Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[what?]

1 minute ago, Innovindil said:

Probably the most extreme case of whataboutism we've had on here tbh. 

Always happy to win a most extreme award but I don't think so. I don't want to see Rees-Mogg's kids getting abuse any more than anyone else. It's just weird seeing people outraged over it whilst simultaneously advocating positions that will bring greater harm to a greater number of other kids. 

[Innovindil]

Just now, what? said:

Always happy to win a most extreme award but I don't think so. I don't want to see Rees-Mogg's kids getting abuse any more than anyone else. It's just weird seeing people outraged over it whilst simultaneously advocating positions that will bring greater harm to a greater number of other kids. 

So you find it weird that others don't have the same opinion as you? Not everyone believes brexit will bring greater harm to a greater number of kids. 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

I just find stuff like this weird.

 

Even if you did it because you personally thought it was OK, surely you'd be aware that rather than it furthering your objectives, it's just going to create an outcry, folk will think you're a knob and any message you were trying to communicate is lost in the ether

 

 

53 minutes ago, MattP said:

If you are a grown adult who thinks bullying children is acceptable, you are probably mentally incapable of judging anything else you have mention there with any logic or reason.

 

I agree that no rational thought has gone into the bloke's behaviour. He won't have been rationally thinking how to further his objectives or to avoid negative publicity for his ill-defined cause.

 

He didn't sound angry, demented or out of control. So, I can only assume that he's a blinkered, self-righteous tosser with zero self-awareness and very little sensitivity to the potential vulnerability of children. It wasn't massively aggressive and the kids probably hear similar stuff in the playground, but it's potentially more disturbing from an adult.  I doubt he was incapable of logic or reason, some people just are that blinkered, self-righteous, insensitive and lacking in self-awareness.

 

I don't see @what?'s comparison as invalid, though - and he's made clear that he condemns the unpleasantness towards JRM's kid. I'm not talking about people who believe that Brexit will quickly prove to be a great success - I disagree with them, but that's a matter of opinion (and not many people are making that claim now). I'm talking about people saying that it doesn't matter if we suffer economic harm due to Brexit, as the important thing is "taking back control" - or people saying that it might take 40 years before we see the benefits of Brexit....and wasn't JRM one of the people who said that? Sorry, but the rest of us - and our families - have to live in the present and the near future. I see that as a very similar mindset to the bigot who mouthed off about JRM: "I couldn't care less what the impact is on anyone else, so long as my blinkered views are enforced"....very similar attitude.

[what?]

13 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

So you find it weird that others don't have the same opinion as you? Not everyone believes brexit will bring greater harm to a greater number of kids. 

I mean, even the most optimistic of leavers are talking about the benefits of brexit being long term, after a period of a downturn. Is there any serious forecasting backed up by fact that sees the country immediately better off? Fair enough if people think leaving is ideologically sound and it's worth it enduring some tough times to get to a promised place of prosperity and sovereignty but in the meantime that does trickle down to people's everyday lives, wages stagnate, food prices go up, etc. and that brings harm to normal people and their families.

Edited 13 September 2018 by what?

[Guest MattP]

14 minutes ago, what? said:

Always happy to win a most extreme award but I don't think so. I don't want to see Rees-Mogg's kids getting abuse any more than anyone else. It's just weird seeing people outraged over it whilst simultaneously advocating positions that will bring greater harm to a greater number of other kids. 

Many don't agree with you that it will, it might,  it might not.

 

If we get into that sort of whataboutism it will start to be used to justify anything by the unscrupulous, most people believe unemployment will rise if Labour get in, do we then argue that we have to think of the children because of that? Of course we don't. We vote on policy given and whether we think it's right or wrong.

 

I don't think anything good can come of trying to make comparisons here in such a vague way about the abuse of children, it's a completely different issue to an adult man deliberately (which is the key in this case) trying to bully a minor - that's a World away from belief in a policy that may or may not do harm to people.

[leicsmac]

There is at least some truth in the idea that empathy rarely extends beyond our own line of sight.

 

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

Many don't agree with you that it will, it might,  it might not.

 

If we get into that sort of whataboutism it will start to be used to justify anything by the unscrupulous, most people believe unemployment will rise if Labour get in, do we then argue that we have to think of the children because of that? Of course we don't. We vote on policy given and whether we think it's right or wrong.

 

I don't think anything good can come of trying to make comparisons here in such a vague way about the abuse of children, it's a completely different issue to an adult man deliberately (which is the key in this case) trying to bully a minor - that's a World away from belief in a policy that may or may not do harm to people.

I'd agree that if we stopped to examine all conjecture surrounding a decision nothing would get done, but (and I think we've had this debate re declarations of war before Matt) it would be nice if the powers that be would spend at least a little more time and expertise examining a crucial course of action with respect to the future or at least carry the can if they get it wrong. "I'm sorry but it seemed like a good idea at the time" doesn't really cut it when lives have been lost (obvs not to do with Brexit that but you know what I mean.)

Edited 13 September 2018 by leicsmac

[what?]

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

If we get into that sort of whataboutism it will start to be used to justify anything by the unscrupulous, most people believe unemployment will rise if Labour get in, do we then argue that we have to think of the children because of that? Of course we don't. We vote on policy given and whether we think it's right or wrong.

I take your point to a certain extent but haven't we got a moral imperative to consider the human effect of any proposed policy? Personally I'd say that if that was your view on labour and unemployment then that would be a very valid reason on which to base your vote. 

[Alf Bentley]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

it will start to be used to justify anything by the unscrupulous, most people believe unemployment will rise if Labour get in, do we then argue that we have to think of the children because of that? Of course we don't. We vote on policy given and whether we think it's right or wrong.

 

 

There's a difference between an honest disagreement about the potential impact of a policy - and not giving a shit about the impact on other people.

 

Some people believe that a Labour Govt would have a beneficial economic/social impact, others believe it would have a detrimental impact. That's an honest disagreement, people will vote accordingly and should accept the democratic result.

Likewise, some people believe that Brexit is a great idea, others believe that it is a terrible idea. They voted accordingly and the vast majority of people accept the democratic result (unless it is somehow overturned by another democratic process like an election or a second referendum).

 

Wouldn't it be quite different if Labour supporters said: "we know that a Labour Govt will cause economic/social harm in the short-term, but it'll be worth it because Labour will be taking back control from Capital and building a socialist utopia that will be a great place to live in 40 years time"?

 

That's the equivalent of what some Brexit supporters are saying now: "Yes, Brexit will do damage in the short-term, but we're taking back control and will see the benefits in 40 years time".

[davieG]

The problem for me is that most political parties act on their specific political dogma and therefore rarely if ever think of the consequences  This is to such and extent that they'll never agree that another parties ideas might actually be good, sure they wont reverse everything probably because deep down they might actually agree with it, obviously it's a bit more complex than that.

 

That's why I can't commit wholeheartedly to any political party.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, davieG said:

The problem for me is that most political parties act on their specific political dogma and therefore rarely if ever think of the consequences  This is to such and extent that they'll never agree that another parties ideas might actually be good, sure they wont reverse everything probably because deep down they might actually agree with it, obviously it's a bit more complex than that.

 

That's why I can't commit wholeheartedly to any political party.

Yup. Polarising is a nasty thing - but then some folks like being adversarial.

[Nick]

25 minutes ago, davieG said:

The problem for me is that most political parties act on their specific political dogma and therefore rarely if ever think of the consequences  This is to such and extent that they'll never agree that another parties ideas might actually be good, sure they wont reverse everything probably because deep down they might actually agree with it, obviously it's a bit more complex than that.

 

That's why I can't commit wholeheartedly to any political party.

Ditto.

 

I wish posters on FT would be a little more open to seeing the qualities from left, right and more centrist views as this thread is just a roundabout of Corbyn bashing with far left narratives, read from shite tabloids versus labelling Tory Fat Catted Cruelty and far rightedness from similar shite publications on the other side of the fence.

 

Its rubbish when every post has an agenda and then given three virtual reacharound points by team left or right. I’d love it to be different.

[Strokes]

48 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

There's a difference between an honest disagreement about the potential impact of a policy - and not giving a shit about the impact on other people.

 

Some people believe that a Labour Govt would have a beneficial economic/social impact, others believe it would have a detrimental impact. That's an honest disagreement, people will vote accordingly and should accept the democratic result.

Likewise, some people believe that Brexit is a great idea, others believe that it is a terrible idea. They voted accordingly and the vast majority of people accept the democratic result (unless it is somehow overturned by another democratic process like an election or a second referendum).

 

Wouldn't it be quite different if Labour supporters said: "we know that a Labour Govt will cause economic/social harm in the short-term, but it'll be worth it because Labour will be taking back control from Capital and building a socialist utopia that will be a great place to live in 40 years time"?

 

That's the equivalent of what some Brexit supporters are saying now: "Yes, Brexit will do damage in the short-term, but we're taking back control and will see the benefits in 40 years time".

It depends if you think it’s better than the current path, those becrying brexit often talk about how the country is broken and services are dying, wages are plummeting, crime is rising. They blame the tories for most of it, people who voted leave think some of the blame lies with membership of the EU and migration etc. If you believe the long term affects will be good for your country and your children’s chances in life. Then some short term uncertainty and economic dip is worth it. It’s nowhere near the level of abusing children directly and it farcical to say as such.

[Guest MattP]

 

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

Wouldn't it be quite different if Labour supporters said: "we know that a Labour Govt will cause economic/social harm in the short-term, but it'll be worth it because Labour will be taking back control from Capital and building a socialist utopia that will be a great place to live in 40 years time"?

 

That's the equivalent of what some Brexit supporters are saying now: "Yes, Brexit will do damage in the short-term, but we're taking back control and will see the benefits in 40 years time".

I'd have no problem at all with any Labour voter saying that, perfectly reasonable viewpoint if they believe taking a short term hit is a sacrifice worth taking for long term gain. I wouldn't see the point in countering that with a "think of the children" argument. 

 

I'm depressed the Rees-Mogg stuff has got us onto this though, it's a different ballpark - it's a 71 year old man shouting at a 5, 7 and 9 year old that lots of people hate your Daddy trying to upset them. This is nothing to do with any sort of politics and his views on Brexit shouldn't even be debated in reference to the incident, it should just be condemned for what it is.

 

If far-right protestors were shouting at Diane Abbott's six and eight year old children on her doorstep I would hope we wouldn't see any "I totally condemn it , completely.......but she is supporting policy that...." - the second bit isn't needed at all, talk about that on another day.

Edited 13 September 2018 by MattP

[Alf Bentley]

45 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It depends if you think it’s better than the current path, those becrying brexit often talk about how the country is broken and services are dying, wages are plummeting, crime is rising. They blame the tories for most of it, people who voted leave think some of the blame lies with membership of the EU and migration etc. If you believe the long term affects will be good for your country and your children’s chances in life. Then some short term uncertainty and economic dip is worth it. It’s nowhere near the level of abusing children directly and it farcical to say as such.

 

I take your point to an extent. If someone expects Brexit or No Deal to cause a minor, short-term downturn, but argues that it will be worth it as there's a coherent plan that will ensure things are better in a couple of years, that's fine. I disagree with them but they're entitled to their opinion - and they have just as much right to disagree with my opinion if I think the country would be better off under a Labour Govt. That's all within the realm of differences of opinion.

 

I even see it as a valid argument for someone to accept that Brexit will make us worse off but to believe it's worth it for democratic reasons or because they want there to be fewer foreigners in the UK....so long as they have some basic idea of how EU democracy operates and of what adjustments will be made if there are fewer foreigners. Too many Brexiteers - politicians, not just Joe Public - don't have viable alternatives to the use of foreign labour, or are disingenuous about just wanting to control immigration, not to reduce it. And too many Brexit supporters go on about being "ruled by Brussels" without understanding basic concepts like the pooling of sovereignty or the dominant role of the Council(s), namely our PM & ministers along with their opposite numbers, in deciding EU policy. 

 

What gets my goat is when people want to shake everything up, with all the risk that involves - as spelled out by experts in the field, and not just biased politicians - without having a clue what they're talking about and without having any credible alternative plan. What particularly riles me is people saying that economic/social damage - potentially to me and my family - doesn't matter because "we're taking back control" or everything will be great in 40 years time.

 

If I help vote in a Labour Govt and it causes massive damage to this country and to the lives of people on this forum, I'll hold my hands up and apologise for having got my vote wrong. I certainly won't claim that it doesn't matter because "we've got a socialist govt" or that we just need to wait 40 years to see the benefits of a Labour Govt.

 

I'd expect the same of any honorable Brexit voter, not claims that damage to my life or my country or my daughter's future doesn't matter as Brexit ideology is more important or just needs a few decades to come right. I take that personally!

 

An honest, thought-through argument that long-term benefits are worth short-term hardship is fine but not if people have no credible plan, don't give a shit about the harm caused to others and reckon that the benefits will take decades to arrive.

Sorry, but in 40 years I'll be dead and my daughter will be almost a pensioner. I want a decent country to live in much sooner than that and will be massively angry with Brexit supporters if our lives are ruined and they don't feel ashamed. I'll feel ashamed if I vote in a Labour Govt and it proceeds to wreck people's lives. Not giving a shit about wrecking people's lives out of ignorant, ideologically-driven bigotry is easily on a par with verbal abuse towards children (which I certainly condemn).

[Smudge]

Just watching that video with no other information I am curious as to why Rees-Mogg or the nanny didn't usher the children inside. In fact it seems to me that they were encouraging the man by responding to him. Obviously the bloke is an A1 asshole but I'm not convinced the group were very protective of the children.

[Alf Bentley]

43 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

I'd have no problem at all with any Labour voter saying that, perfectly reasonable viewpoint if they believe taking a short term hit is a sacrifice worth taking for long term gain. I wouldn't see the point in countering that with a "think of the children" argument. 

 

I'm depressed the Rees-Mogg stuff has got us onto this though, it's a different ballpark - it's a 71 year old man shouting at a 5, 7 and 9 year old that lots of people hate your Daddy trying to upset them. This is nothing to do with any sort of politics and his views on Brexit shouldn't even be debated in reference to the incident, it should just be condemned for what it is.

 

If far-right protestors were shouting at Diane Abbott's six and eight year old children on her doorstep I would hope we wouldn't see any "I totally condemn it , completely.......but she is supporting policy that...." - the second bit isn't needed at all, talk about that on another day.

 

Your Abbott analogy is completely false. I didn't even mention JRM's views on Brexit - except briefly referring to him thinking it was OK if the benefits only became apparent in 40 years. I absolutely accept people's rights to express whatever views they want about Brexit. My only criticism of him, among others, was for effectively saying that decades of damage to people's lives was an acceptable price - blinkered callousness. Maybe it would have been better if the two issues had been discussed separately, but that blinkered callousness is the parallel - the Class War idiot was clearly guilty of the same and entirely wrong to make nasty comments to kids (even to JRM would've been pointless, but adult politicians can expect a bit of that).

 

If you think it would be OK for Labour to say that it wouldn't matter if it wrecked the nation, because it was "taking back control" and building a utopia that would become visible in 40 year time.....we'll just have to agree to differ.

[Guest MattP]

13 minutes ago, Smudge said:

Just watching that video with no other information I am curious as to why Rees-Mogg or the nanny didn't usher the children inside. In fact it seems to me that they were encouraging the man by responding to him. Obviously the bloke is an A1 asshole but I'm not convinced the group were very protective of the children.

He responded to this last night.

 

Said it was important to show children you don't back down from bullies when they attack you and that you should always be safe on your own doorstep. Also mentioned something about making sure no matter how abusive someone is that you should always stay calm.

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Your Abbott analogy is completely false. I didn't even mention JRM's views on Brexit - except briefly referring to him thinking it was OK if the benefits only became apparent in 40 years. I absolutely accept people's rights to express whatever views they want about Brexit. My only criticism of him, among others, was for effectively saying that decades of damage to people's lives was an acceptable price - blinkered callousness. Maybe it would have been better if the two issues had been discussed separately, but that blinkered callousness is the parallel - the Class War idiot was clearly guilty of the same and entirely wrong to make nasty comments to kids (even to JRM would've been pointless, but adult politicians can expect a bit of that).

 

If you think it would be OK for Labour to say that it wouldn't matter if it wrecked the nation, because it was "taking back control" and building a utopia that would become visible in 40 year time.....we'll just have to agree to differ.

When did JRM say that decades of damage to people's lives was an acceptable price? I don't ever recall this.

 

I also said Labour voters, they are entitled to believe that. The politicians aren't saying that so they would be held to account, as should leave voting politicians in government responsible for what happens post Brexit. 

[Webbo]

4 hours ago, what? said:

The way human beings process empathy is weird. When we see kids getting shouted at we instinctively know it's wrong (and to be clear it is, I'm not in any way condoning it) but take one abstract step back and consider the negative effects on the children of, say, those 40 thousand people working for Jaguar Land Rover who face losing their jobs? Nah too big to think about. Or how about Mogg's nothing to fear from a no deal report out the other day singing the praises of the removal of currently existing non tariff barriers... like the safety standards on kids toys that we all take for granted for example. 

Bet you it doesn't happen.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

When did JRM say that decades of damage to people's lives was an acceptable price? I don't ever recall this.

 

I also said Labour voters, they are entitled to believe that. The politicians aren't saying that so they would be held to account, as should leave voting politicians in government responsible for what happens post Brexit. 

 

Obviously, JRM didn't say those words or I'd have used a quote. I said "my only criticism of him, among others, was for effectively saying that decades of damage to people's lives was an acceptable price". 

The context was that various top business executives, CBI and expert analysts had been saying that a No Deal Brexit would cause major economic damage lasting decades. In response, JRM said that it would take 50 years before we knew whether Brexit was a success. So, he responded to suggestions that lots of people would lose their jobs, livelihoods, businesses, potentially more....with the reassurance that we might not be able to tell whether it had been worth it for 50 years, tho he thought it was.

 

Here's the interview (about 18:00 to 24:00 seems to be the relevant bit), but I don't want to get into further debate about JRM as my point was wider - and applied to the attitude of some Brexit supporters. I only mentioned JRM in passing.

 

Fair point that you referred to "Labour voters", not politicians. I still disagree with you, though. As (usually) a Labour voter, I'd not be happy at all if Labour said their policies would cause short-term harm, but that was OK because they would - or might - provide a socialist utopia in 40 (or 50) years time.

Edited 13 September 2018 by Alf Bentley

[the fox]

Things getting heated between the Iraqis and Algerians because of a football match. Smh. 

[the fox]

 

If anyone is interested in the subject. 

 

A team from iraq played in Algeria. The Algerian fans chanted the name of sadam. Most of them thought that it was a good thing, after all the Algerian fans will chant the name of a famous character from the other nation to show appreciation and gratitude. But it happens that some Iraqis took offense to that.

 

Most of the fans who chanted the name meant it well but it ended up in two nationalities cursing each other. Funny thing is, when the Iraqi national team played in Iran and won and got their national flag ripped a lot of them didn't get as offended as this one misunderstanding

 

Even funnier was an iraqi TV show showing Algerian fans chanting "ohh hhhh Milano" (don't ask. Its complicated. I'm Algerian and even me can't really understand why lol) and screaming " see how they are cursing the shi'a". It's 1 word lol. I'm sure someone could've pointed It out but hey, don't get in the way of some political agenda. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 13 September 2018 by the fox

[Innovindil]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45517279

 

 

There you go jaguar workers, you can work for chanel. 

[Guest Markyblue]

15 hours ago, Smudge said:

Just watching that video with no other information I am curious as to why Rees-Mogg or the nanny didn't usher the children inside. In fact it seems to me that they were encouraging the man by responding to him. Obviously the bloke is an A1 asshole but I'm not convinced the group were very protective of the children.

By the same token would you encourage a black family being racially abused to be taken out the way, or would you like me see the abuser as the one to be removed. 

[Carl the Llama]

10 hours ago, the fox said:

 

If anyone is interested in the subject. 

 

A team from iraq played in Algeria. The Algerian fans chanted the name of sadam. Most of them thought that it was a good thing, after all the Algerian fans will chant the name of a famous character from the other nation to show appreciation and gratitude. But it happens that some Iraqis took offense to that.

 

Most of the fans who chanted the name meant it well but it ended up in two nationalities cursing each other. Funny thing is, when the Iraqi national team played in Iran and won and got their national flag ripped a lot of them didn't get as offended as this one misunderstanding

 

Even funnier was an iraqi TV show showing Algerian fans chanting "ohh hhhh Milano" (don't ask. Its complicated. I'm Algerian and even me can't really understand why lol) and screaming " see how they are cursing the shi'a". It's 1 word lol. I'm sure someone could've pointed It out but hey, don't get in the way of some political agenda. 

Yes, they chanted the name of a brutal dictator at his former subjects out of 'respect'.