I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
See also Tony Blair and the 1982 Beaconsfield by-election:
Yes and Blair and Cameron had never even been Cabinet Ministers before they led their party back into government (same also goes for Starmer or Harold Wilson). Sometimes it is better building up your profile if you want to be PM in a party out of power than waiting your turn in a government that has been in a while and will soon be out of power as the pendulum turns
Wilson was President of the Board of Trade from 1947-51. In the Cabinet.
The youngest member of the Attlee Cabinet and the only one left by the time Labour returned to power in 1964.
How could you, of all people, have forgotten Jim Griffiths, Colonial Secretary and Cabinet member 1950-1, who became the first Secretary of State for Wales when Wilson formed the 1964 govt.
Judging by the vid, Liz T could have been Hermione in Harry Potter. Borisov Absentia Permanens !Nice to see that the NS is trying to scare us. Do we have any PB LT admirers in the military?
How many votes will change because of something La Truss said at a Lib Dem conference at the age approximately 18 and a half?
A lovely afternoon in the garden. Now I need some rain because the patio plants have drunk the water butt.
You should come to the Lake district. Been here 5 days now, rained every one of them and today was a better effort than most with several hours worth. Beginiing to think the clue was maybe in the name...
In much the same way as Truss has now abandoned her support for nuclear disarmament as well as her support for Remain in 2016 to back Johnson's hard Brexit.
If she had not changed her views she would not have a hope in hell of being elected Tory leader
Isn't the suspicion going to be that that is precisely why she u-turned on the monarchy, Brexit and disarmament? It all looks a tad too convenient.
Or maybe. Her original joining of the LD's was the cynical bit? Also, possibly motivated by not wishing to completely distance her lefty parents. She could see the tide turning, but expected a hung Parliament soon? Most people did in the relevant time period. By 1996 that game was up?
Indeed, which is why it’s surprising that it’s flipped, with the free speech defenders now mostly on the right and the more censorious attitudes coming from the left. What caused the switch?
I'm not sure you're right on this.
The views of the "right" (if we mean not just those supportive of the Government but those opposed to the alternative) seem to this observer to dominate. Most of the newspapers are broadly anti-left. Where is the left-wing alternative to GB News or Talk TV? Look at Sky News in Australia - strongly anti-Labor and pro-Coalition and their response to the election of a Labor Government has been illuminating.
Free speech means allowing as many different voices as possible to be heard not just the same voices. As a good liberal authoritarian, I'd love all media outlets to be forced to provide balanced coverage - don't worry, I do appreciate the irony of that.
The Guardian can start a news channel if they want, there is plenty of room on freeview. However the fact the BBC and especially C4 news are seen as giving a centre to centre left worldview already is why there was a gap in the market for GB news and it is doing reasonably well and already has overtaken Sky news in the ratings
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
There were, and are, several 'Enlightenments', just as there were several 'Reformations'.
Yeah but the Enlightenment that matters is one many of us are attached to. Unfortunately, much of the modern left seems content to throw it in the bin. Free speech, democracy, rule of law etc.
Bullshit!
Democracy? The Enlightenment is generally reckoned to have occurred through the 17th and 18th centuries. What was the state of democracy in the UK by 1800? What percentage of the adult population do you think had a vote?
Free Speech? In 1795, the Parliament enacted the Treason Act and Seditious Meetings Act to suppress the burgeoning Radical movement calling for Parliamentary reform.
Democracy and Free Speech were only won because left-wing activists fought for them.
Rule of Law? Ask Johnson about that one.
Just because the Enlightenment promoted certain ideas doesn't mean the institutions around them magically caught up. The gap between the new thinking and the old way of doing things was what the violent upheavals of the 19th Century was about. And yes, the old left did fight passionately for these things, before the new left started embracing immigration amnesties and blasphemy bans. Or valuing speech based on the identity of who said it rather than its content.
I won't even indulge the whataboutism of the last line.
I don't think the right have a great track record on free speech, democracy or the rule of law.
Indeed, which is why it’s surprising that it’s flipped, with the free speech defenders now mostly on the right and the more censorious attitudes coming from the left. What caused the switch?
It's because softhead bigotry is less tolerated these days. This impacts the right more since they are full of it - hence they feel gagged.
Yeah but the modern left classes everything it dislikes as "bigotry" as a justification for banning it. No public figure would dare criticize the age of Mohammed's sexual partners for example.
Anyone who thinks that "the other side" (whether the Woke, UKIP, JK Rowling, the French, Liz Truss, the Lefties, Remoaners, etc) is morally reprehensible because they don't share exactly the same set of values is worse than a fool. They are allowing their perception of morally superiority to cloud their judgement.
I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
OGH advised me in 1996 that - if I wanted to get into politics - then it might be a good time to join the Conservatives.
As it happened, I would rather have eaten my own left testicle than become a politician, but it was a nice thought.
What, eating your own testicle? It takes all sorts, I suppose.
One wonders why the left rather than right ... but AIUI there is a definite, erm, interest community in such things out there. I don't want to google it so you will have to do that for yourself, should you improbably so wish.
That is very generous of you but on this occasion ignorance may indeed be bliss.
I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
See also Tony Blair and the 1982 Beaconsfield by-election:
Yes and Blair and Cameron had never even been Cabinet Ministers before they led their party back into government (same also goes for Starmer or Harold Wilson). Sometimes it is better building up your profile if you want to be PM in a party out of power than waiting your turn in a government that has been in a while and will soon be out of power as the pendulum turns
Wilson was President of the Board of Trade from 1947-51. In the Cabinet.
A position which was not always a Cabinet level one even so and certainly never a Great Office of State
No precedent for the President in the Cabinet?
It is certainly true to say though that no former Chancellor, Foreign Secretary or Home Secretary has led their party from Opposition into Government at a general election to become PM since 1945, even if some like Wilson and Heath may have had minor Cabinet positions in a previous government. Attlee was Deputy PM but not a Great Office of State holder either.
Gaitskell was a former Chancellor but as Labour Leader lost the 1959 general election to Macmillan, Howard a former Home Secretary who as Tory Leader lost the 2005 general election to Blair. Former Chancellor Ken Clarke also stood to be Leader of the Tories in Opposition several times but lost, former Chancellor Denis Healey stood for Labour leader in 1980 but lost and former Foreign Secretary David Miliband stood for Labour leader in 2010 but lost some other examples
One wonders if Khan will follow in the footsteps of Johnson and try and get back into the Government (should it be a Labour one), sometime in the mid to late 2020s.
Yes, this is interesting, Khan's term ends in 2024 so he could serve out his second term and then get back into Westminster without the messy overlap Johnson had when serving as both Mayor of London and MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip from May 2015 for a year.
Stephen Timms has been East Ham MP since 1994 and there's plenty of speculation Khan could be the successor candidate (unless Rokhsana Fiaz, the current Newham Mayor wants the seat instead). I'm sure a seat could be found in London for Khan without too much trouble.
Publicly, Khan has said he wants a third term but I'm not convinced and Starmer could well offer him a serious job in a new Labour Government.
I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
See also Tony Blair and the 1982 Beaconsfield by-election:
Yes and Blair and Cameron had never even been Cabinet Ministers before they led their party back into government (same also goes for Starmer or Harold Wilson). Sometimes it is better building up your profile if you want to be PM in a party out of power than waiting your turn in a government that has been in a while and will soon be out of power as the pendulum turns
Wilson was President of the Board of Trade from 1947-51. In the Cabinet.
The youngest member of the Attlee Cabinet and the only one left by the time Labour returned to power in 1964.
How could you, of all people, have forgotten Jim Griffiths, Colonial Secretary and Cabinet member 1950-1, who became the first Secretary of State for Wales, when Wilson formed the 1964 govt.
To be pedantic, he wasn't actually in Wilson's initial cabinet. The office was set up a week or so later.
You could add Patrick Gordon Walker, who was Colonial Secretary in 1951 and Foreign Secretary in 1964. However, he had lost his seat and was therefore the only senior minister not to be a member of Parliament.
Could mention, although not in Attlee's Cabinet, Soskice (AG 1951, Home Secretary 1964) and Brown (minister of Works in 1951, Minister for Economic Affairs 1964).
I notice, in respect to Musk demanding everyone back in the office an d then now announcing 10% cut in work force that some employees have pointed out that due to hiring in the last 2 years it would be impossible for every Tesla employee to return to the office as there is no where near enough office space for them. As in literally needing to expand office space 100% for some locations.
Indeed, which is why it’s surprising that it’s flipped, with the free speech defenders now mostly on the right and the more censorious attitudes coming from the left. What caused the switch?
I'm not sure you're right on this.
The views of the "right" (if we mean not just those supportive of the Government but those opposed to the alternative) seem to this observer to dominate. Most of the newspapers are broadly anti-left. Where is the left-wing alternative to GB News or Talk TV? Look at Sky News in Australia - strongly anti-Labor and pro-Coalition and their response to the election of a Labor Government has been illuminating.
Free speech means allowing as many different voices as possible to be heard not just the same voices. As a good liberal authoritarian, I'd love all media outlets to be forced to provide balanced coverage - don't worry, I do appreciate the irony of that.
The BBC is full of wokeness, so it depends how you measure things.
I'm not even sure what "wokeness" is to be honest with you. Every time I see the term "woke" I assume it's someone on the "right" complaining the news isn't reported the way they would like it to be. Perhaps I should call the Daily Mail "woke" in response if we're throwing the word around.
"Woke" is just a new name for "politically correct".
I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
See also Tony Blair and the 1982 Beaconsfield by-election:
Yes and Blair and Cameron had never even been Cabinet Ministers before they led their party back into government (same also goes for Starmer or Harold Wilson). Sometimes it is better building up your profile if you want to be PM in a party out of power than waiting your turn in a government that has been in a while and will soon be out of power as the pendulum turns
Wilson was President of the Board of Trade from 1947-51. In the Cabinet.
A position which was not always a Cabinet level one even so and certainly never a Great Office of State
No precedent for the President in the Cabinet?
It is certainly true to say though that no former Chancellor, Foreign Secretary or Home Secretary has led their party from Opposition into Government at a general election to become PM since 1945, even if some like Wilson and Heath may have had minor Cabinet positions in a previous government. Attlee was Deputy PM but not a Great Office of State holder either
Churchill was a former Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
There were, and are, several 'Enlightenments', just as there were several 'Reformations'.
Yeah but the Enlightenment that matters is one many of us are attached to. Unfortunately, much of the modern left seems content to throw it in the bin. Free speech, democracy, rule of law etc.
Bullshit!
Democracy? The Enlightenment is generally reckoned to have occurred through the 17th and 18th centuries. What was the state of democracy in the UK by 1800? What percentage of the adult population do you think had a vote?
Free Speech? In 1795, the Parliament enacted the Treason Act and Seditious Meetings Act to suppress the burgeoning Radical movement calling for Parliamentary reform.
Democracy and Free Speech were only won because left-wing activists fought for them.
Rule of Law? Ask Johnson about that one.
Just because the Enlightenment promoted certain ideas doesn't mean the institutions around them magically caught up. The gap between the new thinking and the old way of doing things was what the violent upheavals of the 19th Century was about. And yes, the old left did fight passionately for these things, before the new left started embracing immigration amnesties and blasphemy bans. Or valuing speech based on the identity of who said it rather than its content.
I won't even indulge the whataboutism of the last line.
I don't think the right have a great track record on free speech, democracy or the rule of law.
Indeed, which is why it’s surprising that it’s flipped, with the free speech defenders now mostly on the right and the more censorious attitudes coming from the left. What caused the switch?
Many things, including the death of communism leading to a lack of ideological direction, especially taken in tandem with atheism (remember a lot of left wing thought used to be quite religious: Methodism overlapped with British socialism, for instance)
Identity politics - Woke - rushed to fill the gaping void. Very successfully. As it is a form of secular religion. So it ticked all the boxes
However in a religion the holy thing trumps all else so all the Enlightenment values got dumped in favour of extreme social justice for the intersectionally oppressed
The joke in all of this is that intersectionality is about considering all the different parts of identity. So if you consider race, religion, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexuality, disability, nationality, socioeconomic class, you start to get into pretty small segments. If you start adding in other things that affect life experience and treatment, you can add physical attractiveness, height, weight, family size, birth order, rural vs urban, age, medical conditions, neurodivergence and so on. Ultimately, you splice the population down to the individual level, at which point we return to the Enlightenment and liberalism after all.
Judging by the vid, Liz T could have been Hermione in Harry Potter. Borisov Absentia Permanens !Nice to see that the NS is trying to scare us. Do we have any PB LT admirers in the military?
How many votes will change because of something La Truss said at a Lib Dem conference at the age approximately 18 and a half?
A lovely afternoon in the garden. Now I need some rain because the patio plants have drunk the water butt.
You should come to the Lake district. Been here 5 days now, rained every one of them and today was a better effort than most with several hours worth. Beginiing to think the clue was maybe in the name...
The only PB patio in the Lake District is @Cyclefree I suspect.
I'm not getting some early strawberries, mind. A whole 3 the day before yesterday, and I can see some more now. Currently warthing a neighbour pressure-washing his roof from above the apex on a firmly lashed in ladder - not my style.
As youthful indiscretions go it would seem a bit weird if this was less forgivable than breaking the law (class A drug use), or the entitled performative cruelty of the Bullingdon Club.
Speaking her mind as a young person and expressing a cogent opinion on class inequality. Not even an indiscretion for me. And, yes, extremely admirable cf those other examples you cite. Esp the shameful Bullingdon stuff.
I'm content to classify it as a youthful indiscretion in the context of a Conservative Party leadership election.
I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
See also Tony Blair and the 1982 Beaconsfield by-election:
Yes and Blair and Cameron had never even been Cabinet Ministers before they led their party back into government (same also goes for Starmer or Harold Wilson). Sometimes it is better building up your profile if you want to be PM in a party out of power than waiting your turn in a government that has been in a while and will soon be out of power as the pendulum turns
Wilson was President of the Board of Trade from 1947-51. In the Cabinet.
A position which was not always a Cabinet level one even so and certainly never a Great Office of State
No precedent for the President in the Cabinet?
It is certainly true to say though that no former Chancellor, Foreign Secretary or Home Secretary has led their party from Opposition into Government at a general election to become PM since 1945, even if some like Wilson and Heath may have had minor Cabinet positions in a previous government. Attlee was Deputy PM but not a Great Office of State holder either
Churchill was a former Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer.
He had already been PM from 1940 to 1945, even if he did come back briefly a second time in 1951.
He was not a new Leader of the Opposition after 1945, he was a continuing Tory leader already in the role before 1945
Indeed, which is why it’s surprising that it’s flipped, with the free speech defenders now mostly on the right and the more censorious attitudes coming from the left. What caused the switch?
I'm not sure you're right on this.
The views of the "right" (if we mean not just those supportive of the Government but those opposed to the alternative) seem to this observer to dominate. Most of the newspapers are broadly anti-left. Where is the left-wing alternative to GB News or Talk TV? Look at Sky News in Australia - strongly anti-Labor and pro-Coalition and their response to the election of a Labor Government has been illuminating.
Free speech means allowing as many different voices as possible to be heard not just the same voices. As a good liberal authoritarian, I'd love all media outlets to be forced to provide balanced coverage - don't worry, I do appreciate the irony of that.
The BBC is full of wokeness, so it depends how you measure things.
I'm not even sure what "wokeness" is to be honest with you. Every time I see the term "woke" I assume it's someone on the "right" complaining the news isn't reported the way they would like it to be. Perhaps I should call the Daily Mail "woke" in response if we're throwing the word around.
"Woke" is just a new name for "politically correct".
Its all the groovy, right on stuff du jour. Normal, debatable, discussable stuff but with an added layer of moral certainty and earnestness
The Guardian can start a news channel if they want, there is plenty of room on freeview. However the fact the BBC and especially C4 news are seen as giving a centre to centre left worldview already is why there was a gap in the market for GB news and it is doing reasonably well and already has overtaken Sky news in the ratings
Are the BBC and C4 "centre to centre left" or is it because they try to have a plurality of opinion whereas GB News (which I confess I've not watched) seems, from what I read, to be much less diverse and almost wholly either pro-Government or culturally "anti-left"? I've seen some on here moan about Sky News UK which apparently isn't Sky News Australia.
There's a paradox at work - the requirement for "free speech" on the one hand versus the advantages in a democratic culture of allowing a plurality of opinion.
Would you rather only hear the opinions you support or the views with which you agree or are you willing to be challenged and listen to contrary opinions? I'm in the latter camp.
I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
See also Tony Blair and the 1982 Beaconsfield by-election:
Yes and Blair and Cameron had never even been Cabinet Ministers before they led their party back into government (same also goes for Starmer or Harold Wilson). Sometimes it is better building up your profile if you want to be PM in a party out of power than waiting your turn in a government that has been in a while and will soon be out of power as the pendulum turns
Wilson was President of the Board of Trade from 1947-51. In the Cabinet.
A position which was not always a Cabinet level one even so and certainly never a Great Office of State
No precedent for the President in the Cabinet?
It is certainly true to say though that no former Chancellor, Foreign Secretary or Home Secretary has led their party from Opposition into Government at a general election to become PM since 1945, even if some like Wilson and Heath may have had minor Cabinet positions in a previous government. Attlee was Deputy PM but not a Great Office of State holder either
Churchill was a former Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer.
He had already been PM from 1940 to 1945, even if he did come back briefly a second time in 1951.
Three and a half years is 'briefly?'
Besides, you said 'no former Chancellor, Foreign Secretary or Home Secretary has led their party from Opposition into Government at a general election to become PM since 1945.' You said nothing about him having been PM before.
This match is quickly running away from England here, as the NZ lead crosses 200 with six wickets remaining.
150 these two have put on, they look completely at ease, and we’re still a dozen overs from the new ball - which might now be tomorrow, as we’ve been bowling so damn slowly.
Indeed, which is why it’s surprising that it’s flipped, with the free speech defenders now mostly on the right and the more censorious attitudes coming from the left. What caused the switch?
I'm not sure you're right on this.
The views of the "right" (if we mean not just those supportive of the Government but those opposed to the alternative) seem to this observer to dominate. Most of the newspapers are broadly anti-left. Where is the left-wing alternative to GB News or Talk TV? Look at Sky News in Australia - strongly anti-Labor and pro-Coalition and their response to the election of a Labor Government has been illuminating.
Free speech means allowing as many different voices as possible to be heard not just the same voices. As a good liberal authoritarian, I'd love all media outlets to be forced to provide balanced coverage - don't worry, I do appreciate the irony of that.
The BBC is full of wokeness, so it depends how you measure things.
I'm not even sure what "wokeness" is to be honest with you. Every time I see the term "woke" I assume it's someone on the "right" complaining the news isn't reported the way they would like it to be. Perhaps I should call the Daily Mail "woke" in response if we're throwing the word around.
"Woke" is just a new name for "politically correct".
"You are the Diet Coke of Woke! Only one calorie, not Woke enough!"
Anyone who thinks that "the other side" (whether the Woke, UKIP, JK Rowling, the French, Liz Truss, the Lefties, Remoaners, etc) is morally reprehensible because they don't share exactly the same set of values is worse than a fool. They are allowing their perception of morally superiority to cloud their judgement.
Not naming any names on here, obviously.
Thomas has virtue =Thomas Tugend hat. (auf Deutsch)
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
There were, and are, several 'Enlightenments', just as there were several 'Reformations'.
Yeah but the Enlightenment that matters is one many of us are attached to. Unfortunately, much of the modern left seems content to throw it in the bin. Free speech, democracy, rule of law etc.
Bullshit!
Democracy? The Enlightenment is generally reckoned to have occurred through the 17th and 18th centuries. What was the state of democracy in the UK by 1800? What percentage of the adult population do you think had a vote?
Free Speech? In 1795, the Parliament enacted the Treason Act and Seditious Meetings Act to suppress the burgeoning Radical movement calling for Parliamentary reform.
Democracy and Free Speech were only won because left-wing activists fought for them.
Rule of Law? Ask Johnson about that one.
Just because the Enlightenment promoted certain ideas doesn't mean the institutions around them magically caught up. The gap between the new thinking and the old way of doing things was what the violent upheavals of the 19th Century was about. And yes, the old left did fight passionately for these things, before the new left started embracing immigration amnesties and blasphemy bans. Or valuing speech based on the identity of who said it rather than its content.
I won't even indulge the whataboutism of the last line.
I don't think the right have a great track record on free speech, democracy or the rule of law.
Indeed, which is why it’s surprising that it’s flipped, with the free speech defenders now mostly on the right and the more censorious attitudes coming from the left. What caused the switch?
It's because softhead bigotry is less tolerated these days. This impacts the right more since they are full of it - hence they feel gagged.
I don't really buy the concept of "softhead bigotry" any more than I buy the concept of "reverse racism". Both are circumlocutions.
There's bigotry. And there's racism.
And there's significant disagreement about what constitutes both.
Personally I'm inclined to define much identity politics as bigotry, where some others define it as some sort of liberation movement.
Indeed, which is why it’s surprising that it’s flipped, with the free speech defenders now mostly on the right and the more censorious attitudes coming from the left. What caused the switch?
I'm not sure you're right on this.
The views of the "right" (if we mean not just those supportive of the Government but those opposed to the alternative) seem to this observer to dominate. Most of the newspapers are broadly anti-left. Where is the left-wing alternative to GB News or Talk TV? Look at Sky News in Australia - strongly anti-Labor and pro-Coalition and their response to the election of a Labor Government has been illuminating.
Free speech means allowing as many different voices as possible to be heard not just the same voices. As a good liberal authoritarian, I'd love all media outlets to be forced to provide balanced coverage - don't worry, I do appreciate the irony of that.
The BBC is full of wokeness, so it depends how you measure things.
I'm not even sure what "wokeness" is to be honest with you. Every time I see the term "woke" I assume it's someone on the "right" complaining the news isn't reported the way they would like it to be. Perhaps I should call the Daily Mail "woke" in response if we're throwing the word around.
"Woke" is just a new name for "politically correct".
Woke was actually used by some of the liberal (mainly young) left somewhat pompously to describe themselves. My left wing daughter taught me the word when it was used as a badge of honour. The right decided to sneer at the word as they (probably correctly) saw it as a sign certain sections of the left were so up themselves by using the term to describe themselves.
The Guardian can start a news channel if they want, there is plenty of room on freeview. However the fact the BBC and especially C4 news are seen as giving a centre to centre left worldview already is why there was a gap in the market for GB news and it is doing reasonably well and already has overtaken Sky news in the ratings
Are the BBC and C4 "centre to centre left" or is it because they try to have a plurality of opinion whereas GB News (which I confess I've not watched) seems, from what I read, to be much less diverse and almost wholly either pro-Government or culturally "anti-left"? I've seen some on here moan about Sky News UK which apparently isn't Sky News Australia.
There's a paradox at work - the requirement for "free speech" on the one hand versus the advantages in a democratic culture of allowing a plurality of opinion.
Would you rather only hear the opinions you support or the views with which you agree or are you willing to be challenged and listen to contrary opinions? I'm in the latter camp.
We live in a largely free market economy in TV now as much as elsewhere, as I said if the Guardian wants to start a Woke left TV channel it can do. I sometimes listen to the main BBC news at 10pm or the ITV news at the same time, otherwise I now get most of my news and discussion from GB news which matches my worldview more
Anyone who thinks that "the other side" (whether the Woke, UKIP, JK Rowling, the French, Liz Truss, the Lefties, Remoaners, etc) is morally reprehensible because they don't share exactly the same set of values is worse than a fool. They are allowing their perception of morally superiority to cloud their judgement.
I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
See also Tony Blair and the 1982 Beaconsfield by-election:
Yes and Blair and Cameron had never even been Cabinet Ministers before they led their party back into government (same also goes for Starmer or Harold Wilson). Sometimes it is better building up your profile if you want to be PM in a party out of power than waiting your turn in a government that has been in a while and will soon be out of power as the pendulum turns
Wilson was President of the Board of Trade from 1947-51. In the Cabinet.
A position which was not always a Cabinet level one even so and certainly never a Great Office of State
No precedent for the President in the Cabinet?
It is certainly true to say though that no former Chancellor, Foreign Secretary or Home Secretary has led their party from Opposition into Government at a general election to become PM since 1945, even if some like Wilson and Heath may have had minor Cabinet positions in a previous government. Attlee was Deputy PM but not a Great Office of State holder either
I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
See also Tony Blair and the 1982 Beaconsfield by-election:
Yes and Blair and Cameron had never even been Cabinet Ministers before they led their party back into government (same also goes for Starmer or Harold Wilson). Sometimes it is better building up your profile if you want to be PM in a party out of power than waiting your turn in a government that has been in a while and will soon be out of power as the pendulum turns
Wilson was President of the Board of Trade from 1947-51. In the Cabinet.
The youngest member of the Attlee Cabinet and the only one left by the time Labour returned to power in 1964.
How could you, of all people, have forgotten Jim Griffiths, Colonial Secretary and Cabinet member 1950-1, who became the first Secretary of State for Wales, when Wilson formed the 1964 govt.
To be pedantic, he wasn't actually in Wilson's initial cabinet. The office was set up a week or so later.
You could add Patrick Gordon Walker, who was Colonial Secretary in 1951 and Foreign Secretary in 1964. However, he had lost his seat and was therefore the only senior minister not to be a member of Parliament.
Could mention, although not in Attlee's Cabinet, Soskice (AG 1951, Home Secretary 1964) and Brown (minister of Works in 1951, Minister for Economic Affairs 1964).
PB pedantry at its most obscure: Gordon-Walker was Commonwealth Secretary
Indeed, which is why it’s surprising that it’s flipped, with the free speech defenders now mostly on the right and the more censorious attitudes coming from the left. What caused the switch?
I'm not sure you're right on this.
The views of the "right" (if we mean not just those supportive of the Government but those opposed to the alternative) seem to this observer to dominate. Most of the newspapers are broadly anti-left. Where is the left-wing alternative to GB News or Talk TV? Look at Sky News in Australia - strongly anti-Labor and pro-Coalition and their response to the election of a Labor Government has been illuminating.
Free speech means allowing as many different voices as possible to be heard not just the same voices. As a good liberal authoritarian, I'd love all media outlets to be forced to provide balanced coverage - don't worry, I do appreciate the irony of that.
The BBC is full of wokeness, so it depends how you measure things.
I'm not even sure what "wokeness" is to be honest with you. Every time I see the term "woke" I assume it's someone on the "right" complaining the news isn't reported the way they would like it to be. Perhaps I should call the Daily Mail "woke" in response if we're throwing the word around.
"Woke" is just a new name for "politically correct".
Woke was actually used by some of the liberal (mainly young) left somewhat pompously to describe themselves. My left wing daughter taught me the word when it was used as a badge of honour. The right decided to sneer at the word as they (probably correctly) saw it as a sign certain sections of the left were so up themselves by using the term to describe themselves.
I can picture Justin Trudeau proudly describing himself thusly (in blackface of course)
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
There were, and are, several 'Enlightenments', just as there were several 'Reformations'.
Yeah but the Enlightenment that matters is one many of us are attached to. Unfortunately, much of the modern left seems content to throw it in the bin. Free speech, democracy, rule of law etc.
Bullshit!
Democracy? The Enlightenment is generally reckoned to have occurred through the 17th and 18th centuries. What was the state of democracy in the UK by 1800? What percentage of the adult population do you think had a vote?
Free Speech? In 1795, the Parliament enacted the Treason Act and Seditious Meetings Act to suppress the burgeoning Radical movement calling for Parliamentary reform.
Democracy and Free Speech were only won because left-wing activists fought for them.
Rule of Law? Ask Johnson about that one.
Just because the Enlightenment promoted certain ideas doesn't mean the institutions around them magically caught up. The gap between the new thinking and the old way of doing things was what the violent upheavals of the 19th Century was about. And yes, the old left did fight passionately for these things, before the new left started embracing immigration amnesties and blasphemy bans. Or valuing speech based on the identity of who said it rather than its content.
I won't even indulge the whataboutism of the last line.
I don't think the right have a great track record on free speech, democracy or the rule of law.
Indeed, which is why it’s surprising that it’s flipped, with the free speech defenders now mostly on the right and the more censorious attitudes coming from the left. What caused the switch?
Many things, including the death of communism leading to a lack of ideological direction, especially taken in tandem with atheism (remember a lot of left wing thought used to be quite religious: Methodism overlapped with British socialism, for instance)
Identity politics - Woke - rushed to fill the gaping void. Very successfully. As it is a form of secular religion. So it ticked all the boxes
However in a religion the holy thing trumps all else so all the Enlightenment values got dumped in favour of extreme social justice for the intersectionally oppressed
The joke in all of this is that intersectionality is about considering all the different parts of identity. So if you consider race, religion, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexuality, disability, nationality, socioeconomic class, you start to get into pretty small segments. If you start adding in other things that affect life experience and treatment, you can add physical attractiveness, height, weight, family size, birth order, rural vs urban, age, medical conditions, neurodivergence and so on. Ultimately, you splice the population down to the individual level, at which point we return to the Enlightenment and liberalism after all.
Its not exactly the same but sort of along the same lines when there was an experiment in Australia to find the "average" Australian - by looking for somebody who was average height , average income , average weight , etc - when they got down to about 7 categories of which they got an average for each category there was nobody in Australia who was actually average!
Judging by the vid, Liz T could have been Hermione in Harry Potter. Borisov Absentia Permanens !Nice to see that the NS is trying to scare us. Do we have any PB LT admirers in the military?
How many votes will change because of something La Truss said at a Lib Dem conference at the age approximately 18 and a half?
A lovely afternoon in the garden. Now I need some rain because the patio plants have drunk the water butt.
You should come to the Lake district. Been here 5 days now, rained every one of them and today was a better effort than most with several hours worth. Beginiing to think the clue was maybe in the name...
The only PB patio in the Lake District is @Cyclefree I suspect.
I'm not getting some early strawberries, mind. A whole 3 the day before yesterday, and I can see some more now. Currently warthing a neighbour pressure-washing his roof from above the apex on a firmly lashed in ladder - not my style.
Where it always seems to be shining and various exotic flowers are in bloom. It is lush here, I can't argue with that. But early afternoon today on 3rd June it was 12 degrees. My wife keeps pointing at the airport chaos but jeez, that's not warm.
This match is quickly running away from England here, as the NZ lead crosses 200 with six wickets remaining.
150 these two have put on, they look completely at ease, and we’re still a dozen overs from the new ball - which might now be tomorrow, as we’ve been bowling so damn slowly.
These two very nearly got going yesterday in the first innings. Thankfully, I said to my friend "these two have done well here, they might make it to lunch" and promptly both were out shortly after.
I'm not even sure what "wokeness" is to be honest with you. Every time I see the term "woke" I assume it's someone on the "right" complaining the news isn't reported the way they would like it to be. Perhaps I should call the Daily Mail "woke" in response if we're throwing the word around.
"Woke" is just a new name for "politically correct".
I remember reading "1984" which I presume is the antecedent of this concept. The evolution of language to suit a political agenda or is it the evolution of language to match cultural change? I'm old enough to remember some of the tv shows from the 1970s which were fine then but aren't now.
Judging by the vid, Liz T could have been Hermione in Harry Potter. Borisov Absentia Permanens !Nice to see that the NS is trying to scare us. Do we have any PB LT admirers in the military?
How many votes will change because of something La Truss said at a Lib Dem conference at the age approximately 18 and a half?
A lovely afternoon in the garden. Now I need some rain because the patio plants have drunk the water butt.
You should come to the Lake district. Been here 5 days now, rained every one of them and today was a better effort than most with several hours worth. Beginiing to think the clue was maybe in the name...
The only PB patio in the Lake District is @Cyclefree I suspect.
I'm not getting some early strawberries, mind. A whole 3 the day before yesterday, and I can see some more now. Currently warthing a neighbour pressure-washing his roof from above the apex on a firmly lashed in ladder - not my style.
Where it always seems to be shining and various exotic flowers are in bloom. It is lush here, I can't argue with that. But early afternoon today on 3rd June it was 12 degrees. My wife keeps pointing at the airport chaos but jeez, that's not warm.
Out for walkies in the last of the bluebells at 10 am this morning, we needed our Gore-Tex jackets just to cut the mild but snell wind coming in with the haar off the sea. Mrs C was wearing her woolly hat!
Indeed, which is why it’s surprising that it’s flipped, with the free speech defenders now mostly on the right and the more censorious attitudes coming from the left. What caused the switch?
I'm not sure you're right on this.
The views of the "right" (if we mean not just those supportive of the Government but those opposed to the alternative) seem to this observer to dominate. Most of the newspapers are broadly anti-left. Where is the left-wing alternative to GB News or Talk TV? Look at Sky News in Australia - strongly anti-Labor and pro-Coalition and their response to the election of a Labor Government has been illuminating.
Free speech means allowing as many different voices as possible to be heard not just the same voices. As a good liberal authoritarian, I'd love all media outlets to be forced to provide balanced coverage - don't worry, I do appreciate the irony of that.
The BBC is full of wokeness, so it depends how you measure things.
I'm not even sure what "wokeness" is to be honest with you. Every time I see the term "woke" I assume it's someone on the "right" complaining the news isn't reported the way they would like it to be. Perhaps I should call the Daily Mail "woke" in response if we're throwing the word around.
"Woke" is just a new name for "politically correct".
Woke was actually used by some of the liberal (mainly young) left somewhat pompously to describe themselves. My left wing daughter taught me the word when it was used as a badge of honour. The right decided to sneer at the word as they (probably correctly) saw it as a sign certain sections of the left were so up themselves by using the term to describe themselves.
I can picture Justin Trudeau proudly describing himself thusly (in blackface of course)
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
There were, and are, several 'Enlightenments', just as there were several 'Reformations'.
Yeah but the Enlightenment that matters is one many of us are attached to. Unfortunately, much of the modern left seems content to throw it in the bin. Free speech, democracy, rule of law etc.
Bullshit!
Democracy? The Enlightenment is generally reckoned to have occurred through the 17th and 18th centuries. What was the state of democracy in the UK by 1800? What percentage of the adult population do you think had a vote?
Free Speech? In 1795, the Parliament enacted the Treason Act and Seditious Meetings Act to suppress the burgeoning Radical movement calling for Parliamentary reform.
Democracy and Free Speech were only won because left-wing activists fought for them.
Rule of Law? Ask Johnson about that one.
Just because the Enlightenment promoted certain ideas doesn't mean the institutions around them magically caught up. The gap between the new thinking and the old way of doing things was what the violent upheavals of the 19th Century was about. And yes, the old left did fight passionately for these things, before the new left started embracing immigration amnesties and blasphemy bans. Or valuing speech based on the identity of who said it rather than its content.
I won't even indulge the whataboutism of the last line.
I don't think the right have a great track record on free speech, democracy or the rule of law.
Indeed, which is why it’s surprising that it’s flipped, with the free speech defenders now mostly on the right and the more censorious attitudes coming from the left. What caused the switch?
Many things, including the death of communism leading to a lack of ideological direction, especially taken in tandem with atheism (remember a lot of left wing thought used to be quite religious: Methodism overlapped with British socialism, for instance)
Identity politics - Woke - rushed to fill the gaping void. Very successfully. As it is a form of secular religion. So it ticked all the boxes
However in a religion the holy thing trumps all else so all the Enlightenment values got dumped in favour of extreme social justice for the intersectionally oppressed
The joke in all of this is that intersectionality is about considering all the different parts of identity. So if you consider race, religion, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexuality, disability, nationality, socioeconomic class, you start to get into pretty small segments. If you start adding in other things that affect life experience and treatment, you can add physical attractiveness, height, weight, family size, birth order, rural vs urban, age, medical conditions, neurodivergence and so on. Ultimately, you splice the population down to the individual level, at which point we return to the Enlightenment and liberalism after all.
Its not exactly the same but sort of along the same lines when there was an experiment in Australia to find the "average" Australian - by looking for somebody who was average height , average income , average weight , etc - when they got down to about 7 categories of which they got an average for each category there was nobody in Australia who was actually average!
The US Air Force did this in the 1950s, and failed to find the ‘average’ pilot.
I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
See also Tony Blair and the 1982 Beaconsfield by-election:
Yes and Blair and Cameron had never even been Cabinet Ministers before they led their party back into government (same also goes for Starmer or Harold Wilson). Sometimes it is better building up your profile if you want to be PM in a party out of power than waiting your turn in a government that has been in a while and will soon be out of power as the pendulum turns
Wilson was President of the Board of Trade from 1947-51. In the Cabinet.
A position which was not always a Cabinet level one even so and certainly never a Great Office of State
No precedent for the President in the Cabinet?
It is certainly true to say though that no former Chancellor, Foreign Secretary or Home Secretary has led their party from Opposition into Government at a general election to become PM since 1945, even if some like Wilson and Heath may have had minor Cabinet positions in a previous government. Attlee was Deputy PM but not a Great Office of State holder either
I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
See also Tony Blair and the 1982 Beaconsfield by-election:
Yes and Blair and Cameron had never even been Cabinet Ministers before they led their party back into government (same also goes for Starmer or Harold Wilson). Sometimes it is better building up your profile if you want to be PM in a party out of power than waiting your turn in a government that has been in a while and will soon be out of power as the pendulum turns
Wilson was President of the Board of Trade from 1947-51. In the Cabinet.
The youngest member of the Attlee Cabinet and the only one left by the time Labour returned to power in 1964.
How could you, of all people, have forgotten Jim Griffiths, Colonial Secretary and Cabinet member 1950-1, who became the first Secretary of State for Wales, when Wilson formed the 1964 govt.
To be pedantic, he wasn't actually in Wilson's initial cabinet. The office was set up a week or so later.
You could add Patrick Gordon Walker, who was Colonial Secretary in 1951 and Foreign Secretary in 1964. However, he had lost his seat and was therefore the only senior minister not to be a member of Parliament.
Could mention, although not in Attlee's Cabinet, Soskice (AG 1951, Home Secretary 1964) and Brown (minister of Works in 1951, Minister for Economic Affairs 1964).
PB pedantry at its most obscure: Gordon-Walker was Commonwealth Secretary
Indeed, which is why it’s surprising that it’s flipped, with the free speech defenders now mostly on the right and the more censorious attitudes coming from the left. What caused the switch?
I'm not sure you're right on this.
The views of the "right" (if we mean not just those supportive of the Government but those opposed to the alternative) seem to this observer to dominate. Most of the newspapers are broadly anti-left. Where is the left-wing alternative to GB News or Talk TV? Look at Sky News in Australia - strongly anti-Labor and pro-Coalition and their response to the election of a Labor Government has been illuminating.
Free speech means allowing as many different voices as possible to be heard not just the same voices. As a good liberal authoritarian, I'd love all media outlets to be forced to provide balanced coverage - don't worry, I do appreciate the irony of that.
The BBC is full of wokeness, so it depends how you measure things.
I'm not even sure what "wokeness" is to be honest with you. Every time I see the term "woke" I assume it's someone on the "right" complaining the news isn't reported the way they would like it to be. Perhaps I should call the Daily Mail "woke" in response if we're throwing the word around.
"Woke" is just a new name for "politically correct".
Woke was actually used by some of the liberal (mainly young) left somewhat pompously to describe themselves. My left wing daughter taught me the word when it was used as a badge of honour. The right decided to sneer at the word as they (probably correctly) saw it as a sign certain sections of the left were so up themselves by using the term to describe themselves.
I can picture Justin Trudeau proudly describing himself thusly (in blackface of course)
In much the same way as Truss has now abandoned her support for nuclear disarmament as well as her support for Remain in 2016 to back Johnson's hard Brexit.
If she had not changed her views she would not have a hope in hell of being elected Tory leader
Isn't the suspicion going to be that that is precisely why she u-turned on the monarchy, Brexit and disarmament? It all looks a tad too convenient.
Or maybe. Her original joining of the LD's was the cynical bit? Also, possibly motivated by not wishing to completely distance her lefty parents. She could see the tide turning, but expected a hung Parliament soon? Most people did in the relevant time period. By 1996 that game was up?
I think that's perhaps a bit of over-analysis. She was 18 or 19, and was growing up after a background soaked in CND.
I had Righty friends at Uni who became RCP for a couple of years, and a bizarre veggie housemate who used to decamp to Greenham Common at weekends, with whom getting bacon to be allowed into the fridge was like a Camp David Peace Negotiation.
People change.
It's just nice to see a recovering Republican becoming more pragmatic .
There are plenty of "used to be a Tory"s on the left, too.
The Guardian can start a news channel if they want, there is plenty of room on freeview. However the fact the BBC and especially C4 news are seen as giving a centre to centre left worldview already is why there was a gap in the market for GB news and it is doing reasonably well and already has overtaken Sky news in the ratings
Are the BBC and C4 "centre to centre left" or is it because they try to have a plurality of opinion whereas GB News (which I confess I've not watched) seems, from what I read, to be much less diverse and almost wholly either pro-Government or culturally "anti-left"? I've seen some on here moan about Sky News UK which apparently isn't Sky News Australia.
There's a paradox at work - the requirement for "free speech" on the one hand versus the advantages in a democratic culture of allowing a plurality of opinion.
Would you rather only hear the opinions you support or the views with which you agree or are you willing to be challenged and listen to contrary opinions? I'm in the latter camp.
We live in a largely free market economy in TV now as much as elsewhere, as I said if the Guardian wants to start a Woke left TV channel it can do. I sometimes listen to the main BBC news at 10pm or the ITV news at the same time, otherwise I now get most of my news and discussion from GB news which matches my worldview more
This match is quickly running away from England here, as the NZ lead crosses 200 with six wickets remaining.
150 these two have put on, they look completely at ease, and we’re still a dozen overs from the new ball - which might now be tomorrow, as we’ve been bowling so damn slowly.
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
There were, and are, several 'Enlightenments', just as there were several 'Reformations'.
Yeah but the Enlightenment that matters is one many of us are attached to. Unfortunately, much of the modern left seems content to throw it in the bin. Free speech, democracy, rule of law etc.
Bullshit!
Democracy? The Enlightenment is generally reckoned to have occurred through the 17th and 18th centuries. What was the state of democracy in the UK by 1800? What percentage of the adult population do you think had a vote?
Free Speech? In 1795, the Parliament enacted the Treason Act and Seditious Meetings Act to suppress the burgeoning Radical movement calling for Parliamentary reform.
Democracy and Free Speech were only won because left-wing activists fought for them.
Rule of Law? Ask Johnson about that one.
Just because the Enlightenment promoted certain ideas doesn't mean the institutions around them magically caught up. The gap between the new thinking and the old way of doing things was what the violent upheavals of the 19th Century was about. And yes, the old left did fight passionately for these things, before the new left started embracing immigration amnesties and blasphemy bans. Or valuing speech based on the identity of who said it rather than its content.
I won't even indulge the whataboutism of the last line.
I don't think the right have a great track record on free speech, democracy or the rule of law.
Indeed, which is why it’s surprising that it’s flipped, with the free speech defenders now mostly on the right and the more censorious attitudes coming from the left. What caused the switch?
Many things, including the death of communism leading to a lack of ideological direction, especially taken in tandem with atheism (remember a lot of left wing thought used to be quite religious: Methodism overlapped with British socialism, for instance)
Identity politics - Woke - rushed to fill the gaping void. Very successfully. As it is a form of secular religion. So it ticked all the boxes
However in a religion the holy thing trumps all else so all the Enlightenment values got dumped in favour of extreme social justice for the intersectionally oppressed
The joke in all of this is that intersectionality is about considering all the different parts of identity. So if you consider race, religion, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexuality, disability, nationality, socioeconomic class, you start to get into pretty small segments. If you start adding in other things that affect life experience and treatment, you can add physical attractiveness, height, weight, family size, birth order, rural vs urban, age, medical conditions, neurodivergence and so on. Ultimately, you splice the population down to the individual level, at which point we return to the Enlightenment and liberalism after all.
Its not exactly the same but sort of along the same lines when there was an experiment in Australia to find the "average" Australian - by looking for somebody who was average height , average income , average weight , etc - when they got down to about 7 categories of which they got an average for each category there was nobody in Australia who was actually average!
I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
See also Tony Blair and the 1982 Beaconsfield by-election:
Yes and Blair and Cameron had never even been Cabinet Ministers before they led their party back into government (same also goes for Starmer or Harold Wilson). Sometimes it is better building up your profile if you want to be PM in a party out of power than waiting your turn in a government that has been in a while and will soon be out of power as the pendulum turns
Wilson was President of the Board of Trade from 1947-51. In the Cabinet.
A position which was not always a Cabinet level one even so and certainly never a Great Office of State
No precedent for the President in the Cabinet?
It is certainly true to say though that no former Chancellor, Foreign Secretary or Home Secretary has led their party from Opposition into Government at a general election to become PM since 1945, even if some like Wilson and Heath may have had minor Cabinet positions in a previous government. Attlee was Deputy PM but not a Great Office of State holder either
I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
maybe that she was shrewd enough to know that listing ship would get rid of the rats so a young lady like herself woudl then have time to grow in the party when it was next ready for government?
See also Tony Blair and the 1982 Beaconsfield by-election:
Yes and Blair and Cameron had never even been Cabinet Ministers before they led their party back into government (same also goes for Starmer or Harold Wilson). Sometimes it is better building up your profile if you want to be PM in a party out of power than waiting your turn in a government that has been in a while and will soon be out of power as the pendulum turns
Wilson was President of the Board of Trade from 1947-51. In the Cabinet.
The youngest member of the Attlee Cabinet and the only one left by the time Labour returned to power in 1964.
How could you, of all people, have forgotten Jim Griffiths, Colonial Secretary and Cabinet member 1950-1, who became the first Secretary of State for Wales, when Wilson formed the 1964 govt.
To be pedantic, he wasn't actually in Wilson's initial cabinet. The office was set up a week or so later.
You could add Patrick Gordon Walker, who was Colonial Secretary in 1951 and Foreign Secretary in 1964. However, he had lost his seat and was therefore the only senior minister not to be a member of Parliament.
Could mention, although not in Attlee's Cabinet, Soskice (AG 1951, Home Secretary 1964) and Brown (minister of Works in 1951, Minister for Economic Affairs 1964).
PB pedantry at its most obscure: Gordon-Walker was Commonwealth Secretary
Indeed, which is why it’s surprising that it’s flipped, with the free speech defenders now mostly on the right and the more censorious attitudes coming from the left. What caused the switch?
I'm not sure you're right on this.
The views of the "right" (if we mean not just those supportive of the Government but those opposed to the alternative) seem to this observer to dominate. Most of the newspapers are broadly anti-left. Where is the left-wing alternative to GB News or Talk TV? Look at Sky News in Australia - strongly anti-Labor and pro-Coalition and their response to the election of a Labor Government has been illuminating.
Free speech means allowing as many different voices as possible to be heard not just the same voices. As a good liberal authoritarian, I'd love all media outlets to be forced to provide balanced coverage - don't worry, I do appreciate the irony of that.
The BBC is full of wokeness, so it depends how you measure things.
I'm not even sure what "wokeness" is to be honest with you. Every time I see the term "woke" I assume it's someone on the "right" complaining the news isn't reported the way they would like it to be. Perhaps I should call the Daily Mail "woke" in response if we're throwing the word around.
"Woke" is just a new name for "politically correct".
Woke was actually used by some of the liberal (mainly young) left somewhat pompously to describe themselves. My left wing daughter taught me the word when it was used as a badge of honour. The right decided to sneer at the word as they (probably correctly) saw it as a sign certain sections of the left were so up themselves by using the term to describe themselves.
I can picture Justin Trudeau proudly describing himself thusly (in blackface of course)
While talking of the she-covery from covid.
Undoubtedly so. A colossus of our times.
"We prefer to say peoplekind" as if humankind wasn't a term.
This match is quickly running away from England here, as the NZ lead crosses 200 with six wickets remaining.
150 these two have put on, they look completely at ease, and we’re still a dozen overs from the new ball - which might now be tomorrow, as we’ve been bowling so damn slowly.
In much the same way as Truss has now abandoned her support for nuclear disarmament as well as her support for Remain in 2016 to back Johnson's hard Brexit.
If she had not changed her views she would not have a hope in hell of being elected Tory leader
Isn't the suspicion going to be that that is precisely why she u-turned on the monarchy, Brexit and disarmament? It all looks a tad too convenient.
Or maybe. Her original joining of the LD's was the cynical bit? Also, possibly motivated by not wishing to completely distance her lefty parents. She could see the tide turning, but expected a hung Parliament soon? Most people did in the relevant time period. By 1996 that game was up?
I think that's perhaps a bit of over-analysis. She was 18 or 19, and was growing up after a background soaked in CND.
I had Righty friends at Uni who became RCP for a couple of years, and a bizarre veggie housemate who used to decamp to Greenham Common at weekends, with whom getting bacon to be allowed into the fridge was like a Camp David Peace Negotiation.
People change.
It's just nice to see a recovering Republican becoming more pragmatic .
There are plenty of "used to be a Tory"s on the left, too.
One thinks also of Adam Tomkins who wrote a book on how Scotland should be independent (and IIRC also a republic). And that chap who founded the Northumberland independence party, then ended up as a Slabber and is now a ScoTory councillor. I wonder where he will end up?
I'm not even sure what "wokeness" is to be honest with you. Every time I see the term "woke" I assume it's someone on the "right" complaining the news isn't reported the way they would like it to be. Perhaps I should call the Daily Mail "woke" in response if we're throwing the word around.
"Woke" is just a new name for "politically correct".
I remember reading "1984" which I presume is the antecedent of this concept. The evolution of language to suit a political agenda or is it the evolution of language to match cultural change? I'm old enough to remember some of the tv shows from the 1970s which were fine then but aren't now.
1984 was written in 1948 (which is at the limit of my memory), and introduced the notion i.a. of 'newspeak', which shows how prescient the author was.
Are the BBC and C4 "centre to centre left" or is it because they try to have a plurality of opinion whereas GB News (which I confess I've not watched) seems, from what I read, to be much less diverse and almost wholly either pro-Government or culturally "anti-left"? I've seen some on here moan about Sky News UK which apparently isn't Sky News Australia.
There's a paradox at work - the requirement for "free speech" on the one hand versus the advantages in a democratic culture of allowing a plurality of opinion.
Would you rather only hear the opinions you support or the views with which you agree or are you willing to be challenged and listen to contrary opinions? I'm in the latter camp.
We live in a largely free market economy in TV now as much as elsewhere, as I said if the Guardian wants to start a Woke left TV channel it can do. I sometimes listen to the main BBC news at 10pm or the ITV news at the same time, otherwise I now get most of my news and discussion from GB news which matches my worldview more
That though is the problem, isn't it? If all you want is news which re-enforces your worldview you end up in an echo chamber as we see in political debate in America and Australia and to an extent here.
Democracy flourishes when a plurality of voices are heard and argument is had across the political divide. If all we hear is what we want to hear we will stagnate politically and I'd argue culturally.
I should watch GB News - I should because it offers a different perspective. I shouldn't be afraid of that - no one should be afraid of hearing arguments which challenge or make you re-evaluate.
I'm not even sure what "wokeness" is to be honest with you. Every time I see the term "woke" I assume it's someone on the "right" complaining the news isn't reported the way they would like it to be. Perhaps I should call the Daily Mail "woke" in response if we're throwing the word around.
"Woke" is just a new name for "politically correct".
I remember reading "1984" which I presume is the antecedent of this concept. The evolution of language to suit a political agenda or is it the evolution of language to match cultural change? I'm old enough to remember some of the tv shows from the 1970s which were fine then but aren't now.
1984 was written in 1948 (which is at the limit of my memory), and introduced the notion i.a. of 'newspeak', which shows how prescient the author was.
Klemperer wrote that book on the language of the NS-Zeit in Germany about that sort of time, didn't he? He called it Lingua Tertii Imperii, but I forget the title of the book itself.
Indeed, which is why it’s surprising that it’s flipped, with the free speech defenders now mostly on the right and the more censorious attitudes coming from the left. What caused the switch?
I'm not sure you're right on this.
The views of the "right" (if we mean not just those supportive of the Government but those opposed to the alternative) seem to this observer to dominate. Most of the newspapers are broadly anti-left. Where is the left-wing alternative to GB News or Talk TV? Look at Sky News in Australia - strongly anti-Labor and pro-Coalition and their response to the election of a Labor Government has been illuminating.
Free speech means allowing as many different voices as possible to be heard not just the same voices. As a good liberal authoritarian, I'd love all media outlets to be forced to provide balanced coverage - don't worry, I do appreciate the irony of that.
The BBC is full of wokeness, so it depends how you measure things.
I'm not even sure what "wokeness" is to be honest with you. Every time I see the term "woke" I assume it's someone on the "right" complaining the news isn't reported the way they would like it to be. Perhaps I should call the Daily Mail "woke" in response if we're throwing the word around.
"Woke" is just a new name for "politically correct".
Woke was actually used by some of the liberal (mainly young) left somewhat pompously to describe themselves. My left wing daughter taught me the word when it was used as a badge of honour. The right decided to sneer at the word as they (probably correctly) saw it as a sign certain sections of the left were so up themselves by using the term to describe themselves.
I can picture Justin Trudeau proudly describing himself thusly (in blackface of course)
While talking of the she-covery from covid.
Undoubtedly so. A colossus of our times.
"We prefer to say peoplekind" as if humankind wasn't a term.
To which the only reply really should havd been 'you use what you like pal'
Are the BBC and C4 "centre to centre left" or is it because they try to have a plurality of opinion whereas GB News (which I confess I've not watched) seems, from what I read, to be much less diverse and almost wholly either pro-Government or culturally "anti-left"? I've seen some on here moan about Sky News UK which apparently isn't Sky News Australia.
There's a paradox at work - the requirement for "free speech" on the one hand versus the advantages in a democratic culture of allowing a plurality of opinion.
Would you rather only hear the opinions you support or the views with which you agree or are you willing to be challenged and listen to contrary opinions? I'm in the latter camp.
We live in a largely free market economy in TV now as much as elsewhere, as I said if the Guardian wants to start a Woke left TV channel it can do. I sometimes listen to the main BBC news at 10pm or the ITV news at the same time, otherwise I now get most of my news and discussion from GB news which matches my worldview more
That though is the problem, isn't it? If all you want is news which re-enforces your worldview you end up in an echo chamber as we see in political debate in America and Australia and to an extent here.
Democracy flourishes when a plurality of voices are heard and argument is had across the political divide. If all we hear is what we want to hear we will stagnate politically and I'd argue culturally.
I should watch GB News - I should because it offers a different perspective. I shouldn't be afraid of that - no one should be afraid of hearing arguments which challenge or make you re-evaluate.
In a free market if you want to live in an conservative echo chamber you can do, whether it be Fox news in the US, Sky news in Australia, Berlusconi's channels in Italy or GB news now here too.
As I said I also still watch the nightly BBC or ITV bulletins quite often but in a world of multiple TV channels now consumers get to choose what they want to watch
Ring found in grass today. Any heraldic followers offer any clues to owner? Signet ring has inscription on inside. If owner knows what it says (I don’t!), we will try to repatriate. Found #ParsonsGreen London #heraldry https://twitter.com/AlastairBruce_/status/1532771439383912450/photo/1
Boris boos somwehat reminiscent of Brown getting booed at that rememberance do for D Day in 2009.
Boos are not a great indicator of crowd displeasure given one (or a tiny number of people) person can boo and can sort of tar the crowd they are in with it . Same goes for cheering although people tend to go along with cheers (as its a positive thing) . That said Johnson is unpopular and its not his policies or even the economy generally, its his arrogance over the parties - people get that fundamentally - people follow leaders who set good examples whether in work or politics - this is not a westminster bubble issue , nor is it a political issue really , its a fundamental decency issue that nearly all the population get and understand
Indeed, which is why it’s surprising that it’s flipped, with the free speech defenders now mostly on the right and the more censorious attitudes coming from the left. What caused the switch?
I'm not sure you're right on this.
The views of the "right" (if we mean not just those supportive of the Government but those opposed to the alternative) seem to this observer to dominate. Most of the newspapers are broadly anti-left. Where is the left-wing alternative to GB News or Talk TV? Look at Sky News in Australia - strongly anti-Labor and pro-Coalition and their response to the election of a Labor Government has been illuminating.
Free speech means allowing as many different voices as possible to be heard not just the same voices. As a good liberal authoritarian, I'd love all media outlets to be forced to provide balanced coverage - don't worry, I do appreciate the irony of that.
The BBC is full of wokeness, so it depends how you measure things.
I'm not even sure what "wokeness" is to be honest with you. Every time I see the term "woke" I assume it's someone on the "right" complaining the news isn't reported the way they would like it to be. Perhaps I should call the Daily Mail "woke" in response if we're throwing the word around.
"Woke" is just a new name for "politically correct".
I don't think they're quite synonymous. Wokeness is an ideology with a directional quality whereas political correctness doesn't have any intrinsic tendency to "go mad".
Also wonder why we, as a largely non religious nation, should care what a god botherer thinks.
We shouldn't in terms of politics, most of the bishops are liberal left in the Church of England even if most of the congregation are Conservatives.
He is entitled to his view but he has no say greater say on who our PM is other than any other voter, his role is to preach the Gospel and administer communion and manage his parishes effectively
I'm not even sure what "wokeness" is to be honest with you. Every time I see the term "woke" I assume it's someone on the "right" complaining the news isn't reported the way they would like it to be. Perhaps I should call the Daily Mail "woke" in response if we're throwing the word around.
"Woke" is just a new name for "politically correct".
I remember reading "1984" which I presume is the antecedent of this concept. The evolution of language to suit a political agenda or is it the evolution of language to match cultural change? I'm old enough to remember some of the tv shows from the 1970s which were fine then but aren't now.
1984 was written in 1948 (which is at the limit of my memory), and introduced the notion i.a. of 'newspeak', which shows how prescient the author was.
Klemperer wrote that book on the language of the NS-Zeit in Germany about that sort of time, didn't he? He called it Lingua Tertii Imperii, but I forget the title of the book itself.
Government source told i: “If you chuck Boris, you blow the Red Wall apart. He is the only leader that holds it together.”
Is that the Red Wall that's swung more to Labour than the rest of the country, the one which with Johnson the Tories are set to hold two of the seats?
These people are honestly out of it, they've been in Government too long
Yes. It's a resounding myth, supported by little polling reality, which keeps getting repeated.
I thought it was 3, not 2, seats. One of them was this one.
And if it was based on UNS (was it?) in the current day and age then it is probably (avoids PB "almost certainly" klaxon) meaningless anyway.
The Red Wall is imo far more about Lib Dem style constituency politics. But I think we all know that, anyway. Rampaging rhetorical below-the-line mobs of on average 4x or 5x or 6x year-old males is mainly a PB self-indulgence, at gin-o-clock.
Boris boos somwehat reminiscent of Brown getting booed at that rememberance do for D Day in 2009.
Boos are not a great indicator of crowd displeasure given one (or a tiny number of people) person can boo and can sort of tar the crowd they are in with it . Same goes for cheering although people tend to go along with cheers (as its a positive thing) . That said Johnson is unpopular and its not his policies or even the economy generally, its is arrogance over the parties - people get that fundamentally - people follow leaders who set good examples whether in work or politics - this is not a westminster bubble issue , nor is it a political issue really , its a fundamental decency issue that nearly all the population get and understand
Yes i agree. I meant it more as a sign of the wheels having come off. By summer 2009 Brown was irrevocably done in the public eye. Johnson equally so. Entirely different catalysts of course. BJ has catastrophically let down everyone that put their faith in him and hes not coming back from that. Ever.
I'm not even sure what "wokeness" is to be honest with you. Every time I see the term "woke" I assume it's someone on the "right" complaining the news isn't reported the way they would like it to be. Perhaps I should call the Daily Mail "woke" in response if we're throwing the word around.
"Woke" is just a new name for "politically correct".
I remember reading "1984" which I presume is the antecedent of this concept. The evolution of language to suit a political agenda or is it the evolution of language to match cultural change? I'm old enough to remember some of the tv shows from the 1970s which were fine then but aren't now.
1984 was written in 1948 (which is at the limit of my memory), and introduced the notion i.a. of 'newspeak', which shows how prescient the author was.
Klemperer wrote that book on the language of the NS-Zeit in Germany about that sort of time, didn't he? He called it Lingua Tertii Imperii, but I forget the title of the book itself.
Also wonder why we, as a largely non religious nation, should care what a god botherer thinks.
We shouldn't in terms of politics, most of the bishops are liberal left in the Church of England even if most of the congregation are Conservatives.
He is entitled to his view but he has no say greater say on who our PM is other than any other voter, his role is to preach the Gospel and administer communion and manage his parishes effectively
I'm not even sure what "wokeness" is to be honest with you. Every time I see the term "woke" I assume it's someone on the "right" complaining the news isn't reported the way they would like it to be. Perhaps I should call the Daily Mail "woke" in response if we're throwing the word around.
"Woke" is just a new name for "politically correct".
I remember reading "1984" which I presume is the antecedent of this concept. The evolution of language to suit a political agenda or is it the evolution of language to match cultural change? I'm old enough to remember some of the tv shows from the 1970s which were fine then but aren't now.
1984 was written in 1948 (which is at the limit of my memory), and introduced the notion i.a. of 'newspeak', which shows how prescient the author was.
Klemperer wrote that book on the language of the NS-Zeit in Germany about that sort of time, didn't he? He called it Lingua Tertii Imperii, but I forget the title of the book itself.
I did not know that. Was it Otto?
Went and checked my copy. Victor Klemperer; Lingua Tertii Imperii: Notizbuch eines Philologen published in 1947; the English translation is called 'The Language of the Third Reich', no wonder I couldn't remember!
Indeed, which is why it’s surprising that it’s flipped, with the free speech defenders now mostly on the right and the more censorious attitudes coming from the left. What caused the switch?
I'm not sure you're right on this.
The views of the "right" (if we mean not just those supportive of the Government but those opposed to the alternative) seem to this observer to dominate. Most of the newspapers are broadly anti-left. Where is the left-wing alternative to GB News or Talk TV? Look at Sky News in Australia - strongly anti-Labor and pro-Coalition and their response to the election of a Labor Government has been illuminating.
Free speech means allowing as many different voices as possible to be heard not just the same voices. As a good liberal authoritarian, I'd love all media outlets to be forced to provide balanced coverage - don't worry, I do appreciate the irony of that.
The BBC is full of wokeness, so it depends how you measure things.
I'm not even sure what "wokeness" is to be honest with you. Every time I see the term "woke" I assume it's someone on the "right" complaining the news isn't reported the way they would like it to be. Perhaps I should call the Daily Mail "woke" in response if we're throwing the word around.
"Woke" is just a new name for "politically correct".
I don't think they're quite synonymous. Wokeness is an ideology with a directional quality whereas political correctness doesn't have any intrinsic tendency to "go mad".
I had to chuckle when ( i think) Broadmoor mental hospital did something "right-on" and some wag said "its madness gone politically correct!"
This match is quickly running away from England here, as the NZ lead crosses 200 with six wickets remaining.
150 these two have put on, they look completely at ease, and we’re still a dozen overs from the new ball - which might now be tomorrow, as we’ve been bowling so damn slowly.
I've not been following this.
Interesting pitch?
Slightly easier pitch after lunch, and two determined batsmen.
Ring found in grass today. Any heraldic followers offer any clues to owner? Signet ring has inscription on inside. If owner knows what it says (I don’t!), we will try to repatriate. Found #ParsonsGreen London #heraldry https://twitter.com/AlastairBruce_/status/1532771439383912450/photo/1
That's a seal ring, isn't it.
Quick Reflect and Google - Vincit Veritas is a Czech motto, amongst others.
Also wonder why we, as a largely non religious nation, should care what a god botherer thinks.
We shouldn't in terms of politics, most of the bishops are liberal left in the Church of England even if most of the congregation are Conservatives.
He is entitled to his view but he has no say greater say on who our PM is other than any other voter, his role is to preach the Gospel and administer communion and manage his parishes effectively
Jesus was a Social Democrat, by the way.
The Old Testament was certainly Conservative.
However you can pick out bits of the Bible to support most political ideologies if you look hard enough
This match is quickly running away from England here, as the NZ lead crosses 200 with six wickets remaining.
150 these two have put on, they look completely at ease, and we’re still a dozen overs from the new ball - which might now be tomorrow, as we’ve been bowling so damn slowly.
This match is quickly running away from England here, as the NZ lead crosses 200 with six wickets remaining.
150 these two have put on, they look completely at ease, and we’re still a dozen overs from the new ball - which might now be tomorrow, as we’ve been bowling so damn slowly.
I've not been following this.
Interesting pitch?
Slightly easier pitch after lunch, and two determined batsmen.
England seem to think it's partially an issue with the ball, too.
Ring found in grass today. Any heraldic followers offer any clues to owner? Signet ring has inscription on inside. If owner knows what it says (I don’t!), we will try to repatriate. Found #ParsonsGreen London #heraldry https://twitter.com/AlastairBruce_/status/1532771439383912450/photo/1
Does it say one ring to rule them all and in the darkness bind them? Because, if it does, I have an idea.
Indeed, which is why it’s surprising that it’s flipped, with the free speech defenders now mostly on the right and the more censorious attitudes coming from the left. What caused the switch?
I'm not sure you're right on this.
The views of the "right" (if we mean not just those supportive of the Government but those opposed to the alternative) seem to this observer to dominate. Most of the newspapers are broadly anti-left. Where is the left-wing alternative to GB News or Talk TV? Look at Sky News in Australia - strongly anti-Labor and pro-Coalition and their response to the election of a Labor Government has been illuminating.
Free speech means allowing as many different voices as possible to be heard not just the same voices. As a good liberal authoritarian, I'd love all media outlets to be forced to provide balanced coverage - don't worry, I do appreciate the irony of that.
It is also the Right that are suppressing the right to protest.
The right to free speech does not extend to consequence free speech.
I'd say the Right make a lot of noise about Free Speech but they aren't great defenders of it. You can split this (imo) into legal v social. Legal is what the law forbids you from saying. Social is what society discourages you from saying. The issue in this country is the latter since very little lands you in jail and what can are only things escaping your lips that are pretty much agreed by most to be both vile and dangerous.
On the non-legal side a person is more likely to feel their Free Speech is under threat if they have opinions and attitudes which are throwbacks to a bygone age. I can empathize with this - it must be frustrating - but at the same time I view it as progress that certain things which used to be the norm and openly expressed must now be avoided like the plague unless you're prepared to get some shit for it.
And I'm sorry but I think all the stuff about the Left wanting to roll back The Enlightenment is just UnHerd Drivelpipe - pseudo-deep wordplay with little or no connection to the mundane bread-and-butter actual world.
Anyone who thinks that "the other side" (whether the Woke, UKIP, JK Rowling, the French, Liz Truss, the Lefties, Remoaners, etc) is morally reprehensible because they don't share exactly the same set of values is worse than a fool. They are allowing their perception of morally superiority to cloud their judgement.
Not naming any names on here, obviously.
Thomas has virtue =Thomas Tugend hat. (auf Deutsch)
I'd wondered if his surname might be a variation of a possible old German word "Tugendheit" meaning virtuousness.
Also wonder why we, as a largely non religious nation, should care what a god botherer thinks.
We shouldn't in terms of politics, most of the bishops are liberal left in the Church of England even if most of the congregation are Conservatives.
He is entitled to his view but he has no say greater say on who our PM is other than any other voter, his role is to preach the Gospel and administer communion and manage his parishes effectively
If anyone thinks that Alan Wilson, Bishop of Buckingham, is a Bible Basher, you all need to do some background reading .
(Edit: bugger - he stopped writing his blog.)
Nick Baines, the BIshop of Leeds, is a good more traditionalist open Evangelical foil. He has a European side to him - and sometimes blogs in German. https://nickbaines.wordpress.com/
As to why you should care about what Bishops think - because they are thoughtful people who usually have a very wide range of experience of their communities, and interesting life-histories. They also don't have to prostitute themselves to one or other wing of current politics, and can take a longer term view.
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
There were, and are, several 'Enlightenments', just as there were several 'Reformations'.
Yeah but the Enlightenment that matters is one many of us are attached to. Unfortunately, much of the modern left seems content to throw it in the bin. Free speech, democracy, rule of law etc.
Bullshit!
Democracy? The Enlightenment is generally reckoned to have occurred through the 17th and 18th centuries. What was the state of democracy in the UK by 1800? What percentage of the adult population do you think had a vote?
Free Speech? In 1795, the Parliament enacted the Treason Act and Seditious Meetings Act to suppress the burgeoning Radical movement calling for Parliamentary reform.
Democracy and Free Speech were only won because left-wing activists fought for them.
Rule of Law? Ask Johnson about that one.
Just because the Enlightenment promoted certain ideas doesn't mean the institutions around them magically caught up. The gap between the new thinking and the old way of doing things was what the violent upheavals of the 19th Century was about. And yes, the old left did fight passionately for these things, before the new left started embracing immigration amnesties and blasphemy bans. Or valuing speech based on the identity of who said it rather than its content.
I won't even indulge the whataboutism of the last line.
I don't think the right have a great track record on free speech, democracy or the rule of law.
Indeed, which is why it’s surprising that it’s flipped, with the free speech defenders now mostly on the right and the more censorious attitudes coming from the left. What caused the switch?
Many things, including the death of communism leading to a lack of ideological direction, especially taken in tandem with atheism (remember a lot of left wing thought used to be quite religious: Methodism overlapped with British socialism, for instance)
Identity politics - Woke - rushed to fill the gaping void. Very successfully. As it is a form of secular religion. So it ticked all the boxes
However in a religion the holy thing trumps all else so all the Enlightenment values got dumped in favour of extreme social justice for the intersectionally oppressed
The joke in all of this is that intersectionality is about considering all the different parts of identity. So if you consider race, religion, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexuality, disability, nationality, socioeconomic class, you start to get into pretty small segments. If you start adding in other things that affect life experience and treatment, you can add physical attractiveness, height, weight, family size, birth order, rural vs urban, age, medical conditions, neurodivergence and so on. Ultimately, you splice the population down to the individual level, at which point we return to the Enlightenment and liberalism after all.
Its not exactly the same but sort of along the same lines when there was an experiment in Australia to find the "average" Australian - by looking for somebody who was average height , average income , average weight , etc - when they got down to about 7 categories of which they got an average for each category there was nobody in Australia who was actually average!
The average human has one testicle.
I would have thought the median and the mode was zero, while the mean will be around 0.95.
Just been doung some constituency surfing and it occurs to me that the laughable 'red wall' threat from Boz supporters is a crock of crap. The red wall realignment is not some magical 2019 phenomena, that was just the year the waters overtopped. Its been a pattern since 2005/2010. Tories have been on the increase in these seats in a very recognisable pattern - increase from 2005 onwards, 2015 saw a levelling or slight dip but a large UKIP vote and falling labour share, increases into 2017 continuing with overtopping and gains 2019. Johnson did NOT deliver the red wall, he was a step in an ongoing process. The trend does not suggest removing him is a reset
Also wonder why we, as a largely non religious nation, should care what a god botherer thinks.
We shouldn't in terms of politics, most of the bishops are liberal left in the Church of England even if most of the congregation are Conservatives.
He is entitled to his view but he has no say greater say on who our PM is other than any other voter, his role is to preach the Gospel and administer communion and manage his parishes effectively
Jesus was a Social Democrat, by the way.
The Old Testament was certainly Conservative.
However you can pick out bits of the Bible to support most political ideologies if you look hard enough
Hmm. I don't think either of those works.
Far more to do with blowing up preconceptions of anyone.
I'm still puzzled what it was about the Conservative Party in 1996 that attracted her to join. At that point, most observers realised they would be hammered at the next election so she was effectively joining a sinking ship.
If anything that's a sign it was a genuine philosophical conversion.
yes , knew she would get nowhere with Lib Dums so decided to join the grifters where you can use any method to climb the greasy pole.
Judging by the vid, Liz T could have been Hermione in Harry Potter. Borisov Absentia Permanens !Nice to see that the NS is trying to scare us. Do we have any PB LT admirers in the military?
How many votes will change because of something La Truss said at a Lib Dem conference at the age approximately 18 and a half?
A lovely afternoon in the garden. Now I need some rain because the patio plants have drunk the water butt.
You should come to the Lake district. Been here 5 days now, rained every one of them and today was a better effort than most with several hours worth. Beginiing to think the clue was maybe in the name...
The only PB patio in the Lake District is @Cyclefree I suspect.
I'm not getting some early strawberries, mind. A whole 3 the day before yesterday, and I can see some more now. Currently warthing a neighbour pressure-washing his roof from above the apex on a firmly lashed in ladder - not my style.
Where it always seems to be shining and various exotic flowers are in bloom. It is lush here, I can't argue with that. But early afternoon today on 3rd June it was 12 degrees. My wife keeps pointing at the airport chaos but jeez, that's not warm.
Yes. Dryish April, cool May in Cumbria. June showing little sign of improvement.
Just been doung some constituency surfing and it occurs to me that the laughable 'red wall' threat from Boz supporters is a crock of crap. The red wall realignment is not some magical 2019 phenomena, that was just the year the waters overtopped. Its been a pattern since 2005/2010. Tories have been on the increase in these seats in a very recognisable pattern - increase from 2005 onwards, 2015 saw a levelling or slight dip but a large UKIP vote and falling labour share, increases into 2017 continuing with overtopping and gains 2019. Johnson did NOT deliver the red wall, he was a step in an ongoing process. The trend does not suggest removing him is a reset
Some might even say it was the culmination of a process that began in 1979
Comments
She could see the tide turning, but expected a hung Parliament soon? Most people did in the relevant time period.
By 1996 that game was up?
Is that the Red Wall that's swung more to Labour than the rest of the country, the one which with Johnson the Tories are set to hold two of the seats?
These people are honestly out of it, they've been in Government too long
Anyone who thinks that "the other side" (whether the Woke, UKIP, JK Rowling, the French, Liz Truss, the Lefties, Remoaners, etc) is morally reprehensible because they don't share exactly the same set of values is worse than a fool. They are allowing their perception of morally superiority to cloud their judgement.
Not naming any names on here, obviously.
Gaitskell was a former Chancellor but as Labour Leader lost the 1959 general election to Macmillan, Howard a former Home Secretary who as Tory Leader lost the 2005 general election to Blair. Former Chancellor Ken Clarke also stood to be Leader of the Tories in Opposition several times but lost, former Chancellor Denis Healey stood for Labour leader in 1980 but lost and former Foreign Secretary David Miliband stood for Labour leader in 2010 but lost some other examples
Stephen Timms has been East Ham MP since 1994 and there's plenty of speculation Khan could be the successor candidate (unless Rokhsana Fiaz, the current Newham Mayor wants the seat instead). I'm sure a seat could be found in London for Khan without too much trouble.
Publicly, Khan has said he wants a third term but I'm not convinced and Starmer could well offer him a serious job in a new Labour Government.
You could add Patrick Gordon Walker, who was Colonial Secretary in 1951 and Foreign Secretary in 1964. However, he had lost his seat and was therefore the only senior minister not to be a member of Parliament.
Could mention, although not in Attlee's Cabinet, Soskice (AG 1951, Home Secretary 1964) and Brown (minister of Works in 1951, Minister for Economic Affairs 1964).
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-cant-ignore-the-booing-they-should-be-his-crowd-mq80k08m8
https://old.reddit.com/r/cscareerquestions/comments/v2lpdw/elon_musk_just_asked_all_employees_to_return_to/
I'm not getting some early strawberries, mind. A whole 3 the day before yesterday, and I can see some more now. Currently warthing a neighbour pressure-washing his roof from above the apex on a firmly lashed in ladder - not my style.
They can't claim he's a good PM, because he isn't.
They can't claim he's a decent person because he's not.
They can't claim there are no better alternatives, because any alternative that is not Michael Fabricant or Nadine Dorries would probably do better.
They can't even claim he's delivered Brexit, because he's admitted he hasn't.
So they have to come up with *something.*
He was not a new Leader of the Opposition after 1945, he was a continuing Tory leader already in the role before 1945
Normal, debatable, discussable stuff but with an added layer of moral certainty and earnestness
There's a paradox at work - the requirement for "free speech" on the one hand versus the advantages in a democratic culture of allowing a plurality of opinion.
Would you rather only hear the opinions you support or the views with which you agree or are you willing to be challenged and listen to contrary opinions? I'm in the latter camp.
Besides, you said 'no former Chancellor, Foreign Secretary or Home Secretary has led their party from Opposition into Government at a general election to become PM since 1945.' You said nothing about him having been PM before.
150 these two have put on, they look completely at ease, and we’re still a dozen overs from the new ball - which might now be tomorrow, as we’ve been bowling so damn slowly.
There's bigotry. And there's racism.
And there's significant disagreement about what constitutes both.
Personally I'm inclined to define much identity politics as bigotry, where some others define it as some sort of liberation movement.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/02/boris-johnson-should-resign-forced-say-grassroots-conservatives/
https://twitter.com/cathynewman/status/1532763050054455296?s=21&t=HyopsG2Ulj3FsrgBzuYMLg
Wonder what @HYUFD makes of this.
Also wonder why we, as a largely non religious nation, should care what a god botherer thinks.
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-force-discovered-the-flaw-of-averages.html
The result was, that they designed aircraft that could be operated by a physically wide range of people.
I had Righty friends at Uni who became RCP for a couple of years, and a bizarre veggie housemate who used to decamp to Greenham Common at weekends, with whom getting bacon to be allowed into the fridge was like a Camp David Peace Negotiation.
People change.
It's just nice to see a recovering Republican becoming more pragmatic
There are plenty of "used to be a Tory"s on the left, too.
Interesting pitch?
EDIT: Still higher than the average among backbench Tory MPs
with the possible exception of Mrs May...
Democracy flourishes when a plurality of voices are heard and argument is had across the political divide. If all we hear is what we want to hear we will stagnate politically and I'd argue culturally.
I should watch GB News - I should because it offers a different perspective. I shouldn't be afraid of that - no one should be afraid of hearing arguments which challenge or make you re-evaluate.
As I said I also still watch the nightly BBC or ITV bulletins quite often but in a world of multiple TV channels now consumers get to choose what they want to watch
He is entitled to his view but he has no say greater say on who our PM is other than any other voter, his role is to preach the Gospel and administer communion and manage his parishes effectively
And if it was based on UNS (was it?) in the current day and age then it is probably (avoids PB "almost certainly" klaxon) meaningless anyway.
The Red Wall is imo far more about Lib Dem style constituency politics. But I think we all know that, anyway. Rampaging rhetorical below-the-line mobs of on average 4x or 5x or 6x year-old males is mainly a PB self-indulgence, at gin-o-clock.
Entirely different catalysts of course.
BJ has catastrophically let down everyone that put their faith in him and hes not coming back from that. Ever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTI_–_Lingua_Tertii_Imperii
Quick Reflect and Google - Vincit Veritas is a Czech motto, amongst others.
However you can pick out bits of the Bible to support most political ideologies if you look hard enough
On the non-legal side a person is more likely to feel their Free Speech is under threat if they have opinions and attitudes which are throwbacks to a bygone age. I can empathize with this - it must be frustrating - but at the same time I view it as progress that certain things which used to be the norm and openly expressed must now be avoided like the plague unless you're prepared to get some shit for it.
And I'm sorry but I think all the stuff about the Left wanting to roll back The Enlightenment is just UnHerd Drivelpipe - pseudo-deep wordplay with little or no connection to the mundane bread-and-butter actual world.
(Edit: bugger - he stopped writing his blog.)
Nick Baines, the BIshop of Leeds, is a good more traditionalist open Evangelical foil. He has a European side to him - and sometimes blogs in German.
https://nickbaines.wordpress.com/
As to why you should care about what Bishops think - because they are thoughtful people who usually have a very wide range of experience of their communities, and interesting life-histories. They also don't have to prostitute themselves to one or other wing of current politics, and can take a longer term view.
Johnson did NOT deliver the red wall, he was a step in an ongoing process. The trend does not suggest removing him is a reset
Far more to do with blowing up preconceptions of anyone.