Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[leicsmac]

TBH there's only one person who really knows the true intent of the words in that article - everything else is totally subjective.

 

One thing that it has done is stir up an almighty row. Whether that was intentional for a variety of possible purposes depends, again, on interpretation.

[Voll Blau]

2 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

The people doing the most to ostracise burka wearing women from the rest of society is burka wearing women. The garment is completely alien to Western culture and many millions of people are firmly against it, and not just in Britain. 

(nb, this map also discredits the "but it's racist" narrative)

 

If Boris or indeed any politician or even the average citizen had to sit down and consider the consequences and permutations of every single word they said or wrote, nobody would say anything ever. Basically a point covered better by Rowan Atkinson again:

 

 

As a high profile politician Boris literally has a job to start these debates. His language may be colourful but at least he's more honest than most politicians and had every right and duty to use his own words in his own way. 

 

If anyone is bigoted it's the people focussing on his innocuous choice of words and ignoring the rest of his argument. Grown-up people understand that as soon as they go outside or online or have any contact with the outside world, they might be triggered by something that will upset them. By accepting that and getting over one or two words that may be offensive, you stand a better chance of understanding the other 1000 words in the essay.

 

Either way, Boris has won this round.

 

I'm not disputing the points related to the burka debate you make in general - you seem to be assuming I'm approaching this debate from a narrative that it shouldn't be discussed, which couldn't be further from the truth.

 

"If Boris or indeed any politician or even the average citizen had to sit down and consider the consequences and permutations of every single word they said or wrote, nobody would say anything ever."

 

Quite. But what I'm talking about is an Eton and Oxford-educated former Minister of the Crown and Mayor of London "starting these debates" by legitimising taking cheap shots at people who either can't defend themselves because they're coerced into wearing the burka, or who are already vulnerable to public criticism if they wear it through their own choice. 

 

"Colourful" can bollocks. It's precisely this eccentric character he's created for himself which allows him to get away with doing whatever he thinks will serve his interests best, because people lap this shit up without a thought for the consequences of those he's targeting. Can you seriously imagine any other mainstream politician in the country actually making the remark he has and not facing massive public criticism for it? But it's all sound because he's a mop-haired posho with a penchant for Victorian slang, lmao good old BoJo.

 

The vast majority of us are well aware of how the big wide world works. It doesn't make it any more acceptable for one of the country's most senior politicians to start bandying around shit jokes like that because the odd pub bore agrees with him (even if the opinion he's expressing may not even be honestly-held). It's no way to start a proper debate about a sensitive and important subject and, like I say, any other politician in the country would face massive criticism for doing so.

Edited 10 August 2018 by Voll Blau

[Guest MattP]

6 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

It doesn't make it any more acceptable for one of the country's most senior politicians to start bandying around shit jokes like that because the odd pub bore agrees with him (even if the opinion he's expressing may not even be honestly-held). It's no way to start a proper debate about a sensible and important subject and, like I say, any other politician in the country would face massive criticism for doing so.

Ironically Boris was calling not to ban the burka in his article - which is actually totally out of step with mainstream public opinion. 

[Buce]

Just now, MattP said:

Ironically Boris was calling not to ban the burka in his article - which is actually totally out of step with mainstream public opinion. 

 

Do you have evidence of that?

[Guest MattP]

10 minutes ago, Buce said:

Do you have evidence of that?

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/08/31/majority-public-backs-burka-ban/

 

https://news.sky.com/story/sky-data-poll-comparing-women-who-wear-burkas-to-bank-robbers-not-racist-11465688

 

If we had a referendum on this the result would be pretty comfortable.

[Alf Bentley]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/08/31/majority-public-backs-burka-ban/

 

https://news.sky.com/story/sky-data-poll-comparing-women-who-wear-burkas-to-bank-robbers-not-racist-11465688

 

If we had a referendum on this the result would be pretty comfortable.

 

Yep, I saw those surveys. I find people's illiberal instincts depressing. If the question had been "Do you dislike burkas?", I'd have voted Yes myself, but why do people instinctively want to ban other people's right to do/wear things they don't like - but that don't have a meaningful impact on them? A ban on wearing them in public service roles, I could understand....but I've never seen a woman in a burka in such a role and doubt any exist, unless they're specifically serving particular communities.

Edited 10 August 2018 by Alf Bentley

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

Yep, I saw those surveys. I find people's illiberal instincts depressing. If the question had been "Do you dislike burkas?", I'd have voted Yes myself, but why do people instinctively want to ban other people's right to do/wear things they don't like - but that don't have a meaningful impact on them? A ban on wearing them in public service roles, I could understand....but I've never seen a woman in a burka in such a role and doubt any exist, unless they're specifically serving particular communities.

 

It's very concerning just how illiberal society is becoming on all sides. 

 

A significant proportion of people want to ban things they don't agree with, shut debate down if they oppose a viewpoint and want to be shielded from things the could be offended by.

 

It's not a right/left issue either, it ranges from the hard right wanting banning the burka to hard left wanting to ban things like the Daily Mail from uni campuses.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

Do not apologise Boris.

 

As for that Islamic tosser, wanting him sacked, he is a total cretin, who is asking for trouble.

 

15 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Do you have evidence of that?

I am pretty certain, that outside the Islamic circle, the vast majority of the British public would like to see it banned. However, you are correct in basically saying that there is no evidence to prove that.

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Yep, I saw those surveys. I find people's illiberal instincts depressing. If the question had been "Do you dislike burkas?", I'd have voted Yes myself, but why do people instinctively want to ban other people's right to do/wear things they don't like - but that don't have a meaningful impact on them? A ban on wearing them in public service roles, I could understand....but I've never seen a woman in a burka in such a role and doubt any exist, unless they're specifically serving particular communities.

 

Spot on.

 

And again, the sentiment behind that illiberalism is being driven by some parties towards their desired objective of an ethnostate. Don't believe that it could never happen.

 

 

9 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's very concerning just how illiberal society is becoming on all sides. 

 

A significant proportion of people want to ban things they don't agree with, shut debate down if they oppose a viewpoint and want to be shielded from things the could be offended by.

 

It's not a right/left issue either, it ranges from the hard right wanting banning the burka to hard left wanting to ban things like the Daily Mail from uni campuses.

Everyone should be allowed a platform of their own making and maintenance to speak and publish their views and should be free to wear whatever clothing they wish without fear of reprisal as long as public decency is accounted for.

 

Authoritarianism always ends up with the blood of those not in authority on the floor - no matter what "wing" it belongs to.

Edited 10 August 2018 by leicsmac

[Buce]

11 minutes ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

Do not apologise Boris.

 

As for that Islamic tosser, wanting him sacked, he is a total cretin, who is asking for trouble.

 

I am pretty certain, that outside the Islamic circle, the vast majority of the British public would like to see it banned. However, you are correct in basically saying that there is no evidence to prove that.

1

 

Actually, I wasn't saying that as I hadn't seen any figures regarding public opinion.

 

MattP has since posted some which suggest it is firmly in favour of a ban.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

Actually, I wasn't saying that as I hadn't seen any figures regarding public opinion.

 

MattP has since posted some which suggest it is firmly in favour of a ban.

OK.

[Alf Bentley]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

Everyone's should be allowed a platform of their own making and maintenance to speak and publish their views and should be free to wear whatever clothing they wish without fear of reprisal as long as public decency is accounted for.

 

Authoritarianism always ends up with the blood of those not in authority on the floor - no matter what "wing" it belongs to.

 

I'm not keen on the bit in italics, Mac. We should be prepared to debate, share platforms and argue with those we disagree with, in my opinion, provided they are not going to incite hatred/violence or something.

 

I'm not sure about "public decency", either. "Inciting hatred" is one thing, but established "public decency" sometimes needs to be challenged for a culture to progress. Various art and music has been banned on the grounds of "public decency", hasn't it? 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'm not keen on the bit in italics, Mac. We should be prepared to debate, share platforms and argue with those we disagree with, in my opinion, provided they are not going to incite hatred/violence or something.

 

I'm not sure about "public decency", either. "Inciting hatred" is one thing, but established "public decency" sometimes needs to be challenged for a culture to progress. Various art and music has been banned on the grounds of "public decency", hasn't it? 

That's fair - allow me to clarify.

 

I mean that everyone has a right to a platform - but while we should do our best to encourage sharing of platforms and debate and in an ideal world there would be universal trust to use such platforms responsibly, as a result of the world we live in there should be no universal right to use someone else's platform, simply as a safeguard against the inciting of hatred and violence that you speak of (hence my use of emphasising italics, as I believe that bit to be very important).

 

WRT "public decency", I pretty much just mean all the essentials have to be covered when you're out in the street.

[Milo]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Spot on.

 

And again, the sentiment behind that illiberalism is being driven by some parties towards their desired objective of an ethnostate. Don't believe that it could never happen.

Are we more illerberal? 

 

My kids grow up in a much healthier, more tolerant and liberal environment now than when I was their age.

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Milo said:

Are we more illerberal? 

 

My kids grow up in a much healthier, more tolerant and liberal environment now than when I was their age.

 

 

 

I agree - I think there have been massive jumps forward in that regard even over the last couple of decades in terms of equal rights for all across a lot of the OECD.

 

However, I do think there is growing pushback against this progress, being coordinated by those who do want to return to the days of old because they feel that the  power they have had due to their skin colour, religion, gender (or a combination of the three) is fading and they do not want this.

[Milo]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I agree - I think there have been massive jumps forward in that regard even over the last couple of decades in terms of equal rights for all across a lot of the OECD.

 

However, I do think there is growing pushback against this progress, being coordinated by those who do want to return to the days of old because they feel that the  power they have had due to their skin colour, religion, gender (or a combination of the three) is fading and they do not want this.

I'd be surprised if this hasn't always been the case. 

 

I think the difference now is that everyone has a fairly equal platform to air their views, for good and for bad. 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Milo said:

I'd be surprised if this hasn't always been the case. 

 

I think the difference now is that everyone has a fairly equal platform to air their views, for good and for bad. 

There's always been pushback from those with power, yeah. Most of the time it isn't just given up.

 

However, even though there's been a lot of social progress throughout the past couple of centuries, every so often there have been times when that pushback succeeds and ends up causing regression and brutality, and IMO that needs to be watched for just in case here.

[davieG]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

There's always been pushback from those with power, yeah. Most of the time it isn't just given up.

 

However, even though there's been a lot of social progress throughout the past couple of centuries, every so often there have been times when that pushback succeeds and ends up causing regression and brutality, and IMO that needs to be watched for just in case here.

The progress made seemed to be clearly indentifyable aspects of life and living whereas this pushback is almost abstract and hard to define thus making it much more difficult to halt as there is a difficulty of finding a definition in which to focus on.

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, davieG said:

The progress made seemed to be clearly indentifyable aspects of life and living whereas this pushback is almost abstract and hard to define thus making it much more difficult to halt as there is a difficulty of finding a definition in which to focus on.

That's actually a really good point. Add in that it has become much more sophisticated in this digital age, too.

 

I would say the overall end objectives are reasonably clear, though - restoration of older times, viz. rich male-dominated authoritarian ethnostates in as many places in the OECD as possible.

Edited 10 August 2018 by leicsmac

[Guest MattP]

Remain now leads 53-47 with Yougov, a 1 point swing from Referendum day where they had it 52-48 to Remain.

 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

Remain now leads 53-47 with Yougov, a 1 point swing from Referendum day where they had it 52-48 to Remain.

 

Very interesting stuff!

 

Two things that jump out:

 

- there's been very few people that have changed their minds (pretty self-evident)

- if the Labour leadership are looking to deliver Brexit they're at odds with the big majority of Labour voters

[Guest MattP]

21 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Very interesting stuff!

 

Two things that jump out:

 

- there's been very few people that have changed their minds (pretty self-evident)

- if the Labour leadership are looking to deliver Brexit they're at odds with the big majority of Labour voters

Bigtime.  

 

I think Corbyn knows though that Remainers are going to stick with him whatever, the votes he could lose from those Leave voters though could lose him an election.

 

It will be interesting to see if he can avoid a vote on it at party conference. 

[Buce]

22 minutes ago, MattP said:

Bigtime.  

 

I think Corbyn knows though that Remainers are going to stick with him whatever, the votes he could lose from those Leave voters though could lose him an election.

 

It will be interesting to see if he can avoid a vote on it at party conference. 

1

 

I don't think he will be able to because Momentum won't facilitate it this time around.

[Guest MattP]

20 minutes ago, Buce said:

I don't think he will be able to because Momentum won't facilitate it this time around.

If he doesn't it will certainly be a sign that his personal power over the party is diminishing.

 

With his personal ratings so low the moderates might even consider one last push to challenge him.

[Buce]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

If he doesn't it will certainly be a sign that his personal power over the party is diminishing.

 

With his personal ratings so low the moderates might even consider one last push to challenge him.

 

I wouldn't be averse to that.

 

I don't think it's Labour policies that the electorate is wary of - on the contrary, I think there is a lot of support for them - I think it's Corbyn himself.