That BBC interview with Bex Bailey is very harrowing. She was 19 when she was raped, at a Labour Party event. Senior party staff she spoke to told her that reporting the offence to police or the party would be bad for her. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41821671
This is why we shouldn’t be so keen to dismiss issues concerning sexual harassment, sexual assault, and even rape in British politics as a non-story or indeed a ‘witch hunt’ implying that these issues are somehow only confined to Hollywood. Victims must be able to come forward so that we can see the extent of the problem.
And oh, aside from one PBer I didn’t see any PB lefties get ‘carried away’ by inferring the issue was one of only Tory sleaze. What had happened however, is an increase in the number of people desiring to make out this story as a ‘witch hunt’ ever since the Sunday Stories concerning Tory MPs and sexual harassment came out.
Glad Labour will be doing an internal investigation, but it should have never have happened, and there needs to be a wider internal review within the party concerning issues is sexism, misogyny, harassment, assault etc more generally to ensure that the party is a safe space for women, because one allegation is too many.
And oh, aside from one PBer I didn’t see any PB lefties get ‘carried away’ by inferring the issue was one of only Tory sleaze.
That is true. There's people out there saying that, but I don't think many in these parts could not forsee these sorts of things will not be restricted to one party
Laura K has been getting abused by Corbynistas for sometime now. This goes beyond her reporting of the Bex Bailey story and into a wider issue associated with a part of Corbyn’s support, who cannot deal with any kind of criticism thrown in the way of their messiah. It’s what happens when you attract those who feel that ‘socialism’ of the Labour Party should be male centred and not inclusive to the needs/perspectives of women and minorities.
- The original alleged rape, which is entirely a matter for the police. However, they can't do much unless Bex Bailey reports it to them.
- The claim that a senior Labour official warned her off reporting it, albeit two years later. That is something that the Labour Party should investigate.
- Labour Party members abusing journalists (particularly female journalists, I wonder why?). That is just completely unacceptable and the party should get a grip on it.
- The original alleged rape, which is entirely a matter for the police. However, they can't do much unless Bex Bailey reports it to them.
- The claim that a senior Labour official warned her off reporting it, albeit two years later. That is something that the Labour Party should investigate.
- Labour Party members abusing journalists (particularly female journalists, I wonder why?). That is just completely unacceptable and the party should get a grip on it.
They have been ignoring the abuse of journalists (and female MPs) for a long time - I see no evidence that they are likely to change now.
Laura K has been getting abused by Corbynistas for sometime now. This goes beyond her reporting of the Bex Bailey story and into a wider issue associated with a part of Corbyn’s support, who cannot deal with any kind of criticism thrown in the way of their messiah. It’s what happens when you attract those who feel that ‘socialism’ of the Labour Party should be male centred and not inclusive to the needs/perspectives of women and minorities.
Not sure that your last sentence is right - quite a lot of the unpleasantness comes from women. It's not so much the male-ness as the cultish nature of the Corbyn support which is probably the root of the problem, and it's closely linked to their other prejudices.
- The original alleged rape, which is entirely a matter for the police. However, they can't do much unless Bex Bailey reports it to them.
- The claim that a senior Labour official warned her off reporting it, albeit two years later. That is something that the Labour Party should investigate.
- Labour Party members abusing journalists (particularly female journalists, I wonder why?). That is just completely unacceptable and the party should get a grip on it.
They have been ignoring the abuse of journalists (and female MPs) for a long time - I see no evidence that they are likely to change now.
Somehow, if someone like Ed was leading Labour I don’t think Labour would be having issues with members attacking journalists - Labour members are not perfect, but this seemed to become a big issue since Corbyn became leader.
Laura K has been getting abused by Corbynistas for sometime now. This goes beyond her reporting of the Bex Bailey story and into a wider issue associated with a part of Corbyn’s support, who cannot deal with any kind of criticism thrown in the way of their messiah. It’s what happens when you attract those who feel that ‘socialism’ of the Labour Party should be male centred and not inclusive to the needs/perspectives of women and minorities.
Not sure that your last sentence is right - quite a lot of the unpleasantness comes from women. It's not so much the male-ness as the cultish nature of the Corbyn support which is probably the root of the problem, and it's closely linked to their other prejudices.
My experience has suggested otherwise. Not saying no women have been unpleasant, but by a large a lot of the abuse Laura K gets from what I’ve seen is from left leaning men. Also, women can be misogynists and sign up to male centred narratives - it’s happened in the past.
Somehow, if someone like Ed was leading Labour I don’t think Labour would be having issues with members attacking journalists - Labour members are not perfect, but this seemed to become a big issue since Corbyn became leader.
The cult think journalists unfairly treated Jezza, by accurately reporting everything he said and did.
My experience as suggested otherwise. Not saying no women have been unpleasant, but by a large a lot of the abuse Laura K gets from what I’ve seen is from left leaning men. Also, women can be misogynists and sign up to male centred narratives - it’s happened in the past.
It's just old-fashioned hatred and prejudice, hardly surprising from a movement founded on the proposition that their political opponents are evil.
What exactly is the "abuse" that Kuenssberg is supposedly getting? All I see on her Twitter feed are people asking her why she isn't reporting the Tory allegations with the same prominence as the Labour allegations. Now, that might not be a very justified complaint (not least, because the victim on the Labour case has gone on the record, whereas none of the Tories' alleged victims have gone on the record), but I fail to see how asking questions of journalists' work automatically constitutes "abuse". Or am I missing loads of tweets which actually are screaming abusive language, death threats, etc., at her?
Mr. Nabavi, indeed. When you decide politics = morality, then people of other parties aren't politically-interested equals who have a different perspective, they're morally bankrupt deviants who have rejected goodness.
And are we really still on the idea that Labour members are the only ones who are abusive? Did no-one have a look at Diane Abbott's Twitter feed during the election?
What exactly is the "abuse" that Kuenssberg is supposedly getting? All I see on her Twitter feed are people asking her why she isn't reporting the Tory allegations with the same prominence as the Labour allegations. Now, that might not be a very justified complaint (not least, because the victim on the Labour case has gone on the record, whereas none of the Tories' alleged victims have gone on the record), but I fail to see how asking questions of journalists' work automatically constitutes "abuse". Or am I missing loads of tweets which actually are screaming abusive language, death threats, etc., at her?
It is part of a long-standing pattern of behaviour from certain parts of the Twitterverse to target LauraK for anything she does that they don't like. Today's comments are relatively mild but they are still part of the same type of behaviour.
Attack the messenger - deflect attention from the issue.
They are trying to set up an equivalence between touching someone on their knee and covering up a rape allegation - that is unacceptable and wrong.
And are we really still on the idea that Labour members are the only ones who are abusive? Did no-one have a look at Diane Abbott's Twitter feed during the election?
Of course not - it is in all parties but this allegation of rape and cover up is the most serious so far
My experience as suggested otherwise. Not saying no women have been unpleasant, but by a large a lot of the abuse Laura K gets from what I’ve seen is from left leaning men. Also, women can be misogynists and sign up to male centred narratives - it’s happened in the past.
It's just old-fashioned hatred and prejudice, hardly surprising from a movement founded on the proposition that their political opponents are evil.
I have to say, I have never understood why so many right wingers really seem to care how the Left sees them. I didn’t agree with Pidcock’s ‘I wouldn’t be friends with a Tory stance’ but was bemused to see so many howls of outrage, particularly since it’s said that many Labour MPs are friendly with Tories.
Also, if the last sentence was correct, you’d expect the right to be flaw free given that they apparently don’t hate their political opponents. Of course with recent McCarthyite behaviour in regard to universities, there’s clearly aspects of the political right which cannot deal with dissent either, thus ‘crush the saboteurs’.
Somehow, if someone like Ed was leading Labour I don’t think Labour would be having issues with members attacking journalists - Labour members are not perfect, but this seemed to become a big issue since Corbyn became leader.
The cult think journalists unfairly treated Jezza, by accurately reporting everything he said and did.
Ms. Apocalypse, perhaps because people on the right are likelier to self-censor their own political views for fear of getting jumped on, whether in person or on social media?
The university letter isn't something I think was wise but it was not a McCarthyite witch hunt. It was a hand on the knee.
And are we really still on the idea that Labour members are the only ones who are abusive? Did no-one have a look at Diane Abbott's Twitter feed during the election?
Well, exactly. I at the time dismissed assertions by Paul Mason that the criticism of Abbot was rooted in racism. But looking back, clearly there were many attacks towards her that were of a racist and misogynistic nature. She isn’t the first Corbyn cabinet member to make contentious or controversial statements - see John McDonnell. Yet he never seemed to get the kind of abuse that Abbott did.
I have to say, I have never understood why so many right wingers really seem to care how the Left sees them..
Because it is vile. Substitute the words 'black people' for 'right-wingers', and anything you like for 'the Left', in your sentence, and you might begin to understand. Prejudice is prejudice.
In practical terms, it concerns me because it is inimical to good policy-making to have the motives of (mainly Conservative) politicians viciously attacked all the time. It makes it so much harder to have a sensible debate about what actually works, and the pros and cons of policies.
And are we really still on the idea that Labour members are the only ones who are abusive? Did no-one have a look at Diane Abbott's Twitter feed during the election?
Well, exactly. I at the time dismissed assertions by Paul Mason that the criticism of Abbot was rooted in racism. But looking back, clearly there were many attacks towards her that were of a racist and misogynistic nature. She isn’t the first Corbyn cabinet member to make contentious or controversial statements - see John McDonnell. Yet he never seemed to get the kind of abuse that Abbott did.
Esther McVey raised McDonnell's alleged behaviour in the HOC yesterday. I do not think she will go away on this and expect that the issue will rumble on
- The original alleged rape, which is entirely a matter for the police. However, they can't do much unless Bex Bailey reports it to them.
- The claim that a senior Labour official warned her off reporting it, albeit two years later. That is something that the Labour Party should investigate.
- Labour Party members abusing journalists (particularly female journalists, I wonder why?). That is just completely unacceptable and the party should get a grip on it.
Of those, the most damaging is (2).
Any party can inadvertently harbour a sex criminal. And all parties have.
But, it almost beggars belief that a senior official of any party would suppress rape allegations.
Ms Bex Bailey deserves huge credit in exposing this.
Ms. Apocalypse, perhaps because people on the right are likelier to self-censor their own political views for fear of getting jumped on, whether in person or on social media?
The university letter isn't something I think was wise but it was not a McCarthyite witch hunt. It was a hand on the knee.
There are equally a number of left leaning views that will get you attached in public and on social media as well. But I just have to deal with that and keep it moving.
The reality is, people will judge who you are by the views you express, because your views aren’t totally detached from character. Obviously people’s idea of proper character may differ, so I may go down well in one person’s books and be an awful human being in another person’s books, depending on their ideas of politics/morality.
And are we really still on the idea that Labour members are the only ones who are abusive? Did no-one have a look at Diane Abbott's Twitter feed during the election?
Well, exactly. I at the time dismissed assertions by Paul Mason that the criticism of Abbot was rooted in racism. But looking back, clearly there were many attacks towards her that were of a racist and misogynistic nature. She isn’t the first Corbyn cabinet member to make contentious or controversial statements - see John McDonnell. Yet he never seemed to get the kind of abuse that Abbott did.
Esther McVey raised McDonnell's alleged behaviour in the HOC yesterday. I do not think she will go away on this and expect that the issue will rumble on
And she should keep pushing it. It can never be acceptable to call for the lynching of a political opponent. NEVER
- The original alleged rape, which is entirely a matter for the police. However, they can't do much unless Bex Bailey reports it to them.
- The claim that a senior Labour official warned her off reporting it, albeit two years later. That is something that the Labour Party should investigate.
- Labour Party members abusing journalists (particularly female journalists, I wonder why?). That is just completely unacceptable and the party should get a grip on it.
The second issue could amount to obstruction of justice and may also need investigating by the police. I would not be content, were I the lady in question, with the Labour Party investigating itself. How could you be confident that such an investigation would be carried out independently and with integrity?
What exactly is the "abuse" that Kuenssberg is supposedly getting? All I see on her Twitter feed are people asking her why she isn't reporting the Tory allegations with the same prominence as the Labour allegations. Now, that might not be a very justified complaint (not least, because the victim on the Labour case has gone on the record, whereas none of the Tories' alleged victims have gone on the record), but I fail to see how asking questions of journalists' work automatically constitutes "abuse". Or am I missing loads of tweets which actually are screaming abusive language, death threats, etc., at her?
It is part of a long-standing pattern of behaviour from certain parts of the Twitterverse to target LauraK for anything she does that they don't like. Today's comments are relatively mild but they are still part of the same type of behaviour.
Attack the messenger - deflect attention from the issue.
They are trying to set up an equivalence between touching someone on their knee and covering up a rape allegation - that is unacceptable and wrong.
As it happens, although I think LauraK's reporting has been biased sometimes in the past, I agree with you on this case - the Labour case is much more serious than any of the Tory allegations (so far) that have been confirmed or where an alleged victim has gone on the record, so it's absolutely the right call for the BBC to give the former more prominence.
But a complaint being unjustified isn't the same as it being abusive. The type of tweets that are getting people's backs up are things like "So where is your report on Tory #sleazy36 ? Unbalanced reporting" and "Have you seen this list Laura lots of #Tories on it?" -- those comments are silly but hardly abusive.
Somehow, if someone like Ed was leading Labour I don’t think Labour would be having issues with members attacking journalists - Labour members are not perfect, but this seemed to become a big issue since Corbyn became leader.
The cult think journalists unfairly treated Jezza, by accurately reporting everything he said and did.
So a very brave young lady comes forward with a harrowing story that deserves to be heard, and the immediate reaction of the Corbynites on Twitter is to have a go at the journalist reporting the story? Miss Bailey deserves a lot better than that from supporters of her own party.
Ms. Apocalypse, only the other day I was knocking Mao for his horrendous views (regarding hounding Conservative MPs).
On abuse: only at one conference were their hanged effigies. Only one side has a very senior MP calling for total hounding of all MPs from the other side.
When Conservative activists start stringing up effigies of Labour MPs, and Philip Hammond calls for every Labour MP to be hounded whenever they travel in public, I'll accept both major parties are equally nasty.
The BBC's political editor only needed a bodyguard at one conference, for that matter.
I have to say, I have never understood why so many right wingers really seem to care how the Left sees them..
Because it is vile. Substitute the words 'black people' for 'right-wingers', and anything you like for 'the Left', in your sentence, and you might begin to understand. Prejudice is prejudice.
In practical terms, it concerns me because it is inimical to good policy-making to have the motives of (mainly Conservative) politicians viciously attacked all the time. It makes it so much harder to have a sensible debate about what actually works, and the pros and cons of policies.
I don’t know whether that equivalence works - race isn’t a feature that isn’t really in someone’s control but people do choose what to believe politically. If someone chose to see me as evil because I was left wing, I wouldn’t care. Hell, I’ve met people who think I’m evil because I’m a feminist and I’ve encountered hatred online because I’m a millennial!
The motives of Labour politicians also get attacked as well. The reality is many people in this country have contrasting visions of what they want the country to be like, and their political opponents are an obstacle to that. We are not simply in a place where everyone wants the same thing but has different ideas as to how to get there. Many want different things period.
What exactly is the "abuse" that Kuenssberg is supposedly getting? All I see on her Twitter feed are people asking her why she isn't reporting the Tory allegations with the same prominence as the Labour allegations. Now, that might not be a very justified complaint (not least, because the victim on the Labour case has gone on the record, whereas none of the Tories' alleged victims have gone on the record), but I fail to see how asking questions of journalists' work automatically constitutes "abuse". Or am I missing loads of tweets which actually are screaming abusive language, death threats, etc., at her?
It is part of a long-standing pattern of behaviour from certain parts of the Twitterverse to target LauraK for anything she does that they don't like. Today's comments are relatively mild but they are still part of the same type of behaviour.
Attack the messenger - deflect attention from the issue.
They are trying to set up an equivalence between touching someone on their knee and covering up a rape allegation - that is unacceptable and wrong.
As it happens, although I think LauraK's reporting has been biased sometimes in the past, I agree with you on this case - the Labour case is much more serious than any of the Tory allegations (so far) that have been confirmed or where an alleged victim has gone on the record, so it's absolutely the right call for the BBC to give the former more prominence.
But a complaint being unjustified isn't the same as it being abusive. The type of tweets that are getting people's backs up are things like "So where is your report on Tory #sleazy36 ? Unbalanced reporting" and "Have you seen this list Laura lots of #Tories on it?" -- those comments are silly but hardly abusive.
Indeed - knowing the sort of vulgar abuse that gets slung around on Twitter, at least in the first replies to that tweet it's critical, and silly, but tame.
Ms. Apocalypse, only the other day I was knocking Mao for his horrendous views (regarding hounding Conservative MPs).
On abuse: only at one conference were their hanged effigies. Only one side has a very senior MP calling for total hounding of all MPs from the other side.
When Conservative activists start stringing up effigies of Labour MPs, and Philip Hammond calls for every Labour MP to be hounded whenever they travel in public, I'll accept both major parties are equally nasty.
The BBC's political editor only needed a bodyguard at one conference, for that matter.
Ms. Apocalypse, only the other day I was knocking Mao for his horrendous views (regarding hounding Conservative MPs).
On abuse: only at one conference were their hanged effigies. Only one side has a very senior MP calling for total hounding of all MPs from the other side.
When Conservative activists start stringing up effigies of Labour MPs, and Philip Hammond calls for every Labour MP to be hounded whenever they travel in public, I'll accept both major parties are equally nasty.
The BBC's political editor only needed a bodyguard at one conference, for that matter.
I wasn’t thinking of specifically party politics, but more of the Left/Right is divide generally. I thought you were as well, when you referenced right leaning individuals censoring their views.
Ms. Apocalypse, only the other day I was knocking Mao for his horrendous views (regarding hounding Conservative MPs).
On abuse: only at one conference were their hanged effigies. Only one side has a very senior MP calling for total hounding of all MPs from the other side.
When Conservative activists start stringing up effigies of Labour MPs, and Philip Hammond calls for every Labour MP to be hounded whenever they travel in public, I'll accept both major parties are equally nasty.
The BBC's political editor only needed a bodyguard at one conference, for that matter.
But again, this whole narrative is contradicted by the fact that the one MP who gets a disproportionate amount of abuse is a Labour one.
Somehow, if someone like Ed was leading Labour I don’t think Labour would be having issues with members attacking journalists - Labour members are not perfect, but this seemed to become a big issue since Corbyn became leader.
The cult think journalists unfairly treated Jezza, by accurately reporting everything he said and did.
So a very brave young lady comes forward with a harrowing story that deserves to be heard, and the immediate reaction of the Corbynites on Twitter is to have a go at the journalist reporting the story? Miss Bailey deserves a lot better than that from supporters of her own party.
She does especially if she was adviced not to report a crime.I have not read Twitter , so you should respond to the post from Danny565 at ,6.43.
Ms. Apocalypse, only the other day I was knocking Mao for his horrendous views (regarding hounding Conservative MPs).
On abuse: only at one conference were their hanged effigies. Only one side has a very senior MP calling for total hounding of all MPs from the other side.
When Conservative activists start stringing up effigies of Labour MPs, and Philip Hammond calls for every Labour MP to be hounded whenever they travel in public, I'll accept both major parties are equally nasty.
The BBC's political editor only needed a bodyguard at one conference, for that matter.
But again, this whole narrative is contradicted by the fact that the one MP who gets a disproportionate amount of abuse is a Labour one.
One person going against a trend, if one exists, would not necessarily dispute a narrative in general, although it is certainly true Abbott gets a lot of abuse and she deserves sympathy for that. Some take that too far and suggest criticism of her is all driven by racist and sexist dislike, which is clearly nonsense (she has said and done a great deal that can legitimately be criticised), but it's not to excuse the truly horrible stuff I have no doubt she receives.
A key question may well be how much types of abuse are excused or endorsed by opponents, since you cannot stop all idiots, only disapprove of them, and not act like idiots oneself.
Ms. Apocalypse, only the other day I was knocking Mao for his horrendous views (regarding hounding Conservative MPs).
On abuse: only at one conference were their hanged effigies. Only one side has a very senior MP calling for total hounding of all MPs from the other side.
When Conservative activists start stringing up effigies of Labour MPs, and Philip Hammond calls for every Labour MP to be hounded whenever they travel in public, I'll accept both major parties are equally nasty.
The BBC's political editor only needed a bodyguard at one conference, for that matter.
But again, this whole narrative is contradicted by the fact that the one MP who gets a disproportionate amount of abuse is a Labour one.
"The abuse directed at her amounted to 10 times as much as was received by any other MP, according to the Amnesty study."
Sorry - it isn't. It is evidence that there is fault on both sides of the divide - but none of the abuse directed at Abbott is being orchestrated by members of the Conservative Front Bench.
Whereas McDonnell and his fellow travellers seem very comfortable with using the language of violence towards both individual Conservatives and the party as a whole.
I condemn all abuse - but you cannot make a direct comparison between the abuse targeted at Abbott with that being condoned/orchestrated by senior Labour MPs at their opponents.
Ms. Apocalypse, perhaps because people on the right are likelier to self-censor their own political views for fear of getting jumped on, whether in person or on social media?
The university letter isn't something I think was wise but it was not a McCarthyite witch hunt. It was a hand on the knee.
There are equally a number of left leaning views that will get you attached in public and on social media as well. But I just have to deal with that and keep it moving.
The reality is, people will judge who you are by the views you express, because your views aren’t totally detached from character. Obviously people’s idea of proper character may differ, so I may go down well in one person’s books and be an awful human being in another person’s books, depending on their ideas of politics/morality.
I think it is very important not to take the view that because someone disagrees with you they are an awful human being. At the margins they may be. I would find it very difficult to think of someone as a good human being if they were a Nazi, for instance, or an anti-Semite. Or, indeed, if they thought that murdering millions of people to bring about a socialist utopia was fine.
But having a different view on, say, how to get votes from minorities, a subject you and I have discussed is quite another matter. There is a range of views and disagreement is legitimate and welcome, not least because it makes you question your own thoughts and sometimes helps refine and maybe even change them.
We have agreed and disagreed on matters but I think you have a very thoughtful perspective and one that is different from many of us here. We do best when we really listen to what others say. Assuming that someone who votes differently is persona non grata a la Pidcock is just plain stupidity. You learn best from your mistakes and from those who challenge you. Not those who agree with you and tell you how wonderful you are all the time, nice as that can be.
Ms. Apocalypse, only the other day I was knocking Mao for his horrendous views (regarding hounding Conservative MPs).
On abuse: only at one conference were their hanged effigies. Only one side has a very senior MP calling for total hounding of all MPs from the other side.
When Conservative activists start stringing up effigies of Labour MPs, and Philip Hammond calls for every Labour MP to be hounded whenever they travel in public, I'll accept both major parties are equally nasty.
The BBC's political editor only needed a bodyguard at one conference, for that matter.
Kuenssberg had a bodyguard at Tory conference, too. She needed one for neither realistically.
I'd say the nasty party is the one whose policies have led to tens of thousands of excess deaths in recent years according to independent research. McDonnell's quotation from a member of the public may have been unpleasant, but it's not an inaccurate portrayal of how sections of the public feel about the bastards.
100 senators would be a bit too small IMO - elections really ought to be by PR so as to provide a different basis from the Commons elected by FPTP - but 150-200 would suffice.
What do you think about the opposite: FPTP for senators, and PR for the Commons?
The danger of PR for something perceived as of less direct importance is that you can get an over-representation of single-issue oppositionist parties.
This is true. Would a Upper House of 30% UKIPers be a good thing for example?
Which could have potentially happened given the votes for the European elections in prior year.s
Which is why long terms, such as 15 years and electing one third every 5 years is good. It evens out the troughs and peaks of populist issues.
The last thing you want to do is to base the 2nd Chamber on the election result of the GE. That invites the two houses to be too similar. There needs to be a counter cyclical element to balance out short term populism over the long term.
The problem with that is that it doesn't maximise betting opportunities.
I would go for a chamber of 150, with a third elected every two years, like the US Senate. This would provide many more opportunities for bets.
I'd say the nasty party is the one whose policies have led to tens of thousands of excess deaths in recent years according to independent research. McDonnell's quotation from a member of the public may have been unpleasant, but it's not an inaccurate portrayal of how sections of the public feel about the bastards.
Ms. Apocalypse, only the other day I was knocking Mao for his horrendous views (regarding hounding Conservative MPs).
On abuse: only at one conference were their hanged effigies. Only one side has a very senior MP calling for total hounding of all MPs from the other side.
When Conservative activists start stringing up effigies of Labour MPs, and Philip Hammond calls for every Labour MP to be hounded whenever they travel in public, I'll accept both major parties are equally nasty.
The BBC's political editor only needed a bodyguard at one conference, for that matter.
Kuenssberg had a bodyguard at Tory conference, too. She needed one for neither realistically.
I'd say the nasty party is the one whose policies have led to tens of thousands of excess deaths in recent years according to independent research. McDonnell's quotation from a member of the public may have been unpleasant, but it's not an inaccurate portrayal of how sections of the public feel about the bastards.
Ms. Apocalypse, only the other day I was knocking Mao for his horrendous views (regarding hounding Conservative MPs).
On abuse: only at one conference were their hanged effigies. Only one side has a very senior MP calling for total hounding of all MPs from the other side.
When Conservative activists start stringing up effigies of Labour MPs, and Philip Hammond calls for every Labour MP to be hounded whenever they travel in public, I'll accept both major parties are equally nasty.
The BBC's political editor only needed a bodyguard at one conference, for that matter.
Kuenssberg had a bodyguard at Tory conference, too. She needed one for neither realistically.
I'd say the nasty party is the one whose policies have led to tens of thousands of excess deaths in recent years according to independent research. McDonnell's quotation from a member of the public may have been unpleasant, but it's not an inaccurate portrayal of how sections of the public feel about the bastards.
I seem to recall it was your party which left unemployment of 9% which has only fallen to 4% under the Coalition and the Tories.
Ms. Apocalypse, only the other day I was knocking Mao for his horrendous views (regarding hounding Conservative MPs).
On abuse: only at one conference were their hanged effigies. Only one side has a very senior MP calling for total hounding of all MPs from the other side.
When Conservative activists start stringing up effigies of Labour MPs, and Philip Hammond calls for every Labour MP to be hounded whenever they travel in public, I'll accept both major parties are equally nasty.
The BBC's political editor only needed a bodyguard at one conference, for that matter.
Kuenssberg had a bodyguard at Tory conference, too. She needed one for neither realistically.
I'd say the nasty party is the one whose policies have led to tens of thousands of excess deaths in recent years according to independent research. McDonnell's quotation from a member of the public may have been unpleasant, but it's not an inaccurate portrayal of how sections of the public feel about the bastards.
Leaving aside, for the moment, the claim the policies of the government have led to tens of thousands of excess deaths, just because sections of the public feel that way about 'the bastards' doesn't make it ok. There is no question some people, many people, would agree with the idea you cannot be friends with Tories, for instance, (and some that you cannot be friends with a socialist) but that is, objectively, a very stupid thing for people to believe given how varied people can be, and given some very nasty people are on the left and some very nasty people are on the right.
If people want to argue one side has better policies, that's clearly ok. If people want to argue one side is more likely to be virtuous than the other, well, that's a matter of opinion perhaps, but what they cannot realistically do is argue one side has all the virtue and the other none.
If nothing else, the fact that political parties steal policies off their opponents demonstrates that the politicians themselves know perfectly well their opponents have good ideas and unless they think evil people came up with those good ideas, they know some of them have good intentions and are good people, even if they are very wrong on other matters.
Ms. Apocalypse, perhaps because people on the right are likelier to self-censor their own political views for fear of getting jumped on, whether in person or on social media?
The university letter isn't something I think was wise but it was not a McCarthyite witch hunt. It was a hand on the knee.
There are equally a number of left leaning views that will get you attached in public and on social media as well. But I just have to deal with that and keep it moving.
I think it is very important not to take the view that because someone disagrees with you they are an awful human being. At the margins they may be. I would find it very difficult to think of someone as a good human being if they were a Nazi, for instance, or an anti-Semite. Or, indeed, if they thought that murdering millions of people to bring about a socialist utopia was fine.
But having a different view on, say, how to get votes from minorities, a subject you and I have discussed is quite another matter. There is a range of views and disagreement is legitimate and welcome, not least because it makes you question your own thoughts and sometimes helps refine and maybe even change them.
We have agreed and disagreed on matters but I think you have a very thoughtful perspective and one that is different from many of us here. We do best when we really listen to what others say. Assuming that someone who votes differently is persona non grata a la Pidcock is just plain stupidity. You learn best from your mistakes and from those who challenge you. Not those who agree with you and tell you how wonderful you are all the time, nice as that can be.
I agree that’s not very helpful to simply hate anyone who disagrees with you. One of the reasons why I come on this site is to avoid simply existing in an echo chamber, because outside of my parents and 1 friend, I don’t really know anyone who has voted Conservative/is right leaning.
The reality is though, that there are many people who do view things in terms of a binary of good/evil, or smart/stupid. I agree with you on Pidcock, but I don’t think the media reaction to it would have done anything to change the minds of those like her. If anything it may have hardened their views more. I also think this thinking has become more prominent because of the polarised nature of politics. As I said in a previous post, a more calmer, reasoned political debate is harder to have when so many people are not united on what they want for the country.
And thank you re saying my perspective is thoughtful, sometimes it doesn’t always feel that way when I’m on here. I haven’t always agreed with you, but I always enjoy reading your posts, and thought you were on point in your discussion with SeanT a few nights ago.
Ms. Apocalypse, only the other day I was knocking Mao for his horrendous views (regarding hounding Conservative MPs).
On abuse: only at one conference were their hanged effigies. Only one side has a very senior MP calling for total hounding of all MPs from the other side.
When Conservative activists start stringing up effigies of Labour MPs, and Philip Hammond calls for every Labour MP to be hounded whenever they travel in public, I'll accept both major parties are equally nasty.
The BBC's political editor only needed a bodyguard at one conference, for that matter.
Kuenssberg had a bodyguard at Tory conference, too. She needed one for neither realistically.
I'd say the nasty party is the one whose policies have led to tens of thousands of excess deaths in recent years according to independent research. McDonnell's quotation from a member of the public may have been unpleasant, but it's not an inaccurate portrayal of how sections of the public feel about the bastards.
I seem to recall it was your party which left unemployment of 9% which has only fallen to 4% under the Coalition and the Tories.
'My party'? I've not been involved in any party for many years. I don't agree with talk of lynching - but McDonnell was quoting, not advocating, and the last time I heard anybody saying similar was a bereaved UKIP voter during the winter crisis. Don't underestimate how much your party are still viscerally despised by many and how it's growing, regardless of Labour.
Ms. Apocalypse, only the other day I was knocking Mao for his horrendous views (regarding hounding Conservative MPs).
On abuse: only at one conference were their hanged effigies. Only one side has a very senior MP calling for total hounding of all MPs from the other side.
When Conservative activists start stringing up effigies of Labour MPs, and Philip Hammond calls for every Labour MP to be hounded whenever they travel in public, I'll accept both major parties are equally nasty.
The BBC's political editor only needed a bodyguard at one conference, for that matter.
But again, this whole narrative is contradicted by the fact that the one MP who gets a disproportionate amount of abuse is a Labour one.
One person going against a trend, if one exists, would not necessarily dispute a narrative in general, although it is certainly true Abbott gets a lot of abuse and she deserves sympathy for that. Some take that too far and suggest criticism of her is all driven by racist and sexist dislike, which is clearly nonsense (she has said and done a great deal that can legitimately be criticised), but it's not to excuse the truly horrible stuff I have no doubt she receives.
A key question may well be how much types of abuse are excused or endorsed by opponents, since you cannot stop all idiots, only disapprove of them, and not act like idiots oneself.
Abbott doesn't really go against the trend though - that list says that the top 10 has other Labour politicians and leftie SNP ones (interestingly, the only two Tory MPs on the list were prominent Remain supporters).
That's not to say some Labour members don't do abuse, because some obviously do. But the idea that it's particularly Labour members who do it, more than other party members, or that it's all happened because of Corbyn, is for the birds. It's just part of a general society thing where people feel they can scream and shout the most awful things online, because for some reason they don't see it as "real life".
Ms. Apocalypse, only the other day I was knocking Mao for his horrendous views (regarding hounding Conservative MPs).
On abuse: only at one conference were their hanged effigies. Only one side has a very senior MP calling for total hounding of all MPs from the other side.
When Conservative activists start stringing up effigies of Labour MPs, and Philip Hammond calls for every Labour MP to be hounded whenever they travel in public, I'll accept both major parties are equally nasty.
The BBC's political editor only needed a bodyguard at one conference, for that matter.
Kuenssberg had a bodyguard at Tory conference, too. She needed one for neither realistically.
I'd say the nasty party is the one whose policies have led to tens of thousands of excess deaths in recent years according to independent research. McDonnell's quotation from a member of the public may have been unpleasant, but it's not an inaccurate portrayal of how sections of the public feel about the bastards.
There is such an unkind retort that could be made there...
Ms. Apocalypse, only the other day I was knocking Mao for his horrendous views (regarding hounding Conservative MPs).
On abuse: only at one conference were their hanged effigies. Only one side has a very senior MP calling for total hounding of all MPs from the other side.
When Conservative activists start stringing up effigies of Labour MPs, and Philip Hammond calls for every Labour MP to be hounded whenever they travel in public, I'll accept both major parties are equally nasty.
The BBC's political editor only needed a bodyguard at one conference, for that matter.
Kuenssberg had a bodyguard at Tory conference, too. She needed one for neither realistically.
I'd say the nasty party is the one whose policies have led to tens of thousands of excess deaths in recent years according to independent research. McDonnell's quotation from a member of the public may have been unpleasant, but it's not an inaccurate portrayal of how sections of the public feel about the bastards.
That reflects poorly on those sections of the public, rather than " the bastards."
Ms. Apocalypse, only the other day I was knocking Mao for his horrendous views (regarding hounding Conservative MPs).
On abuse: only at one conference were their hanged effigies. Only one side has a very senior MP calling for total hounding of all MPs from the other side.
When Conservative activists start stringing up effigies of Labour MPs, and Philip Hammond calls for every Labour MP to be hounded whenever they travel in public, I'll accept both major parties are equally nasty.
The BBC's political editor only needed a bodyguard at one conference, for that matter.
Kuenssberg had a bodyguard at Tory conference, too. She needed one for neither realistically.
I'd say the nasty party is the one whose policies have led to tens of thousands of excess deaths in recent years according to independent research. McDonnell's quotation from a member of the public may have been unpleasant, but it's not an inaccurate portrayal of how sections of the public feel about the bastards.
I seem to recall it was your party which left unemployment of 9% which has only fallen to 4% under the Coalition and the Tories.
'My party'? I've not been involved in any party for many years. I don't agree with talk of lynching - but McDonnell was quoting, not advocating, and the last time I heard anybody saying similar was a bereaved UKIP voter during the winter crisis. Don't underestimate how much your party are still viscerally despised by many and how it's growing, regardless of Labour.
Ms. Apocalypse, only the other day I was knocking Mao for his horrendous views (regarding hounding Conservative MPs).
On abuse: only at one conference were their hanged effigies. Only one side has a very senior MP calling for total hounding of all MPs from the other side.
When Conservative activists start stringing up effigies of Labour MPs, and Philip Hammond calls for every Labour MP to be hounded whenever they travel in public, I'll accept both major parties are equally nasty.
The BBC's political editor only needed a bodyguard at one conference, for that matter.
But again, this whole narrative is contradicted by the fact that the one MP who gets a disproportionate amount of abuse is a Labour one.
One person going against a trend, if one exists, would not necessarily dispute a narrative in general, although it is certainly true Abbott gets a lot of abuse and she deserves sympathy for that. Some take that too far and suggest criticism of her is all driven by racist anself.
Abbott doesn't really go against the trend though - that list says that the top 10 has other Labour politicians and leftie SNP ones (interestingly, the only two Tory MPs on the list were prominent Remain supporters).
That's not to say some Labour members don't do abuse, because some obviously do. But the idea that it's particularly Labour members who do it, more than other party members, is for the birds. It's just part of a general society thing where people feel they can scream and shout the most awful things online, because for some reason they don't see it as "real life".
I'm not as convinced as others about their being a strongly identifiable trend (though I don't rule it out), hence why I said If, though the more overt stuff such as graffiti and effigies seems more pronounced with the more idiotic Labour supporters, so I presume the more hateful Tories are adopting other methodologies. I don't care enough to delve into that muck to try to scientifically determine which is quantifiably worse, so I'll take the coward's way out.
Honestly my limited experience with local politics is almost all actual elected representatives and their key people are quite nice individuals whatever their party background, and the worst is some are a bit frustrating and arrogant.
Being careful with my words, if it should turn out that a cabinet minister who is arguably the PMs only real supporter in the Cabinet felt the need to resign would there not be betting implications for May's survival?
The Cabinet minister you are referring to has been named explicitly in Daily Mail and Sun articles, now.
Daily Mail article is written by a moron. The journalist can't even spell 'Lichfield' correctly.
Ms. Apocalypse, only the other day I was knocking Mao for his horrendous views (regarding hounding Conservative MPs).
On abuse: only at one conference were their hanged effigies. Only one side has a very senior MP calling for total hounding of all MPs from the other side.
When Conservative activists start stringing up effigies of Labour MPs, and Philip Hammond calls for every Labour MP to be hounded whenever they travel in public, I'll accept both major parties are equally nasty.
The BBC's political editor only needed a bodyguard at one conference, for that matter.
Kuenssberg had a bodyguard at Tory conference, too. She needed one for neither realistically.
I'd say the nasty party is the one whose policies have led to tens of thousands of excess deaths in recent years according to independent research. McDonnell's quotation from a member of the public may have been unpleasant, but it's not an inaccurate portrayal of how sections of the public feel about the bastards.
I find it hard to imagine being so committed to an organisation that I’d try to silence even truly terrible allegations from being looked into, but it is so common across so many organisations it must be a truly powerful force.
I could imagine keeping quiet about a crime I'd suffered, for the good of the organisation, if the organisation in question threw the perpetrator out.
Ms. Apocalypse, only the other day I was knocking Mao for his horrendous views (regarding hounding Conservative MPs).
On abuse: only at one conference were their hanged effigies. Only one side has a very senior MP calling for total hounding of all MPs from the other side.
When Conservative activists start stringing up effigies of Labour MPs, and Philip Hammond calls for every Labour MP to be hounded whenever they travel in public, I'll accept both major parties are equally nasty.
The BBC's political editor only needed a bodyguard at one conference, for that matter.
Kuenssberg had a bodyguard at Tory conference, too. She needed one for neither realistically.
I'd say the nasty party is the one whose policies have led to tens of thousands of excess deaths in recent years according to independent research. McDonnell's quotation from a member of the public may have been unpleasant, but it's not an inaccurate portrayal of how sections of the public feel about the bastards.
It's very easy for us all to be chummy on here, and be charitable to politicians. For political anoraks it's an interesting hobby like following the football and cheering the reds or the blues. McDonnell's quotation may be the sign of a different mood that I think is growing. People who are drawn to politics because it has delivered them and their families real hardship, real suffering, real death.
Ms. Apocalypse, only the other day I was knocking Mao for his horrendous views (regarding hounding Conservative MPs).
On abuse: only at one conference were their hanged effigies. Only one side has a very senior MP calling for total hounding of all MPs from the other side.
When Conservative activists start stringing up effigies of Labour MPs, and Philip Hammond calls for every Labour MP to be hounded whenever they travel in public, I'll accept both major parties are equally nasty.
The BBC's political editor only needed a bodyguard at one conference, for that matter.
Kuenssberg had a bodyguard at Tory conference, too. She needed one for neither realistically.
I'd say the nasty party is the one whose policies have led to tens of thousands of excess deaths in recent years according to independent research. McDonnell's quotation from a member of the public may have been unpleasant, but it's not an inaccurate portrayal of how sections of the public feel about the bastards.
It's very easy for us all to be chummy on here, and be charitable to politicians. For political anoraks it's an interesting hobby like following the football and cheering the reds or the blues. McDonnell's quotation may be the sign of a different mood that I think is growing. People who are drawn to politics because it has delivered them and their families real hardship, real suffering, real death.
How much higher is health spending per head now than it was 50 years ago? I suspect older people being operated on is a big contributor to these numbers.
Ms. Apocalypse, only the other day I was knocking Mao for his horrendous views (regarding hounding Conservative MPs).
On abuse: only at one conference were their hanged effigies. Only one side has a very senior MP calling for total hounding of all MPs from the other side.
When Conservative activists start stringing up effigies of Labour MPs, and Philip Hammond calls for every Labour MP to be hounded whenever they travel in public, I'll accept both major parties are equally nasty.
The BBC's political editor only needed a bodyguard at one conference, for that matter.
Kuenssberg had a bodyguard at Tory conference, too. She needed one for neither realistically.
I'd say the nasty party is the one whose policies have led to tens of thousands of excess deaths in recent years according to independent research. McDonnell's quotation from a member of the public may have been unpleasant, but it's not an inaccurate portrayal of how sections of the public feel about the bastards.
I seem to recall it was your party which left unemployment of 9% which has only fallen to 4% under the Coalition and the Tories.
'My party'? I've not been involved in any party for many years. I don't agree with talk of lynching - but McDonnell was quoting, not advocating, and the last time I heard anybody saying similar was a bereaved UKIP voter during the winter crisis. Don't underestimate how much your party are still viscerally despised by many and how it's growing, regardless of Labour.
About 25% of the population have always despised the Tories and always will but that is not enough to elect a government. That article also absurdly includes part time workers, parents of young children staying at home and students amongst the unemployed.
Ms. Apocalypse, only the other day I was knocking Mao for his horrendous views (regarding hounding Conservative MPs).
On abuse: only at one conference were their hanged effigies. Only one side has a very senior MP calling for total hounding of all MPs from the other side.
When Conservative activists start stringing up effigies of Labour MPs, and Philip Hammond calls for every Labour MP to be hounded whenever they travel in public, I'll accept both major parties are equally nasty.
The BBC's political editor only needed a bodyguard at one conference, for that matter.
Kuenssberg had a bodyguard at Tory conference, too. She needed one for neither realistically.
I'd say the nasty party is the one whose policies have led to tens of thousands of excess deaths in recent years according to independent research. McDonnell's quotation from a member of the public may have been unpleasant, but it's not an inaccurate portrayal of how sections of the public feel about the bastards.
I seem to recall it was your party which left unemployment of 9% which has only fallen to 4% under the Coalition and the Tories.
Interesting, in that being unable to answer, you try and divert attention away. Sign of a guilty conscience perhaps?
I can see three varieties of Senator that might compose a second chamber: the political, the popular, and the capable.
It is easy to suggest a method of election of these varieties, but I doubt if anything could be devised which out rulers would either understand or accept.
Ms. Apocalypse, only the other day I was knocking Mao for his horrendous views (regarding hounding Conservative MPs).
On abuse: only at one conference were their hanged effigies. Only one side has a very senior MP calling for total hounding of all MPs from the other side.
When Conservative activists start stringing up effigies of Labour MPs, and Philip Hammond calls for every Labour MP to be hounded whenever they travel in public, I'll accept both major parties are equally nasty.
The BBC's political editor only needed a bodyguard at one conference, for that matter.
Kuenssberg had a bodyguard at Tory conference, too. She needed one for neither realistically.
I'd say the nasty party is the one whose policies have led to tens of thousands of excess deaths in recent years according to independent research. McDonnell's quotation from a member of the public may have been unpleasant, but it's not an inaccurate portrayal of how sections of the public feel about the bastards.
Oh dear! This is a keeper. Didn't realise that Labour is anti-bastardy as well as hating the Tory scum.
@ydoethur sorry... need to be careful about what is posted in relation to the list.
Which is why I didn't mention it, except to say that it was a very strange list indeed. But in fact the Lichfield reference doesn't even come into that - Fabricant was criticising the attitude of the media. So all I was doing was trying to lighten the mood a bit.
More information on it here which fills in some gaps on why it is a peculiar set and how it was drawn up:
Ms. Apocalypse, only the other day I was knocking Mao for his horrendous views (regarding hounding Conservative MPs).
On abuse: only at one conference were their hanged effigies. Only one side has a very senior MP calling for total hounding of all MPs from the other side.
When Conservative activists start stringing up effigies of Labour MPs, and Philip Hammond calls for every Labour MP to be hounded whenever they travel in public, I'll accept both major parties are equally nasty.
The BBC's political editor only needed a bodyguard at one conference, for that matter.
Kuenssberg had a bodyguard at Tory conference, too. She needed one for neither realistically.
I'd say the nasty party is the one whose policies have led to tens of thousands of excess deaths in recent years according to independent research. McDonnell's quotation from a member of the public may have been unpleasant, but it's not an inaccurate portrayal of how sections of the public feel about the bastards.
It's very easy for us all to be chummy on here, and be charitable to politicians. For political anoraks it's an interesting hobby like following the football and cheering the reds or the blues. McDonnell's quotation may be the sign of a different mood that I think is growing. People who are drawn to politics because it has delivered them and their families real hardship, real suffering, real death.
To quote the Department of Health "This report is a triumph of personal bias over research - for two reasons. Every year there is significant variation in reported excess deaths, and in the year following this study they fell by nearly 20,000, undermining any link between pressure on the NHS and the number of deaths. Moreover, to blame an increase in a single year on 'cuts' to the NHS budget is arithmetically impossible given that budget rose by almost £15 billion between 2009-10 and 2014-15." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/17/care-cuts-may-have-fuelled-largest-rise-death-rates-50-years/
Plus while I was not a fan of the dementia tax and using peoples' homes to fund their personal care it was at least an attempt to provide more funds for social care, something Labour opposed.
Ms. Apocalypse, only the other day I was knocking Mao for his horrendous views (regarding hounding Conservative MPs).
On abuse: only at one conference were their hanged effigies. Only one side has a very senior MP calling for total hounding of all MPs from the other side.
When Conservative activists start stringing up effigies of Labour MPs, and Philip Hammond calls for every Labour MP to be hounded whenever they travel in public, I'll accept both major parties are equally nasty.
The BBC's political editor only needed a bodyguard at one conference, for that matter.
Kuenssberg had a bodyguard at Tory conference, too. She needed one for neither realistically.
I'd say the nasty party is the one whose policies have led to tens of thousands of excess deaths in recent years according to independent research. McDonnell's quotation from a member of the public may have been unpleasant, but it's not an inaccurate portrayal of how sections of the public feel about the bastards.
I seem to recall it was your party which left unemployment of 9% which has only fallen to 4% under the Coalition and the Tories.
Interesting, in that being unable to answer, you try and divert attention away. Sign of a guilty conscience perhaps?
No, see my two posts below rebutting the original allegations too.
Ms. Apocalypse, only the other day I was knocking Mao for his horrendous views (regarding hounding Conservative MPs).
On abuse: only at one conference were their hanged effigies. Only one side has a very senior MP calling for total hounding of all MPs from the other side.
When Conservative activists start stringing up effigies of Labour MPs, and Philip Hammond calls for every Labour MP to be hounded whenever they travel in public, I'll accept both major parties are equally nasty.
The BBC's political editor only needed a bodyguard at one conference, for that matter.
Kuenssberg had a bodyguard at Tory conference, too. She needed one for neither realistically.
I'd say the nasty party is the one whose policies have led to tens of thousands of excess deaths in recent years according to independent research. McDonnell's quotation from a member of the public may have been unpleasant, but it's not an inaccurate portrayal of how sections of the public feel about the bastards.
It's very easy for us all to be chummy on here, and be charitable to politicians. For political anoraks it's an interesting hobby like following the football and cheering the reds or the blues. McDonnell's quotation may be the sign of a different mood that I think is growing. People who are drawn to politics because it has delivered them and their families real hardship, real suffering, real death.
Age-standardised mortality rates fell significantly in 2016, and were about 6% lower than in 2010, and far lower than the average for 1997-2010. So, at any given age, people are less likely to die now than has ever been the case.
I can see three varieties of Senator that might compose a second chamber: the political, the popular, and the capable.
It is easy to suggest a method of election of these varieties, but I doubt if anything could be devised which out rulers would either understand or accept.
It is hard to envisage concrete action any time soon. The number wanting an elected Lords may have surprisingly risen, but even if that number is so high all the parties reach general agreement on that point, coming up with an alternative everyone accepts is clearly so difficult given we are 18 years into what was supposed to be, IIRC, a temporary arrangement with the hereditary peers, that they probably cannot manage it. Heck, 'cannot come up with alternative for the bad situation' is the same excuse Trudeau used to stick with FPTP, and that issue is probably a lot easier. And in fairness, replacing an inadequate situation with another inadequate situation is no solution, so we do need to get it right.
Looks like a case for an investigation by Baroness Chakrabarti!
No no no! She's a stupid unpleasant ninny who wouldn't know what integrity and independence were if they came and bit her on her bum.
Is she personally unpleasant? Certainly, she's been willing to sacrifice her principles for personally advancement. But that's hardly unusual.
Indeed, some of the most pleasant people I've ever met have been utterly venal and corrupt. (My one big personal investing loss was the consequence of backing an extremely pleasant, affable individual. Who turned out to be a total crook.)
Comments
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41821671
At least Brexit was depressing in a political way rather than just plain depressing.
This is why we shouldn’t be so keen to dismiss issues concerning sexual harassment, sexual assault, and even rape in British politics as a non-story or indeed a ‘witch hunt’ implying that these issues are somehow only confined to Hollywood. Victims must be able to come forward so that we can see the extent of the problem.
And oh, aside from one PBer I didn’t see any PB lefties get ‘carried away’ by inferring the issue was one of only Tory sleaze. What had happened however, is an increase in the number of people desiring to make out this story as a ‘witch hunt’ ever since the Sunday Stories concerning Tory MPs and sexual harassment came out.
Glad Labour will be doing an internal investigation, but it should have never have happened, and there needs to be a wider internal review within the party concerning issues is sexism, misogyny, harassment, assault etc more generally to ensure that the party is a safe space for women, because one allegation is too many.
- The original alleged rape, which is entirely a matter for the police. However, they can't do much unless Bex Bailey reports it to them.
- The claim that a senior Labour official warned her off reporting it, albeit two years later. That is something that the Labour Party should investigate.
- Labour Party members abusing journalists (particularly female journalists, I wonder why?). That is just completely unacceptable and the party should get a grip on it.
https://twitter.com/Ed_Miliband/status/925414243075313665
That makes them targets.
c.f. Trump
So they're dehumanised, and subjected to abuse.
Attack the messenger - deflect attention from the issue.
They are trying to set up an equivalence between touching someone on their knee and covering up a rape allegation - that is unacceptable and wrong.
Also, if the last sentence was correct, you’d expect the right to be flaw free given that they apparently don’t hate their political opponents. Of course with recent McCarthyite behaviour in regard to universities, there’s clearly aspects of the political right which cannot deal with dissent either, thus ‘crush the saboteurs’.
The university letter isn't something I think was wise but it was not a McCarthyite witch hunt. It was a hand on the knee.
In practical terms, it concerns me because it is inimical to good policy-making to have the motives of (mainly Conservative) politicians viciously attacked all the time. It makes it so much harder to have a sensible debate about what actually works, and the pros and cons of policies.
Any party can inadvertently harbour a sex criminal. And all parties have.
But, it almost beggars belief that a senior official of any party would suppress rape allegations.
Ms Bex Bailey deserves huge credit in exposing this.
The reality is, people will judge who you are by the views you express, because your views aren’t totally detached from character. Obviously people’s idea of proper character may differ, so I may go down well in one person’s books and be an awful human being in another person’s books, depending on their ideas of politics/morality.
But a complaint being unjustified isn't the same as it being abusive. The type of tweets that are getting people's backs up are things like "So where is your report on Tory #sleazy36 ? Unbalanced reporting" and "Have you seen this list Laura lots of #Tories on it?" -- those comments are silly but hardly abusive.
On abuse: only at one conference were their hanged effigies. Only one side has a very senior MP calling for total hounding of all MPs from the other side.
When Conservative activists start stringing up effigies of Labour MPs, and Philip Hammond calls for every Labour MP to be hounded whenever they travel in public, I'll accept both major parties are equally nasty.
The BBC's political editor only needed a bodyguard at one conference, for that matter.
I don’t know whether that equivalence works - race isn’t a feature that isn’t really in someone’s control but people do choose what to believe politically. If someone chose to see me as evil because I was left wing, I wouldn’t care. Hell, I’ve met people who think I’m evil because I’m a feminist and I’ve encountered hatred online because I’m a millennial!
The motives of Labour politicians also get attacked as well. The reality is many people in this country have contrasting visions of what they want the country to be like, and their political opponents are an obstacle to that. We are not simply in a place where everyone wants the same thing but has different ideas as to how to get there. Many want different things period.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/05/diane-abbott-more-abused-than-any-other-mps-during-election
"The abuse directed at her amounted to 10 times as much as was received by any other MP, according to the Amnesty study."
A key question may well be how much types of abuse are excused or endorsed by opponents, since you cannot stop all idiots, only disapprove of them, and not act like idiots oneself.
Whereas McDonnell and his fellow travellers seem very comfortable with using the language of violence towards both individual Conservatives and the party as a whole.
I condemn all abuse - but you cannot make a direct comparison between the abuse targeted at Abbott with that being condoned/orchestrated by senior Labour MPs at their opponents.
But having a different view on, say, how to get votes from minorities, a subject you and I have discussed is quite another matter. There is a range of views and disagreement is legitimate and welcome, not least because it makes you question your own thoughts and sometimes helps refine and maybe even change them.
We have agreed and disagreed on matters but I think you have a very thoughtful perspective and one that is different from many of us here. We do best when we really listen to what others say. Assuming that someone who votes differently is persona non grata a la Pidcock is just plain stupidity. You learn best from your mistakes and from those who challenge you. Not those who agree with you and tell you how wonderful you are all the time, nice as that can be.
I'd say the nasty party is the one whose policies have led to tens of thousands of excess deaths in recent years according to independent research. McDonnell's quotation from a member of the public may have been unpleasant, but it's not an inaccurate portrayal of how sections of the public feel about the bastards.
I would go for a chamber of 150, with a third elected every two years, like the US Senate. This would provide many more opportunities for bets.
If people want to argue one side has better policies, that's clearly ok. If people want to argue one side is more likely to be virtuous than the other, well, that's a matter of opinion perhaps, but what they cannot realistically do is argue one side has all the virtue and the other none.
If nothing else, the fact that political parties steal policies off their opponents demonstrates that the politicians themselves know perfectly well their opponents have good ideas and unless they think evil people came up with those good ideas, they know some of them have good intentions and are good people, even if they are very wrong on other matters.
politicalbetting.com without the betting is tedious.
Is anyone going to the matchbook traders conference tomorrow?
The reality is though, that there are many people who do view things in terms of a binary of good/evil, or smart/stupid. I agree with you on Pidcock, but I don’t think the media reaction to it would have done anything to change the minds of those like her. If anything it may have hardened their views more. I also think this thinking has become more prominent because of the polarised nature of politics. As I said in a previous post, a more calmer, reasoned political debate is harder to have when so many people are not united on what they want for the country.
And thank you re saying my perspective is thoughtful, sometimes it doesn’t always feel that way when I’m on here. I haven’t always agreed with you, but I always enjoy reading your posts, and thought you were on point in your discussion with SeanT a few nights ago.
There's plenty to dispute the official rate: http://uk.businessinsider.com/unemployment-in-the-uk-is-now-so-low-its-in-danger-of-exposing-the-lie-used-to-create-the-numbers-2017-7
That's not to say some Labour members don't do abuse, because some obviously do. But the idea that it's particularly Labour members who do it, more than other party members, or that it's all happened because of Corbyn, is for the birds. It's just part of a general society thing where people feel they can scream and shout the most awful things online, because for some reason they don't see it as "real life".
Honestly my limited experience with local politics is almost all actual elected representatives and their key people are quite nice individuals whatever their party background, and the worst is some are a bit frustrating and arrogant.
[moderated]
It's very easy for us all to be chummy on here, and be charitable to politicians. For political anoraks it's an interesting hobby like following the football and cheering the reds or the blues. McDonnell's quotation may be the sign of a different mood that I think is growing. People who are drawn to politics because it has delivered them and their families real hardship, real suffering, real death.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41825577
It is easy to suggest a method of election of these varieties, but I doubt if anything could be devised which out rulers would either understand or accept.
More information on it here which fills in some gaps on why it is a peculiar set and how it was drawn up:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2017/10/why-isn-t-media-publishing-full-list-allegations-against-tory-mps
Moreover, to blame an increase in a single year on 'cuts' to the NHS budget is arithmetically impossible given that budget rose by almost £15 billion between 2009-10 and 2014-15."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/17/care-cuts-may-have-fuelled-largest-rise-death-rates-50-years/
Plus while I was not a fan of the dementia tax and using peoples' homes to fund their personal care it was at least an attempt to provide more funds for social care, something Labour opposed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-41820070
Indeed, some of the most pleasant people I've ever met have been utterly venal and corrupt. (My one big personal investing loss was the consequence of backing an extremely pleasant, affable individual. Who turned out to be a total crook.)