarity now. I can understand why even a majority would not speak up....but almost none? When some of them are clearly strong, influential, wealthy people? In some cases, the behaviour might have been trivial enough to shrug off (hand on knee after a couple of drinks etc.), but other incidents allegedly involved rape or habitual demands for sexual favours, implicitly in exchange for career advancement - Weinstein didn't just try it on with a couple of actresses he fancied, it seems that he felt able to demand sexual favours routinely, confident in the knowledge that nobody would say anything. That's quite depressing.

[bovril]

40 minutes ago, MattP said:

Melanie Phillips hits the nail on the day in the paper today.

 

As often with articles like that there are a lot of good points buried under a mountain of cliches that obviously have more to do with her personal crusade than the actual matter of sexual abuse. I mean she could have pointed out that many of the women whose lives have been destroyed by sexual abuse were not even invited. But she preferred to make a point about 'speaking out for fear of retribution' and seems to suggest that speaking out against sexual abuse is somehow equivalent to speaking out against, for example, anti-colonialism. Not quite sure I know what she means by that, not sure she does either.

 

I was more interested to hear about the anger from the women who were raped. In all the articles from Phillips et al about the hypocrisy of luvvy liberals etc, it seems their voice is still being ignored.

http://www.thisisinsider.com/golden-globes-2018-rose-mcgowan-slams-stars-who-wore-black-2018-1

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, bovril said:

As often with articles like that there are a lot of good points buried under a mountain of cliches that obviously have more to do with her personal crusade than the actual matter of sexual abuse. I mean she could have pointed out that many of the women whose lives have been destroyed by sexual abuse were not even invited. But she preferred to make a point about 'speaking out for fear of retribution' and seems to suggest that speaking out against sexual abuse is somehow equivalent to speaking out against, for example, anti-colonialism. Not quite sure I know what she means by that, not sure she does either.

 

I was more interested to hear about the anger from the women who were raped. In all the articles from Phillips et al about the hypocrisy of luvvy liberals etc, it seems their voice is still being ignored.

http://www.thisisinsider.com/golden-globes-2018-rose-mcgowan-slams-stars-who-wore-black-2018-1

Pretty much this. Not all issues that are addressed in such a way are equal.

 

If Hollywood spent more time talking about climate change (their own significant carbon footprint notwithstanding) something meaningful might actually get done on the topic, for instance. 

[Buce]

 

Here's something that will ruffle a few feathers:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/09/virgin-trains-to-stop-carrying-the-daily-mail

 

[Strokes]

35 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Here's something that will ruffle a few feathers:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/09/virgin-trains-to-stop-carrying-the-daily-mail

 

Mostly champagne socialists travelling first class these days anyway, so they will be just catering for the needs of the clientele. 

They will be sat on their arses paying £100s for rail tickets pitying poor folk and tutting at anyone who has the audacity to pick up anything other than the guardian. All guesswork of course, I don’t travel first class unless I’m bumped up, I’m down with the riff raff.

[Guest]

Brussels accuses David Davis of hypocrisy over EU discrimination claim

Brexit secretary’s leaked letter to Theresa May claims UK business interests damaged by EU’s warnings on no-deal scenario

 

David Davis complained in the letter that EU warnings could jeopardise existing contracts for UK businesses. Photograph: Dominic Lipinski/PA

Daniel Boffey in Brussels

Published:12:57 GMT+00:00 Tue 9 January 2018

 Follow Daniel Boffey

 

David Davis’s claim in a leaked letter to the prime minister that the EU is discriminating against the UK and damaging its economic interests by preparing for a no-deal scenario in March 2019 has been met with flat denials and accusations of hypocrisy in Brussels.

The European commission’s chief spokesman, Margaritis Schinas, expressed surprise at the content of the letter and insisted it was only natural for the bloc to prepare for a situation threatened repeatedly by Downing Street.

It had emerged in a letter obtained by the Financial Times that the government has taken advice on the legality of EU warnings to businesses that Britain would be treated as a “third country” after March 2019.

AdvertisementHide

 

Davis claims in his letter that the EU’s warnings could jeopardise existing contracts or even force British companies to move to the continent.

By treating the UK differently from other member states before it leaves the bloc, Davis suggests the EU had been acting “in a way which is frequently damaging to UK interests”.

He said he would be seeking a withdrawal of warnings to businesses that did not make it clear that there would be a transition period and that the UK was seeking a new trading relationship.

In response, Schinas told reporters in Brussels: “Here in the European commission we are somehow surprised that the UK is surprised that we are preparing for a scenario announced by the UK government itself.

Quick guide

What are Brexit options now? Four scenarios

Show

“After all, it was PM May herself who said in her Lancaster House speech in January 2017 and repeated in her Florence speech in September that, and I quote: ‘No deal is better than a bad deal for Britain. It is right that the government should prepare for every eventuality’.

“We take these words from the prime minister very seriously. It is therefore only natural that in this house we also prepare for every eventuality.”

Asked whether, the commission recognised the allegations of discrimination and would be retracting warnings to businesses, the official added: “No.”

The European parliament’s Brexit coordinator, Guy Verhofstadt, told the Guardian that it was the UK government that was guilty of damaging the UK’s economic interests. He defended the bloc’s right to prepare for the worst-case scenario.

It has been reported that on Tuesday May will appoint a minister for no deal as part of her highly criticised government reshuffle.

Verhofstadt said: “Businesses’ uncertainty has been created, on both sides of the channel, because of the UK government’s decision to check out of the largest single market in the global economy, not because of the EU’s contingency planning.

“From the very beginning both prime minister May and David Davis have repeatedly stated that no deal is better than a bad deal, so everybody must understand that it is only fair that we plan for this threat.”

In his letter, Davis concedes that the advice from government lawyers is that any move to challenge the European commission in the courts would be “high risk” but he adds that the UK “cannot let these actions go unchallenged”.

Zsolt Darvas, a senior fellow at the Bruegel thinktank in Brussels, said he could see no issue with warnings to businesses, but that the UK government could have a case where British companies were not given contracts on EU programmes, such as the €10bn (£8.8bn) satellite programme Galileo, due to the uncertainty.

Last year, it emerged that the European commission was demanding the right to cancel contracts without penalty if a supplier was no longer based in an EU member state, creating potential uncertainty for both British businesses and officials in charge of commissioning.

Darvas, an expert in EU governance and finance, said: “That could be some form of discrimination. But we have to emphasise that this is comparatively a small amount of money. The UK can do the most to prevent discrimination. The UK needs to come forward with details of what sort of transition period it wants.”

[Buce]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

Mostly champagne socialists travelling first class these days anyway, so they will be just catering for the needs of the clientele. 

They will be sat on their arses paying £100s for rail tickets pitying poor folk and tutting at anyone who has the audacity to pick up anything other than the guardian. All guesswork of course, I don’t travel first class unless I’m bumped up, I’m down with the riff raff.

 

No Guardian, mate - just the Mirror, FT & the Times (all Remain supporting papers).