Why? Because experience shows that admitting you are a Tory is just not worth the hassle. Put a sticker in your car - get it keyed. Put a poster in your window and all your neighbours know your politics, including those who have a problem with that - and might be inclined to remember it when out late after a night on the piss.
Yep - you don't get Tories keying leftoids' cars or vandalising war memorials or trying to prevent them adopting children or trying to cost them their career for holding the wrong view on climate science (or calling for them to be killed for doing so, as one leftist academic did). All these are only done by the left, and are the thin end of a wedge whose other end, historically, is gulags (another the left isn't sorry about) at the slightest opportunity.
Consequently, until May 7th, everyone was behind Ed Miliband, and since May 8th nobody ever agreed with him to begin with. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
Seriously, it's only lefties who are nasty to rightists? NF, BNP, Monday Club Tories, UKIP are all sweetness and light?
Give me an example, say, of any of those groups calling for scientists who support the global warming hypothesis to be judicially killed; or of Monday Club (does that still exist?) members preventing Labour supporters from adopting children; or of UKIPpers vandalising, say, a mosque, or a Polski Sklep. Just one of each will do.
What I'm asking for is evidence of ostensibly respectable bodies of right-wing opinion who institutionally do the same sort of things as left-wing institutions do. Gun loonies are not such bodies.
The left tries to get people sacked from their jobs for dissenting from the climate orthodoxy, it seriously argues they should be judicially killed for doing so, it denies adoption to UKIP supporters. What are the equivalent faults of right wing institutions?
In 1982, the constitution was re-written, with more emphasis on support for the Conservative Party, but subsequent in-fighting over the club’s ‘hard right’ agenda led to many resignations. In 2001, the Conservatives formally severed relations with the club, which has ceased to exercise significant influence, with full membership below 600.
Why? Because experience shows that admitting you are a Tory is just not worth the hassle. Put a sticker in your car - get it keyed. Put a poster in your window and all your neighbours know your politics, including those who have a problem with that - and might be inclined to remember it when out late after a night on the piss.
Seriously, it's only lefties who are nasty to rightists? NF, BNP, Monday Club Tories, UKIP are all sweetness and light?
Give me an example, say, of any of those groups calling for scientists who support the global warming hypothesis to be judicially killed; or of Monday Club (does that still exist?) members preventing Labour supporters from adopting children; or of UKIPpers vandalising, say, a mosque, or a Polski Sklep. Just one of each will do.
Thanks, I thought I hadn't heard of them in decades. This invocation of people who don't exist any more is also very characteristic of the left. The Monday Club is, apparently, a current example of right wing nastiness to the left comparable to the left's nastiness to the right, but when you delve into it, you find it fell apart 20 years ago and no nastiness was even cited. What really offended logical_song about the Monday Club was that it disagreed with the left and that it existed.
It is very reminiscent of the school textbook Winston Smith reads in 1984 in which capitalists were evil people who wore top hats, owned factories and were barons who bonked female serfs.
Total crap. Ok so I'm out of date with internal Tory party institutions. I object to you telling me what I object to and to telling me that I'm on the left.
Then why did you cite the Monday Club as an example of a body on the right that bullies individuals on the left in the same way as vice versa? Give me an example of when the Monday Club instructed someone on the left to fall silent because its views were unacceptable - something I assume you accept the left does do given we're in a thread about shy Tories.
Why? Because experience shows that admitting you are a Tory is just not worth the hassle. Put a sticker in your car - get it keyed. Put a poster in your window and all your neighbours know your politics, including those who have a problem with that - and might be inclined to remember it when out late after a night on the piss.
Yep - you don't get Tories keying leftoids' cars or vandalising war memorials or trying to prevent them adopting children or trying to cost them their career for holding the wrong view on climate science (or calling for them to be killed for doing so, as one leftist academic did). All these are only done by the left, and are the thin end of a wedge whose other end, historically, is gulags (another the left isn't sorry about) at the slightest opportunity.
Consequently, until May 7th, everyone was behind Ed Miliband, and since May 8th nobody ever agreed with him to begin with. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
Seriously, it's only lefties who are nasty to rightists? NF, BNP, Monday Club Tories, UKIP are all sweetness and light?
Give me an example, say, of any of those groups calling for scientists who support the global warming hypothesis to be judicially killed; or of Monday Club (does that still exist?) members preventing Labour supporters from adopting children; or of UKIPpers vandalising, say, a mosque, or a Polski Sklep. Just one of each will do.
What I'm asking for is evidence of ostensibly respectable bodies of right-wing opinion who institutionally do the same sort of things as left-wing institutions do. Gun loonies are not such bodies.
The left tries to get people sacked from their jobs for dissenting from the climate orthodoxy, it seriously argues they should be judicially killed for doing so, it denies adoption to UKIP supporters. What are the equivalent faults of right wing institutions?
Homosexuality and the military pre 2000 ?
Can't think of a current example off the top of my head.
Francis Pym got handbagged by Maggie in 83 for pointing out that massive majorities made for poor government. I think he was right then and it was true of Blair as well.
Should have listened to those anti-Iraq war protestors. It is still a live issue, and I cannot comprehend why the party tolerates Alastair Campbell as a spokesman after his role in the warmongering.
You ruin your argument with the word 'warmongering'. The Iraq war can be and was justified. The poor man who Labour hung out to dry, Dr Kelly, believed in WMD. But Labour being Labour could not help but produce dodgy dossiers to head off its pacifist wing. Campbell is/was an odious bully.
With the best will in the world, Iraq after Saddam has been a much worse place than Iraq under Saddam.
In previous posts I have pointed out that if Blair and Bush should be criticised it is for not planning for the post war period. That does not mean that the motives for the invasion were not justifiable. But at the time the UN was enforcing sanctions that were killing children (thanks to Saddam misusing the terms of the sanctions). Saddam left alone could and probably would quite easily have ethnically cleansed an a large scale those people not to his ethnic liking. Turning a blind eye and doing nothing does not make you a saint.
I always find this claim a bit weird.
Are you seriously saying that if you had to choose between
1) knowingly, actively fabricating evidence of WMD and then lyingly presenting it to Parliament to justify a bloody invasion; and 2) neglecting to plan for what happened next
you think 2) was the greater evil? How on earth do you arrive at that? The former was deliberate mendacity, the second merely negligence and wholly contingent on the former. 1) guaranteed bloody mayhem and without 1) there'd have been no 2).
It's like saying invading Poland was OK, it was the Katyn Massacre and setting up of the General Government that were the really bad things.
You are talking cobblers. We could have stayed out of WW2 - WW1 as well - and saved ourselves a lot of bother. Clearly Dunkirk shows how well we were prepared for WW2 and what an ace policy it was to get involved when compared to Iraq. Oh how we could have congratulated ourselves as Hitler successfully ethnically cleansed all of the East.
In 1982, the constitution was re-written, with more emphasis on support for the Conservative Party, but subsequent in-fighting over the club’s ‘hard right’ agenda led to many resignations. In 2001, the Conservatives formally severed relations with the club, which has ceased to exercise significant influence, with full membership below 600.
Why? Because experience shows that admitting you are a Tory is just not worth the hassle. Put a sticker in your car - get it keyed. Put a poster in your window and all your neighbours know your politics, including those who have a problem with that - and might be inclined to remember it when out late after a night on the piss.
Seriously, it's only lefties who are nasty to rightists? NF, BNP, Monday Club Tories, UKIP are all sweetness and light?
Give me an example, say, of any of those groups calling for scientists who support the global warming hypothesis to be judicially killed; or of Monday Club (does that still exist?) members preventing Labour supporters from adopting children; or of UKIPpers vandalising, say, a mosque, or a Polski Sklep. Just one of each will do.
It is very reminiscent of the school textbook Winston Smith reads in 1984 in which capitalists were evil people who wore top hats, owned factories and were barons who bonked female serfs.
Total crap. Ok so I'm out of date with internal Tory party institutions. I object to you telling me what I object to and to telling me that I'm on the left.
Then why did you cite the Monday Club as an example of a body on the right that bullies individuals on the left in the same way as vice versa? Give me an example of when the Monday Club instructed someone on the left to fall silent because its views were unacceptable - something I assume you accept the left does do given we're in a thread about shy Tories.
Do you not think that whether the Monday Club exists or not is down in the noise level. It seems that I'm never going to convince you that people are people whether they're on the left or right. Some are nasty and some aren't, but it seems that the more extreme they are on either wing the more one should worry. Some blow up offices in Oklahoma, some rampage around with guns, some even behead people - and they aren't all on the left!
Francis Pym got handbagged by Maggie in 83 for pointing out that massive majorities made for poor government. I think he was right then and it was true of Blair as well.
Should have listened to those anti-Iraq war protestors. It is still a live issue, and I cannot comprehend why the party tolerates Alastair Campbell as a spokesman after his role in the warmongering.
You ruin your argument with the word 'warmongering'. The Iraq war can be and was justified. The poor man who Labour hung out to dry, Dr Kelly, believed in WMD. But Labour being Labour could not help but produce dodgy dossiers to head off its pacifist wing. Campbell is/was an odious bully.
With the best will in the world, Iraq after Saddam has been a much worse place than Iraq under Saddam.
In previous posts I have pointed out that if Blair and Bush should be criticised it is for not planning for the post war period. That does not mean that the motives for the invasion were not justifiable. But at the time the UN was enforcing sanctions that were killing children (thanks to Saddam misusing the terms of the sanctions). Saddam left alone could and probably would quite easily have ethnically cleansed an a large scale those people not to his ethnic liking. Turning a blind eye and doing nothing does not make you a saint.
I always find this claim a bit weird.
Are you seriously saying that if you had to choose between
1) knowingly, actively fabricating evidence of WMD and then lyingly presenting it to Parliament to justify a bloody invasion; and 2) neglecting to plan for what happened next
you think 2) was the greater evil? How on earth do you arrive at that? The former was deliberate mendacity, the second merely negligence and wholly contingent on the former. 1) guaranteed bloody mayhem and without 1) there'd have been no 2).
It's like saying invading Poland was OK, it was the Katyn Massacre and setting up of the General Government that were the really bad things.
You are talking cobblers. We could have stayed out of WW2 - WW1 as well - and saved ourselves a lot of bother. Clearly Dunkirk shows how well we were prepared for WW2 and what an ace policy it was to get involved when compared to Iraq. Oh how we could have congratulated ourselves as Hitler successfully ethnically cleansed all of the East.
I'm struggling to understand the relevance of this to the question I put.
Francis Pym got handbagged by Maggie in 83 for pointing out that massive majorities made for poor government. I think he was right then and it was true of Blair as well.
Should have listened to those anti-Iraq war protestors. It is still a live issue, and I cannot comprehend why the party tolerates Alastair Campbell as a spokesman after his role in the warmongering.
You ruin your argument with the word 'warmongering'. The Iraq war can be and was justified. The poor man who Labour hung out to dry, Dr Kelly, believed in WMD. But Labour being Labour could not help but produce dodgy dossiers to head off its pacifist wing. Campbell is/was an odious bully.
With the best will in the world, Iraq after Saddam has been a much worse place than Iraq under Saddam.
In previous posts I have pointed out that if Blair and Bush should be criticised it is for not planning for the post war period. That does not mean that the motives for the invasion were not justifiable. But at the time the UN was enforcing sanctions that were killing children (thanks to Saddam misusing the terms of the sanctions). Saddam left alone could and probably would quite easily have ethnically cleansed an a large scale those people not to his ethnic liking. Turning a blind eye and doing nothing does not make you a saint.
What example of post-war planning in the Muslim world do you think should have been followed? Somalia? Afghanistan? Libya? Even if we had reduced casualties by half, far fewer children would have died if we simply left Saddam to it.
I am not saying there should be no criticism, I am saying that its being directly wrongly. Opponents of the war were not asking about post war structures, they were pacifists opposed to war full stop. They equally had no real answer to Saddams' persecution of his own people. Simply bleating 'warmonger' as a criticism of Iraq is I maintain pretty pathetic.
Why? Because experience shows that admitting you are a Tory is just not worth the hassle. Put a sticker in your car - get it keyed. Put a poster in your window and all your neighbours know your politics, including those who have a problem with that - and might be inclined to remember it when out late after a night on the piss.
Consequently, until May 7th, everyone was behind Ed Miliband, and since May 8th nobody ever agreed with him to begin with. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
Seriously, it's only lefties who are nasty to rightists? NF, BNP, Monday Club Tories, UKIP are all sweetness and light?
What I'm asking for is evidence of ostensibly respectable bodies of right-wing opinion who institutionally do the same sort of things as left-wing institutions do. Gun loonies are not such bodies.
The left tries to get people sacked from their jobs for dissenting from the climate orthodoxy, it seriously argues they should be judicially killed for doing so, it denies adoption to UKIP supporters. What are the equivalent faults of right wing institutions?
Homosexuality and the military pre 2000 ?
Can't think of a current example off the top of my head.
I don't think the Warsaw Pact, Cuban, North Vietnamese, Iranian or Chinese militaries (for example) are/were right wing, and nor are all gays left-wing. Most likely, militaries all arrived at the same prohibitions for reasons of shared military doctrine. In the same way, both NATO and the Warsaw Pact thought that in the event of a war, bombing the other side with air strikes would be useful. Politics don't come into it.
It may or may not be mistaken doctrine, but it does IMO make it hard to maintain that militaries banning gays do so because they are righties being nasty to a political enemy. Militaries aren't all righties and gays aren't all lefties.
I made my first and last political comment on Twitter a few weeks ago when 2 political commentators were debating FFA/SNP/Barnett. My comment, meant in jest, was that the SNP were after Full Fiscal Barnett, by the next day it was a hashtag:
I hope the French are on the ball about the beheadings possibly being a diversionary tactic and the theft of gas cannisters of some description being the main purpose of this attack.
Very much depends on what that Air Products plant manufactures what the potential for some kind of subsequent bomb / gas attack could be and how much damage that could realistically do.
Air Products manufacture gases easily found in your local hospital, petrol station, or car mechanics workshop. If one wanted to steal these in bulk, there are probably better places to find them than a fenced off and relatively secure processing plant, where such loss would be noticed.
Do you not think that whether the Monday Club exists or not is down in the noise level. It seems that I'm never going to convince you that people are people whether they're on the left or right. Some are nasty and some aren't, but it seems that the more extreme they are on either wing the more one should worry. Some blow up offices in Oklahoma, some rampage around with guns, some even behead people - and they aren't all on the left!
I don't think BJB is trying to say that "The Right" doesn't have it's fair share of nutters, just that respectable right leaning institutions don't go round demanding that lefties be sacked/killed/denied adoption etc. in contrast to respectable left leaning institutions that do.
And that this may go some way to explain the shy Tory phenomenon.
In 1982, the constitution was re-written, with more emphasis on support for the Conservative Party, but subsequent in-fighting over the club’s ‘hard right’ agenda led to many resignations. In 2001, the Conservatives formally severed relations with the club, which has ceased to exercise significant influence, with full membership below 600.
Why? Because experience shows that admitting you are a Tory is just not worth the hassle. Put a sticker in your car - get it keyed. Put a poster in your window and all your neighbours know your politics, including those who have a problem with that - and might be inclined to remember it when out late after a night on the piss.
Seriously, it's only lefties who are nasty to rightists? NF, BNP, Monday Club Tories, UKIP are all sweetness and light?
Give me an example, say, of any of those groups calling for scientists who support the global warming hypothesis to be judicially killed; or of Monday Club (does that still exist?) members preventing Labour supporters from adopting children; or of UKIPpers vandalising, say, a mosque, or a Polski Sklep. Just one of each will do.
Do you not think that whether the Monday Club exists or not is down in the noise level. It seems that I'm never going to convince you that people are people whether they're on the left or right. Some are nasty and some aren't, but it seems that the more extreme they are on either wing the more one should worry. Some blow up offices in Oklahoma, some rampage around with guns, some even behead people - and they aren't all on the left!
Well, you brought the Monday Club up.
I'm not talking about individual gun-nut loonies who fully understand that they're going to be tried as criminals (which is why the last person they kill is often themselves). I'm requesting but not getting examples of right wing bodies of opinion that feel entitled to command dissenters to fall silent and to harm their families or careers because of their political views - like left wing climate scientists, academics and social workers feel completely entitled to do.
Seriously, unless this is something only the left ever does, it shouldn't be this hard. I've given some examples - where are the counter examples? Why the evasion and misdirection?
Yep - you don't get Tories keying leftoids' cars or vandalising war memorials or trying to prevent them adopting children or trying to cost them their career for holding the wrong view on climate science (or calling for them to be killed for doing so, as one leftist academic did). All these are only done by the left, and are the thin end of a wedge whose other end, historically, is gulags (another the left isn't sorry about) at the slightest opportunity.
Consequently, until May 7th, everyone was behind Ed Miliband, and since May 8th nobody ever agreed with him to begin with. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
Seriously, it's only lefties who are nasty to rightists? NF, BNP, Monday Club Tories, UKIP are all sweetness and light?
Give me an example, say, of any of those groups calling for scientists who support the global warming hypothesis to be judicially killed; or of Monday Club (does that still exist?) members preventing Labour supporters from adopting children; or of UKIPpers vandalising, say, a mosque, or a Polski Sklep. Just one of each will do.
What I'm asking for is evidence of ostensibly respectable bodies of right-wing opinion who institutionally do the same sort of things as left-wing institutions do. Gun loonies are not such bodies.
The left tries to get people sacked from their jobs for dissenting from the climate orthodoxy, it seriously argues they should be judicially killed for doing so, it denies adoption to UKIP supporters. What are the equivalent faults of right wing institutions?
Police infiltrating left wing groups, impregnating their female members and then disappearing when their surveillance mission ends?
The use of kettles to stifle legitimate protest time and time again?
Rees Mogg's insistence that SNP MPs should repeatedly swear an oath to the Queen?
Poshness tests that keep working class kids out of good jobs?
The thing is that right wing nastiness is deeply embedded in standard practice in the older institutionsinstitutions, the left wing nastiness is more obvious because it's more recent.
Yep - you don't get Tories keying leftoids' cars or vandalising war memorials or trying to prevent them adopting children or trying to cost them their career for holding the wrong view on climate science (or calling for them to be killed for doing so, as one leftist academic did). All these are only done by the left, and are the thin end of a wedge whose other end, historically, is gulags (another the left isn't sorry about) at the slightest opportunity.
Consequently, until May 7th, everyone was behind Ed Miliband, and since May 8th nobody ever agreed with him to begin with. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
Seriously, it's only lefties who are nasty to rightists? NF, BNP, Monday Club Tories, UKIP are all sweetness and light?
Give me an example, say, of any of those groups calling for scientists who support the global warming hypothesis to be judicially killed; or of Monday Club (does that still exist?) members preventing Labour supporters from adopting children; or of UKIPpers vandalising, say, a mosque, or a Polski Sklep. Just one of each will do.
What I'm asking for is evidence of ostensibly respectable bodies of right-wing opinion who institutionally do the same sort of things as left-wing institutions do. Gun loonies are not such bodies.
The left tries to get people sacked from their jobs for dissenting from the climate orthodoxy, it seriously argues they should be judicially killed for doing so, it denies adoption to UKIP supporters. What are the equivalent faults of right wing institutions?
Police infiltrating left wing groups, impregnating their female members and then disappearing when their surveillance mission ends?
The use of kettles to stifle legitimate protest time and time again?
Rees Mogg's insistence that SNP MPs should repeatedly swear an oath to the Queen?
Poshness tests that keep working class kids out of good jobs?
The thing is that right wing nastiness is deeply embedded in standard practice in the older institutionsinstitutions, the left wing nastiness is more obvious because it's more recent.
Are you saying that the police are a right wing organisation?
struggle to understand dissenters to scientific opinion should necessarily be right wing, or why supporters of the consensus should be overwhelmingly left wing
Yep - you don't get Tories keying leftoids' cars or vandalising war memorials or trying to prevent them adopting children or trying to cost them their career for holding the wrong view on climate science (or calling for them to be killed for doing so, as one leftist academic did). All these are only done by the left, and are the thin end of a wedge whose other end, historically, is gulags (another the left isn't sorry about) at the slightest opportunity.
Consequently, until May 7th, everyone was behind Ed Miliband, and since May 8th nobody ever agreed with him to begin with. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
Seriously, it's only lefties who are nasty to rightists? NF, BNP, Monday Club Tories, UKIP are all sweetness and light?
Give me an example, say, of any of those groups calling for scientists who support the global warming hypothesis to be judicially killed; or of Monday Club (does that still exist?) members preventing Labour supporters from adopting children; or of UKIPpers vandalising, say, a mosque, or a Polski Sklep. Just one of each will do.
What I'm asking for is evidence of ostensibly respectable bodies of right-wing opinion who institutionally do the same sort of things as left-wing institutions do. Gun loonies are not such bodies.
The left tries to get people sacked from their jobs for dissenting from the climate orthodoxy, it seriously argues they should be judicially killed for doing so, it denies adoption to UKIP supporters. What are the equivalent faults of right wing institutions?
Police infiltrating left wing groups, impregnating their female members and then disappearing when their surveillance mission ends?
The use of kettles to stifle legitimate protest time and time again?
Rees Mogg's insistence that SNP MPs should repeatedly swear an oath to the Queen?
Poshness tests that keep working class kids out of good jobs?
The thing is that right wing nastiness is deeply embedded in standard practice in the older institutionsinstitutions, the left wing nastiness is more obvious because it's more recent.
Do you not think that whether the Monday Club exists or not is down in the noise level. It seems that I'm never going to convince you that people are people whether they're on the left or right. Some are nasty and some aren't, but it seems that the more extreme they are on either wing the more one should worry. Some blow up offices in Oklahoma, some rampage around with guns, some even behead people - and they aren't all on the left!
I don't think BJB is trying to say that "The Right" doesn't have it's fair share of nutters, just that respectable right leaning institutions don't go round demanding that lefties be sacked/killed/denied adoption etc. in contrast to respectable left leaning institutions that do.
And that this may go some way to explain the shy Tory phenomenon.
Precisely.
It was only a month ago that some ghastly leftist Oxford academic harpy basically said she'd fail anyone on her course if they had Conservative views.
I have raised this a number of times over the years but have never actually got even one example of the right doing anything similar. From this I infer that only lefties do this, and they see nothing wrong with doing it, justifying the institutional denial to someone of their rightfully-earned degree with "Anders Breivik".
In short there is good reason not to be an admitted Tory: you will subjected to political persecution and there is no comeback on the persecutors.
If you polled Russians in Brezhnev's day and asked them if they supported the East or the West the pro-West voice would have been equally silent for the same reasons.
Police infiltrating left wing groups, impregnating their female members and then disappearing when their surveillance mission ends?
The use of kettles to stifle legitimate protest time and time again?
Rees Mogg's insistence that SNP MPs should repeatedly swear an oath to the Queen?
Poshness tests that keep working class kids out of good jobs?
The thing is that right wing nastiness is deeply embedded in standard practice in the older institutions, the left wing nastiness is more obvious because it's more recent.
The police under Sir Ian Blair were right wing? The police in Rotherham were right wing? Really?
Is Rees Mogg an institution? What happens if you ignore him? Can he get MPs fired?
Mr. Bond, she definitely said she'd 'unfriend' them. Not sure about failing them.
But the whole point of democracy is the people being free to choose. Her line of thinking is that some people are voting wrong. It's an abhorrent perspective.
In short there is good reason not to be an admitted Tory: you will subjected to political persecution and there is no comeback on the persecutors.
If you polled Russians in Brezhnev's day and asked them if they supported the East or the West the pro-West voice would have been equally silent for the same reasons.
struggle to understand dissenters to scientific opinion should necessarily be right wing, or why supporters of the consensus should be overwhelmingly left wing
I'm not exactly sure why they are, but they are. It is probably because they have identified a problem for which a collectivist "solution" can be imposed without having to win a vote, by means of an appeal to authority. Scientists say it so we must do it. "It" just happens to be taxes and statism.
Donna Framboise has demonstrated pretty clearly that the IPCC has been thoroughly penetrated by Green activists.
I find shy Tory syndrome an odd thing to still be around after all this time, and wonder if the incessant attempts to stop being the 'nasty party' or whatever merely end up reinforcing and renewing that view for a lot of people, that is people assume even Tories consider themselves such that they keep having to try and cleanse it, whereas Labour seem much more confident they are the nice ones, even though the differences between the parties on moral rightness is hardly much to write home about.
One day the Shy Tory effect wil presumably not apply anymore (it hasn't always decided elections, potentially), and there will be some shocked pundits - after all, with it being called wrong like 1992 again this time, if next time the polls show a Lab win is more likely, many of us probably won't beleive it!
On that point, it must be said it wasn't only Labour supporters who vocally and insistently said the Tories would lose, as I know only too well.
And I have to agree with the view that it's fine to complain about the absolute numbers of the population who voted Tory this time and they got a majority, so long as the person complaining did not like the system (even if perhaps they preferred the political outcome) when Labour were the beneficiaries. That's seems reasonable and consistent enough. It's not complaining about the system before which would be a problem.
Re context of political posting, I tend to overcompensate with mentioning I wished UKIP well even if I did not support their policies (I am only a recent convert to voting Out in the referendum) if commenting on the Telegraph or similar, simply to avoid what would feel like crowds of angry Kippers assuming any negative or neutral comment about the party or an issue they supported was because people hated UKIP. I am sure others have done such things elsewhere.
Broadly speaking, I think that if you are Conservative, or worse still, UKIP, or hold right wing views, there are a fair number of workplaces, principally in the public sector, or quasi-public sector, where you'd be well-advised to keep quiet about it.
Sepp Blatter says he has not resigned as Fifa president.
The 79-year-old Swiss was thought to have ended his 17-year reign on 2 June amid claims of corruption in world football's governing body.
But, according to Swiss newspaper Blick, Blatter told a party at a Fifa museum: "I did not resign. I put myself and my office in the hands of the Fifa congress."
Blatter is thought to be considering standing for re-election as president.
Mr. Bond, she definitely said she'd 'unfriend' them. Not sure about failing them.
But the whole point of democracy is the people being free to choose. Her line of thinking is that some people are voting wrong. It's an abhorrent perspective.
and in a comment at 10:54pm on 9 May she replies to the challenge from commenters that she will be biased against her students.
"My students can express whatever crazy views they like in their work, provided that they argue for them: they are graded on their argument, not on the content of the views for which they are arguing."
Having previously indicated she does not accept any Conservative arguments, it is clear that she would grade them poorly on their argument. Her claim later in that comment that "There are various strategies one can use to try to correct for this [bias], some of which are institutionalised (e.g. marking by more than one person, external examining" - is wholly unreassuring, since other persons and external examiners may be just as bigoted as she is herself.
So I think it is pretty clear, taking her comments in toto, that she would fail or penalise anyone who advanced Conservative arguments and concluded that they were stronger.
kle4 To be fair more of the final polls had the Tories ahead than Labour, it was just most had it neck and neck which was where they went wrong, and of course Survation had a poll they did not publish on election night with a sizeable Tory lead. There was certainly no evidence to suggest Ed Miliband would become PM on election eve, even if there was little evidence Cameron would win a majority either
Mr. Bond, she definitely said she'd 'unfriend' them. Not sure about failing them.
But the whole point of democracy is the people being free to choose. Her line of thinking is that some people are voting wrong. It's an abhorrent perspective.
and in a comment at 10:54pm on 9 May she replies to the challenge from commenters that she will be biased against her students.
"My students can express whatever crazy views they like in their work, provided that they argue for them: they are graded on their argument, not on the content of the views for which they are arguing."
Having previously indicated she does not accept Conservative arguments it is clear that she would grade them poorly on her argument. Her claim later in that comment that "There are various strategies one can use to try to correct for this [bias], some of which are institutionalised (e.g. marking by more than one person, external examining" - is wholly unreassuring, since other persons and external examiners may be as bigoted as herself.
So I think it is pretty clear, taking her comments in toto, that she would fail or penalise anyone who advanced Conservative arguments and concluded that they were stronger.
I was at Brighton Uni 5 years ago, studying Humanities. In the first (and last!) year I wrote 7 essays on various philosophical and political issues, six 2:1s and a 1st. Then I wrote one criticizing the effect of mass immigration on society, which was marked by a teacher who said there was no party in Britain left wing enough for her to vote for, and banged on about Cuba and The Guardian incessantly.
SeanF Yes, having worked in the public sector recently there was a lot of groaning about the Tories, frequently referred to as 'they' and George Osborne seen as an evil, machiavellian figure, UKIP were seen as totally beyond the pale. However, I am sure there were a few silent Tories I worked with even if they did not shout it from the rooftops you could tell from their more balanced tone on the economic situation, some had worked in the private sector or were working as consultants, one was married to a soldier etc. Yet the polls are clear that a majority of the public sector votes for Labour or leftwing parties even when the Tories win. I don't think you would get the same hostility supporting Labour, the Greens or SNP outside, perhaps, of the most rightwing army officers mess or the most macho Trading Floor
Mr. Bond, she definitely said she'd 'unfriend' them. Not sure about failing them.
But the whole point of democracy is the people being free to choose. Her line of thinking is that some people are voting wrong. It's an abhorrent perspective.
Edited extra bit: cheers, Mr. HYUFD.
I think some people are voting wrongly too, but the crucial difference is that I don't seek to punish them for doing so. It isn't the opinion that some people are wrong that is abhorrent, it is the moral superiority and implied right to "correct" them that is.
Broadly speaking, I think that if you are Conservative, or worse still, UKIP, or hold right wing views, there are a fair number of workplaces, principally in the public sector, or quasi-public sector, where you'd be well-advised to keep quiet about it.
That's true enough I think, more so for UKIP than the Tories I suspect. I live in a hugely Tory area and work in the public sector, and am surprised at how people react to UKIP stuff with much less guarded or equivocal mockery and dislike sometimes, when no-one seems to bat an eye about Tories. Though in fairness the Greens get similar treatment, minus implications of being racist. I presume there are workplaces where admitting to being a lefty is not something people do lightly either, though no dount people would quibble about how disdainful said anti-lefty workplace might be.
The embarrassing thing for some people now whereever they are, will be admitting to who voted LD! (I did, for the record).
"The shadow home secretary has also argued that there must also be greater diversity in the police, armed forces and civil service. She has said that she will outline her plans to increase diversity over the course of the leadership contest."
"Cooper has said she will call for greater diversity in the armed forces. She has also responded to a report from the National Audit Office yesterday, which showed that the number of BAME people – as well as the number of women and disabled people – is lower than it should be in the civil service, particularly at senior levels."
"....greater diversity in the armed forces" - yes, let's recruit more pacifists.
OTOH she could call for a true meritocracy (which we still don't have in this country) so that the most able people can get on in life, regardless of race, colour, sexuality or any other of the irrelevant ways that the human race divides itself.
BJO, am no twitter "expert", but from what I can gather there are two hotels under attack. One gunman killed; one arrested. Can only advise you to stay away from windows and barricade yourself in your room. Sincerely hope things are brought under control soon.
Move your bed and any other heavy furniture against your door. If they are inside the hotel they may look for easy targets. Don't be one. Do not go near the windows.
I can't think of a more evil and pernicious piece of legislation introduced by any government in the last 100 years than section 28.
I can think of far worse, over the course of 100 years.
Would you mind sharing your thoughts, I'm genuinely interested
Inter alia, I'd regard the Trade Union and Labour Relations Acts 1974/1976, the Rent Acts 1965/1977, the Hunting Act 2004, and the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 as being more pernicious.
BBC Reporting: An official in Tunisia's Interior Ministry has told the BBC that there was an ongoing "terrorist attack" at the Imperial Marhaba Hotel in the resort of Sousse. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-africa-33208573
The curious thing about this discussion about left and right wing, is that it overlooks the mutual dependence between the groups.
You can't have one without the other. Right or left wing are relative terms.
People like to define their politics wrt others. At the same time they are against them and need them.
True enough. Personally I think the right-left spectrum is largely nonsense, as people and parties now flit about it on issue to issue with far less ideological basis for things than is pretended, and it becomes about which tribe one feels one ought to be supporting, as we know for a fact support for a policy can change depending on who people are told it is coming from.
I can't think of a more evil and pernicious piece of legislation introduced by any government in the last 100 years than section 28.
I can think of far worse, over the course of 100 years.
Would you mind sharing your thoughts, I'm genuinely interested
Inter alia, I'd regard the Trade Union and Labour Relations Acts 1974/1976, the Rent Acts 1965/1977, the Hunting Act 2004, and the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 as being more pernicious.
The hunting ban as one of the most pernicious pieces of legislation of the last 100 years?
The curious thing about this discussion about left and right wing, is that it overlooks the mutual dependence between the groups.
You can't have one without the other. Right or left wing are relative terms.
People like to define their politics wrt others. At the same time they are against them and need them.
True enough. Personally I think the right-left spectrum is largely nonsense, as people and parties now flit about it on issue to issue with far less ideological basis for things than is pretended, and it becomes about which tribe one feels one ought to be supporting, as we know for a fact support for a policy can change depending on who people are told it is coming from.
@BJO Sky reporting: Susan Rickett, at the Palm Marina Hotel near Sousse, told Sky News: "My sister was talking to someone who had seen some people shooting and had shot someone on a sun bed but we don't know if that's true.
"It sounded like a machine gun going off... and there was a kind of explosion a little bit later.
"They're saying its going on in the hotel next to us.
"Police were chasing some men, that's all I know."
Comments
The left tries to get people sacked from their jobs for dissenting from the climate orthodoxy, it seriously argues they should be judicially killed for doing so, it denies adoption to UKIP supporters. What are the equivalent faults of right wing institutions?
Then why did you cite the Monday Club as an example of a body on the right that bullies individuals on the left in the same way as vice versa? Give me an example of when the Monday Club instructed someone on the left to fall silent because its views were unacceptable - something I assume you accept the left does do given we're in a thread about shy Tories.
Can't think of a current example off the top of my head.
Do you not think that whether the Monday Club exists or not is down in the noise level.
It seems that I'm never going to convince you that people are people whether they're on the left or right. Some are nasty and some aren't, but it seems that the more extreme they are on either wing the more one should worry. Some blow up offices in Oklahoma, some rampage around with guns, some even behead people - and they aren't all on the left!
He claimed the suspect in the Grenoble attack was trying to blow the gas factory up
A security official said the torso was found near the site of the explosion but that the victim was not decapitated by the blast.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/man-decapitated-and-several-hurt-in-suspected-islamist-attack-in-grenoble-factory-092920187.html#wZqOk2T
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG642.html
chrome-extension://bpmcpldpdmajfigpchkicefoigmkfalc/views/app.html
I am not saying there should be no criticism, I am saying that its being directly wrongly. Opponents of the war were not asking about post war structures, they were pacifists opposed to war full stop. They equally had no real answer to Saddams' persecution of his own people.
Simply bleating 'warmonger' as a criticism of Iraq is I maintain pretty pathetic.
It may or may not be mistaken doctrine, but it does IMO make it hard to maintain that militaries banning gays do so because they are righties being nasty to a political enemy. Militaries aren't all righties and gays aren't all lefties.
https://twitter.com/hashtag/fullfiscalbarnett?src=hash&vertical=default&f=tweets
And that this may go some way to explain the shy Tory phenomenon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2017
It seems that I'm never going to convince you that people are people whether they're on the left or right. Some are nasty and some aren't, but it seems that the more extreme they are on either wing the more one should worry. Some blow up offices in Oklahoma, some rampage around with guns, some even behead people - and they aren't all on the left!
Well, you brought the Monday Club up.
I'm not talking about individual gun-nut loonies who fully understand that they're going to be tried as criminals (which is why the last person they kill is often themselves). I'm requesting but not getting examples of right wing bodies of opinion that feel entitled to command dissenters to fall silent and to harm their families or careers because of their political views - like left wing climate scientists, academics and social workers feel completely entitled to do.
Seriously, unless this is something only the left ever does, it shouldn't be this hard. I've given some examples - where are the counter examples? Why the evasion and misdirection?
Far too early for this to help her directly in the presidential vote, but it could help her with a less important one.
Mr. Barber, indeed, I never heard of foster parents having their kids taken for supporting the Greens.
The use of kettles to stifle legitimate protest time and time again?
Rees Mogg's insistence that SNP MPs should repeatedly swear an oath to the Queen?
Poshness tests that keep working class kids out of good jobs?
The thing is that right wing nastiness is deeply embedded in standard practice in the older institutionsinstitutions, the left wing nastiness is more obvious because it's more recent.
Basically, employers want employees who can speak and write coherently. Better schools tend to provide better potential employees.
It's like arguing doctors all come from academic backgrounds because they all have PhDs.
I think your other points have at least some merit, though.
It was only a month ago that some ghastly leftist Oxford academic harpy basically said she'd fail anyone on her course if they had Conservative views.
I have raised this a number of times over the years but have never actually got even one example of the right doing anything similar. From this I infer that only lefties do this, and they see nothing wrong with doing it, justifying the institutional denial to someone of their rightfully-earned degree with "Anders Breivik".
In short there is good reason not to be an admitted Tory: you will subjected to political persecution and there is no comeback on the persecutors.
If you polled Russians in Brezhnev's day and asked them if they supported the East or the West the pro-West voice would have been equally silent for the same reasons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_departmental_elections,_2015
Is Rees Mogg an institution? What happens if you ignore him? Can he get MPs fired?
Poshness tests? Sorry, you made that up.
But the whole point of democracy is the people being free to choose. Her line of thinking is that some people are voting wrong. It's an abhorrent perspective.
Edited extra bit: cheers, Mr. HYUFD.
Donna Framboise has demonstrated pretty clearly that the IPCC has been thoroughly penetrated by Green activists.
Yes, in the case of the Met
One day the Shy Tory effect wil presumably not apply anymore (it hasn't always decided elections, potentially), and there will be some shocked pundits - after all, with it being called wrong like 1992 again this time, if next time the polls show a Lab win is more likely, many of us probably won't beleive it!
On that point, it must be said it wasn't only Labour supporters who vocally and insistently said the Tories would lose, as I know only too well.
And I have to agree with the view that it's fine to complain about the absolute numbers of the population who voted Tory this time and they got a majority, so long as the person complaining did not like the system (even if perhaps they preferred the political outcome) when Labour were the beneficiaries. That's seems reasonable and consistent enough. It's not complaining about the system before which would be a problem.
Re context of political posting, I tend to overcompensate with mentioning I wished UKIP well even if I did not support their policies (I am only a recent convert to voting Out in the referendum) if commenting on the Telegraph or similar, simply to avoid what would feel like crowds of angry Kippers assuming any negative or neutral comment about the party or an issue they supported was because people hated UKIP. I am sure others have done such things elsewhere.
Broadly speaking, I think that if you are Conservative, or worse still, UKIP, or hold right wing views, there are a fair number of workplaces, principally in the public sector, or quasi-public sector, where you'd be well-advised to keep quiet about it.
Sepp Blatter says he has not resigned as Fifa president.
The 79-year-old Swiss was thought to have ended his 17-year reign on 2 June amid claims of corruption in world football's governing body.
But, according to Swiss newspaper Blick, Blatter told a party at a Fifa museum: "I did not resign. I put myself and my office in the hands of the Fifa congress."
Blatter is thought to be considering standing for re-election as president.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33284185
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2015/05/if-youre-a-conservative-im-not-your-friend/
and in a comment at 10:54pm on 9 May she replies to the challenge from commenters that she will be biased against her students.
"My students can express whatever crazy views they like in their work, provided that they argue for them: they are graded on their argument, not on the content of the views for which they are arguing."
Having previously indicated she does not accept any Conservative arguments, it is clear that she would grade them poorly on their argument. Her claim later in that comment that "There are various strategies one can use to try to correct for this [bias], some of which are institutionalised (e.g. marking by more than one person, external examining" - is wholly unreassuring, since other persons and external examiners may be just as bigoted as she is herself.
So I think it is pretty clear, taking her comments in toto, that she would fail or penalise anyone who advanced Conservative arguments and concluded that they were stronger.
MD Thanks
I think it comes down to left wing policies/aims being sexy and right policies/aims being not quite so sexy.
I mean, talking about the NHS and social justice/equality is something that gets more kudos points than talking about deficit reduction or the EU.
FAILED!
I can't think of a more evil and pernicious piece of legislation introduced by any government in the last 100 years than section 28.
The embarrassing thing for some people now whereever they are, will be admitting to who voted LD! (I did, for the record).
Labour must double the number of BAME MPs, says Yvette Cooper
http://labourlist.org/2015/06/labour-must-double-the-number-of-bame-mps-says-yvette-cooper/
"The shadow home secretary has also argued that there must also be greater diversity in the police, armed forces and civil service. She has said that she will outline her plans to increase diversity over the course of the leadership contest."
"Cooper has said she will call for greater diversity in the armed forces. She has also responded to a report from the National Audit Office yesterday, which showed that the number of BAME people – as well as the number of women and disabled people – is lower than it should be in the civil service, particularly at senior levels."
"....greater diversity in the armed forces" - yes, let's recruit more pacifists.
OTOH she could call for a true meritocracy (which we still don't have in this country) so that the most able people can get on in life, regardless of race, colour, sexuality or any other of the irrelevant ways that the human race divides itself.
I'm an extremely shy Tory.
In fact, I'm so painfully shy, I found myself physically incapable of marking an 'X' in the Conservative box on my ballot paper.
You can't have one without the other. Right or left wing are relative terms.
People like to define their politics wrt others. At the same time they are against them and need them.
http://news.sky.com/story/1508894/attack-on-tourist-hotel-in-tunisia-reports
http://news.sky.com/story/1508894/attack-on-tourist-hotel-in-tunisia-reports
Sounds like an ongoing situation.
"Seven Dead In Tunisian Tourist Hotel Gun Attack"
http://news.sky.com/story/1508894/seven-dead-in-tunisian-tourist-hotel-gun-attack
"Meanwhile deadly explosions have hit a Shiite mosque in Kuwait's capital after Friday prayers."
"Attackers carrying Islamist flags ram a car into gas canisters at the building, setting off an explosion"
http://news.sky.com/story/1508786/beheading-and-explosion-at-french-factory
Can only advise you to stay away from windows and barricade yourself in your room. Sincerely hope things are brought under control soon.
http://news.sky.com/story/1508900/live-updates-brits-hiding-in-hotel-rooms
Is there a way to put a lot of walls between you and outside? Ensuite bathroom? Barricade the door?
http://news.sky.com/story/1508900/live-updates-brits-hiding-in-hotel-rooms
Edited extra bit: top press Twitter is 2 gunmen opened fire on hotels, 1 is now dead.
Let's move Tunisia forward by attacking tourist hotels??
An official in Tunisia's Interior Ministry has told the BBC that there was an ongoing "terrorist attack" at the Imperial Marhaba Hotel in the resort of Sousse.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-africa-33208573
I really hope this is over soon. All the best.
I'm no great fan but that seems too far.
Susan Rickett, at the Palm Marina Hotel near Sousse, told Sky News: "My sister was talking to someone who had seen some people shooting and had shot someone on a sun bed but we don't know if that's true.
"It sounded like a machine gun going off... and there was a kind of explosion a little bit later.
"They're saying its going on in the hotel next to us.
"Police were chasing some men, that's all I know."