politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Leadsom, Williamson and Tugendhat move into the frame in the T

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Leadsom, Williamson and Tugendhat move into the frame in the TMay successor betting

Betdata.io

Read the full story here

Beverley_C

First! Unlike Davis, Boris or Liam.

And way, way ahead of JRM...

rottenborough

2nd, like JRM

Beverley_C

rottenborough said:

2nd, like JRM

He is so over-rated

HYUFD

If May goes before Brexit it will be Davis, if after Brexit Williamson and Boris also enter the fray.


If the Tories go into opposition JRM and Patel are contenders as well.

Philip_Thompson

There feels like there is a stench of death and decay around Theresa May. This is a zombie government expected to tackle the most difficult issue in generations and survive 4.5 more years.

Halloween is over now, lets move on from zombies.

Beverley_C

The Tories cannot have a leader called "Tugendhat". With a name like that he must be a Foreign Gentleman and deported post-Brexit.

rottenborough

Philip_Thompson said:

There feels like there is a stench of death and decay around Theresa May. This is a zombie government expected to tackle the most difficult issue in generations and survive 4.5 more years.

Halloween is over now, lets move on from zombies.

It is quite incredible how the Tories have self-destructed in a matter of months.

We wont get it, but I think we need an election to move on from this utter omni-shambles.

Beverley_C

rottenborough said:

It is quite incredible how the Tories have self-destructed in a matter of months.

In retrospect, I think this has been coming for years. It has just been a long slow build-up.

SandyRentool

Interesting to note that the Chancellor of the Exchequer doesn't feature at all. Normally you would expect to see the holder of that office in the top three in the betting.

As a Labourite I am grateful that Ruthie isn't eligible.

rottenborough

Beverley_C said:

rottenborough said:

It is quite incredible how the Tories have self-destructed in a matter of months.

In retrospect, I think this has been coming for years. It has just been a long slow build-up.

How many Cabinet ministers will have gone by Monday lunchtime I wonder.

SandyRentool

Beverley_C said:

The Tories cannot have a leader called "Tugendhat". With a name like that he must be a Foreign Gentleman and deported post-Brexit.

Isn't that just a daft anagram of his real name?

rottenborough

Leadsome is 16 to be next leader. 16? I cannot get my head around that. She's had one outing and it was a disaster and she pulled out after about two days. There seems to be a general feeling that she would have been sacked soon for being crap.

Sean_F

rottenborough said:

Philip_Thompson said:

There feels like there is a stench of death and decay around Theresa May. This is a zombie government expected to tackle the most difficult issue in generations and survive 4.5 more years.

Halloween is over now, lets move on from zombies.

It is quite incredible how the Tories have self-destructed in a matter of months.

We wont get it, but I think we need an election to move on from this utter omni-shambles.

The odd thing is, a government with 318 seats, with 10 allies, and a divided opposition, shouldn't find it too difficult to govern, but it needs a sense of purpose. The Tories managed it in 1951 (with support from 9 Ulster Unionists) and Labour did in 1964.

rottenborough

Oh to be a fly in one of the newspaper newsrooms this evening.

Metatron

Are people not overrating Ruth Davidson?
She is an opposition leader to an SNP govt that has been in power for ages and is vulnerable to charges over incompetence in education and energy policy combined with a nanny state altitude and Scotland has little economic growth
If Ruth Davidson was in power in Scotland or the PM not a given her reputation would stand up.

Sean_F

Philip_Thompson said:

There feels like there is a stench of death and decay around Theresa May. This is a zombie government expected to tackle the most difficult issue in generations and survive 4.5 more years.

Halloween is over now, lets move on from zombies.

We need a PM who actually wants the job.

rottenborough

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

There feels like there is a stench of death and decay around Theresa May. This is a zombie government expected to tackle the most difficult issue in generations and survive 4.5 more years.

Halloween is over now, lets move on from zombies.

We need a PM who actually wants the job.

Yep. This situation is unsustainable. How can we negotiate Brexit when the PM is so broken.

Casino_Royale

Sean_F said:

rottenborough said:

Philip_Thompson said:

There feels like there is a stench of death and decay around Theresa May. This is a zombie government expected to tackle the most difficult issue in generations and survive 4.5 more years.

Halloween is over now, lets move on from zombies.

It is quite incredible how the Tories have self-destructed in a matter of months.

We wont get it, but I think we need an election to move on from this utter omni-shambles.

The odd thing is, a government with 318 seats, with 10 allies, and a divided opposition, shouldn't find it too difficult to govern, but it needs a sense of purpose. The Tories managed it in 1951 (with support from 9 Ulster Unionists) and Labour did in 1964.

It needs strong leadership and good whipping.

I think the latter is probably as good as it could be expected to be; it's the former that's the problem.

SandyRentool

Metatron said:

Are people not overrating Ruth Davidson?
She is an opposition leader to an SNP govt that has been in power for ages and is vulnerable to charges over incompetence in education and energy policy combined with a nanny state altitude and Scotland has little economic growth
If Ruth Davidson was in power in Scotland or the PM not a given her reputation would stand up.

Ruthie has taken the Scottish Tories from third place no-hopers to the main opposition. She made big gains at the GE that kept the Tories in power and Tezzie in Downing St. Not a bad record.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Royale, may be misremembering, but didn't the whipping operation work rather well in extinguishing Shapps' attempted conflagration?

Sean_F

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

rottenborough said:

Philip_Thompson said:

There feels like there is a stench of death and decay around Theresa May. This is a zombie government expected to tackle the most difficult issue in generations and survive 4.5 more years.

Halloween is over now, lets move on from zombies.

It is quite incredible how the Tories have self-destructed in a matter of months.

We wont get it, but I think we need an election to move on from this utter omni-shambles.

The odd thing is, a government with 318 seats, with 10 allies, and a divided opposition, shouldn't find it too difficult to govern, but it needs a sense of purpose. The Tories managed it in 1951 (with support from 9 Ulster Unionists) and Labour did in 1964.

It needs strong leadership and good whipping.

I think the latter is probably as good as it could be expected to be; it's the former that's the problem.

Compare Theresa May to Arlene Foster, who also had an unexpectedly bad election result in March, but the latter is a tough as an old boot, hung on in there, and led her party to success three months later.

Casino_Royale

On topic, this market tells me no-one really has a clue who is likely to succeed Theresa May and, further, no-one knows whose reputation might be next in line to be ruined.

Great betting opportunity, if you get it right.

FWIW, I think Esther McVey is a good price at 100/1 with Skybet. I've had a taste.

Richard_Nabavi

Metatron said:

Are people not overrating Ruth Davidson?

No they are not.

rkrkrk

I still cant get my head around JRM as 2nd favourite...
I think Amber Rudd might be value.

rottenborough

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, this market tells me no-one really has a clue who is likely to succeed Theresa May and, further, no-one knows whose reputation might be next in line to be ruined.

Great betting opportunity, if you get it right.

FWIW, I think Esther McVey is a good price at 100/1 with Skybet. I've had a taste.

I agree. I'm on McVey at 80.

Fenman

rottenborough said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, this market tells me no-one really has a clue who is likely to succeed Theresa May and, further, no-one knows whose reputation might be next in line to be ruined.

Great betting opportunity, if you get it right.

FWIW, I think Esther McVey is a good price at 100/1 with Skybet. I've had a taste.

I agree. I'm on McVey at 80.

Jeremy Corbyn?

kle4

Metatron said:

Are people not overrating Ruth Davidson?

Possibly - the next Scottish Parliament elections should be the proof, or not, or her quality.

YellowSubmarine

It all comes back to the May Paradox. Everybody knows she's finished after June's fiasco including in fairness herself. The question is does she still have a use. It's precisely because that she is finished that letting her take the fall and deliver Brexit is good resource management. But that supposes she is both finished and yet strong enough to deliver Brexit. The equilibrium that's breaking down is about May be weak in a Goldilocks sort of way. Weak enough to have have to go before 2022 but still strong enough to deliver what europhobes want.

This would all apply in reverse. If she was recovering enough to perhaps get through to 2022 that perversely might have provoked a challenge. Equally europhobes now have to decide whether to roll the dice. There is now the small but significant possibility that May takes down Brexit with her. Of course a leadership election runs all sorts of other risks for europhobes but that politics. But May's Goldilocks weakness is cooling down and the equilibrium that goes with it.

rcs1000

FPT:

Sandpit said:

dixiedean said:

Sandpit said:

AndyJS said:

dixiedean said:

Jesus. Any Answers is eye-opening re: sexual harassment. Feminism, make-up and women with no backbone blamed in the first 5 minutes...
Edit: Now wolf-whistling makes women feel good. It only stops because they are old.

What about FGM, forced marriages, etc?

And the ‘Rotherham’ problem.

Again. What aboout it?

Why a politician touching a journalist’s knee is headline news, but systematic rape of thousands of vulnerable young people in what we call ‘care’ is being ignored in all of the discussions about abuse.

The media is - almost in its entirety - "for profit".

Look at the success of Hello, OK, E!, MailOnline's sidebar of shame and a million other sites, channels and newspapers.

What sells is stories about people of (even vague) renown. No-one wants stories about rape in Rotherham, starvation in Sierra Leone, corruption in Korea or any one of a million other "hard" news stories. They want to hear that an MP or (even better) an actor or producer behaved inappropriately.

Monksfield

Beverley_C said:

The Tories cannot have a leader called "Tugendhat". With a name like that he must be a Foreign Gentleman and deported post-Brexit.

The Villa Tugendhat is in Brno, Czech Republic. Like most things in that country, it is rather fab. A classic of early modernism.

https://www.archdaily.com/157555/ad-classics-villa-tugendhat-mies-van-der-rohe

kle4

The sooner TMay goes the more it has to be an older, established name. If she can hand on a year or two, someone else has a chance.

YellowSubmarine

@Copper_Sulphate I said nothing of the sort. Though your reference to " Muslim rape gangs " suggests you may not be an impartial observer.

Monksfield

Richard_Nabavi said:

Metatron said:

Are people not overrating Ruth Davidson?

No they are not.

I think they are, she has the whiff of desperate Tories projecting all their hopes on her.

dixiedean

SandyRentool said:

Beverley_C said:

The Tories cannot have a leader called "Tugendhat". With a name like that he must be a Foreign Gentleman and deported post-Brexit.

Isn't that just a daft anagram of his real name?

Mutated thong?

kle4

Monksfield said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Metatron said:

Are people not overrating Ruth Davidson?

No they are not.

I think they are, she has the whiff of desperate Tories projecting all their hopes on her.

Worked for Corbyn.

Monksfield

kle4 said:

Monksfield said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Metatron said:

Are people not overrating Ruth Davidson?

No they are not.

I think they are, she has the whiff of desperate Tories projecting all their hopes on her.

Worked for Corbyn.

To a point.

Richard_Nabavi

Monksfield said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Metatron said:

Are people not overrating Ruth Davidson?

No they are not.

I think they are, she has the whiff of desperate Tories projecting all their hopes on her.

Not at all. She's exactly the kind of leader we need: articulate, inspiring, passionate, modern, politically astute, and free of the unfortunate baggage most of the Cabinet has picked up.

Of course there are the minor inconveniences that she might not want the job, and is not in a position to get it, but you can't have everything!

kle4

Monksfield said:

kle4 said:

Monksfield said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Metatron said:

Are people not overrating Ruth Davidson?

No they are not.

I think they are, she has the whiff of desperate Tories projecting all their hopes on her.

Worked for Corbyn.

To a point.

To the point he is the most likely next PM if there is an election, so pretty well.

TwistedFireStopper

Richard_Nabavi said:

Metatron said:

Are people not overrating Ruth Davidson?

No they are not.

I get that she had a good war during the last GE, but would that transfer to being a good PM?

Casino_Royale

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Royale, may be misremembering, but didn't the whipping operation work rather well in extinguishing Shapps' attempted conflagration?

It did, and I also think social media tools like WhatsApp make it harder for Tory MPs to plot these days.

MarqueeMark

Metatron said:

Are people not overrating Ruth Davidson?
She is an opposition leader to an SNP govt that has been in power for ages and is vulnerable to charges over incompetence in education and energy policy combined with a nanny state altitude and Scotland has little economic growth
If Ruth Davidson was in power in Scotland or the PM not a given her reputation would stand up.

If Ruth Davidson was in power in Scotland, then Hell would have frozen over....

Casino_Royale

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

rottenborough said:

Philip_Thompson said:

There feels like there is a stench of death and decay around Theresa May. This is a zombie government expected to tackle the most difficult issue in generations and survive 4.5 more years.

Halloween is over now, lets move on from zombies.

It is quite incredible how the Tories have self-destructed in a matter of months.

We wont get it, but I think we need an election to move on from this utter omni-shambles.

The odd thing is, a government with 318 seats, with 10 allies, and a divided opposition, shouldn't find it too difficult to govern, but it needs a sense of purpose. The Tories managed it in 1951 (with support from 9 Ulster Unionists) and Labour did in 1964.

It needs strong leadership and good whipping.

I think the latter is probably as good as it could be expected to be; it's the former that's the problem.

Compare Theresa May to Arlene Foster, who also had an unexpectedly bad election result in March, but the latter is a tough as an old boot, hung on in there, and led her party to success three months later.

Well, quite. I think Theresa May can only be an effective PM on her own terms, which she doesn't have the luxury of any longer.

AndyJS

"Roundheads have routed the randy old fools — Janice Turner

We are entering a new age of Puritanism where even minor indiscretions by ageing dinosaurs will not be tolerated"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/roundheads-have-routed-the-randy-old-fools-7q5dzfts6

kle4

TwistedFireStopper said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Metatron said:

Are people not overrating Ruth Davidson?

No they are not.

I get that she had a good war during the last GE, but would that transfer to being a good PM?

There is no way to know. The only test we give prospective PMs is their campaigning ability in an election and party management beforehand. She technically has more experience of both than most of the other candidates, but neither are actually evidence someone definitely will be a good PM.

Sean_F

AndyJS said:

"Roundheads have routed the randy old fools — Janice Turner

We are entering a new age of Puritanism where even minor indiscretions by ageing dinosaurs will not be tolerated"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/roundheads-have-routed-the-randy-old-fools-7q5dzfts6

Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Royale, as a reasonably Luddite type, I do wonder why people commit so much to technology.

Meanwhile, in the Middle East: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-41872995

Edited extra bit: explosion around Riyadh airport, possibly due to an intercepted missile from Yemen.

marke09

Emily Thornberry on Westminster sex allegations: "We in the Labour Party hold ourselves to a higher standard".

Alanbrooke

marke09 said:

Emily Thornberry on Westminster sex allegations: "We in the Labour Party hold ourselves to a higher standard".

guffaw

yeah right

Sandpit

Morris_Dancer said:

Meanwhile, in the Middle East: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-41872995

Edited extra bit: explosion around Riyadh airport, possibly due to an intercepted missile from Yemen.

Err, that’s a little too close to home...

Pong

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Royale, as a reasonably Luddite type, I do wonder why people commit so much to technology.

Meanwhile, in the Middle East: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-41872995

Edited extra bit: explosion around Riyadh airport, possibly due to an intercepted missile from Yemen.

odd.

Missile fired from Yemen, 500 miles away?

Theuniondivvie

Monksfield said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Metatron said:

Are people not overrating Ruth Davidson?

No they are not.

I think they are, she has the whiff of desperate Tories projecting all their hopes on her.

It's always entertaining to ask the fanbois which of Ruth's policies are their favourites.

No to a second referendum...er...

Sandpit

marke09 said:

Emily Thornberry on Westminster sex allegations: "We in the Labour Party hold ourselves to a higher standard".

While the Tories are only good at covering up knee touching, Labour can cover up a rape or two. A much higher standard.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/926879410690588675

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Pong, distance is entirely possible, the problem would be the equipment necessary to do it, *if* that is what happened.

Mr. Sandpit, one hopes the situation where you are stays calm.

OchEye

Sandpit said:

marke09 said:

Emily Thornberry on Westminster sex allegations: "We in the Labour Party hold ourselves to a higher standard".

While the Tories are only good at covering up knee touching, Labour can cover up a rape or two. A much higher standard.

I wonder on the size of shroud to cover the political corpse of Boris?

oxfordsimon

marke09 said:

Emily Thornberry on Westminster sex allegations: "We in the Labour Party hold ourselves to a higher standard".

Then why is McDonnell still on the Front Bench? Calling for a lynching of a female MP is hardly a higher standard.

The violence at the heart of some in the Labour leadership is beyond the pale.

Sean_F

marke09 said:

Emily Thornberry on Westminster sex allegations: "We in the Labour Party hold ourselves to a higher standard".

I assume she's joking.

Alanbrooke

German politician intervening in Poland;s home affairs

https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article170329791/Polen-fordert-von-Deutschland-Erklaerung-wegen-Aeusserung-von-der-Leyens.html

should end well

Sandpit

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pong, distance is entirely possible, the problem would be the equipment necessary to do it, *if* that is what happened.

Mr. Sandpit, one hopes the situation where you are stays calm.

Me too!!!

Dubai’s about the same distance as Riyadh from Yemen, the UAE are fighting with the Saudis against the Yemeni rebels, I live five miles from an air base here and no-one thought the Yemeni rebels had proper missiles!

(Gets another glass of wine and some more popcorn, and awaits the fun in the British newspapers instead)

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/cathynewman/status/926880235437608960

Nigelb

Theuniondivvie said:

Monksfield said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Metatron said:

Are people not overrating Ruth Davidson?

No they are not.

I think they are, she has the whiff of desperate Tories projecting all their hopes on her.

It's always entertaining to ask the fanbois which of Ruth's policies are their favourites.

No to a second referendum...er...

It's a point, but hardly a conclusive one.
What the Tories have is a serious leadership deficit - it would be a gamble, but persisting with the current leader isn't even a gamble.

Nigelb

marke09 said:

Emily Thornberry on Westminster sex allegations: "We in the Labour Party hold ourselves to a higher standard".

I'm guessing that's an aspiration rather than a statement of fact ?

OchEye

MarqueeMark said:

Metatron said:

Are people not overrating Ruth Davidson?
She is an opposition leader to an SNP govt that has been in power for ages and is vulnerable to charges over incompetence in education and energy policy combined with a nanny state altitude and Scotland has little economic growth
If Ruth Davidson was in power in Scotland or the PM not a given her reputation would stand up.

If Ruth Davidson was in power in Scotland, then Hell would have frozen over....

It amuses me that so many believe Ruthie is the potential saviour of the Tories. What they don't realise is that she is not popular as she would like everyone to believe, particularly within the Scottish Tories.

foxinsoxuk

YellowSubmarine said:

It all comes back to the May Paradox. Everybody knows she's finished after June's fiasco including in fairness herself. The question is does she still have a use. It's precisely because that she is finished that letting her take the fall and deliver Brexit is good resource management. But that supposes she is both finished and yet strong enough to deliver Brexit. The equilibrium that's breaking down is about May be weak in a Goldilocks sort of way. Weak enough to have have to go before 2022 but still strong enough to deliver what europhobes want.

This would all apply in reverse. If she was recovering enough to perhaps get through to 2022 that perversely might have provoked a challenge. Equally europhobes now have to decide whether to roll the dice. There is now the small but significant possibility that May takes down Brexit with her. Of course a leadership election runs all sorts of other risks for europhobes but that politics. But May's Goldilocks weakness is cooling down and the equilibrium that goes with it.

May cannot control her own troops, let alone take a fight to the enemy.

Surely a leadership contest couldn't be any worse than the current drift and chaos?

Sandpit

marke09 said:

Emily Thornberry on Westminster sex allegations: "We in the Labour Party hold ourselves to a higher standard".

Hi Emily, what would this lady think of your higher standard?
https://twitter.com/bexbailey/status/925726372730949632

FrancisUrquhart

Saudi Arabia: Loud explosion heard near Riyadh airport

A loud explosion has been heard near Riyadh's airport, with unconfirmed reports saying Saudi Arabia intercepted a ballistic missile from Yemen.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-41872995

The_Apocalypse

Re that Janice Turner piece: why should minor indiscretions be 'tolerated'? If someone does something I don't like, I'll let them know.

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

"Roundheads have routed the randy old fools — Janice Turner

We are entering a new age of Puritanism where even minor indiscretions by ageing dinosaurs will not be tolerated"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/roundheads-have-routed-the-randy-old-fools-7q5dzfts6

Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.

We are already getting a reaction from the usual suspects: Douglas Murray, most likely Brendan O'Neil. But the reality is much of this is a reaction to the election of Trump, the revelation of alleged sexual harassment at FOX, and now Weinstein. This is the 'backlash' against recent examples of men appearing to 'get away' with sexual harassment and worse. Also, this is not a 'moral panic'; it involves low-level cases of alleged harassment ranging all the way up to alleged rape. That cannot be simply dismissed as everyone getting wound up over 'nothing'.

Right wingers have already had their 'backlash' with Brexit, with Trump, with all the right-leaning to far right parties being elected across Europe. Now, this is the backlash to that socially conservative worldview.

As Krishnan Guru-Murthy‏ has said:
https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/926236543622230017
The dressing up of this as 'puritan' is also ridiculous. You don't have to be a 'puritan' to not expect men to be touching up your leg, groping you, or rubbing up against you, or to go to work and not have to hear sexually inappropriate comments. That's not 'puritan'; that's just about decency and respect. It reminds me of the DM comments section insisting in one article that anyone who objected to being pinched or slapped on the bum, was clearly fragile and oversensitive, instead of that behaviour being wrong.

FrancisUrquhart

Yemen's Houthi fire missile at Saudi Arabia's Riyadh

Yemen's Houthi rebels have claimed responsibility for an explosion in Riyadh, saying they fired a long-range ballistic missile that travelled 500km over the border with Saudi Arabia.

A spokesman for the rebels told Al Jazeera they launched a Burkan 2-H missile towards Riyadh late on Saturday.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/11/yemen-houthi-fire-missile-saudi-arabia-riyadh-171104180946302.html

rkrkrk

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/cathynewman/status/926880235437608960

Tough one for the journos to spell!

As an aside- you get a lot of stick for your posting of tweets - but you are impressively fast with news and I find many of them quite interesting. It saves me having to bother with Twitter! So thanks.

Morris_Dancer

On a lighter note, I'm quite enjoying The Alexiad. Anna Komnene's sense of personality comes through rather well (on one occasion she described a man behaving as a demi-god treating another like a demi-ass).

Morris_Dancer

https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/926881647970127872

The_Apocalypse

rkrkrk said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/cathynewman/status/926880235437608960

Tough one for the journos to spell!

As an aside- you get a lot of stick for your posting of tweets - but you are impressively fast with news and I find many of them quite interesting. It saves me having to bother with Twitter! So thanks.

I'd also like to thank Scott_P for his twitter posts. I've always found them useful and informative.

oxfordsimon

Morris_Dancer said:

https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/926881647970127872

Are there any politicians who have gone through their careers without having upset anyone? I very much doubt it.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Urquhart, hmm. Aren't those rebels supplied (or at least supported) by Iran?

If they're firing directly on Saudi Arabia, I wonder if there's a chance of the Saudis arming groups that wouldn't mind attacking Iran itself.

....

Sean_F

The_Apocalypse said:

Re that Janice Turner piece: why should minor indiscretions be 'tolerated'? If someone does something I don't like, I'll let them know.

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

"Roundheads have routed the randy old fools — Janice Turner

We are entering a new age of Puritanism where even minor indiscretions by ageing dinosaurs will not be tolerated"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/roundheads-have-routed-the-randy-old-fools-7q5dzfts6

Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.

We are already getting a reaction from the usual suspects: Douglas Murray, most likely Brendan O'Neil. But the reality is much of this is a reaction to the election of Trump, the revelation of alleged sexual harassment at FOX, and now Weinstein. This is the 'backlash' against recent examples of men appearing to 'get away' with sexual harassment and worse. Also, this is not a 'moral panic'; it involves low-level cases of alleged harassment ranging all the way up to alleged rape. That cannot be simply dismissed as everyone getting wound up over 'nothing'.

Right wingers have already had their 'backlash' with Brexit, with Trump, with all the right-leaning to far right parties being elected across Europe. Now, this is the backlash to that socially conservative worldview.

As Krishnan Guru-Murthy‏ has said:
https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/926236543622230017
The dressing up of this as 'puritan' is also ridiculous. You don't have to be a 'puritan' to not expect men to be touching up your leg, groping you, or rubbing up against you, or to go to work and not have to hear sexually inappropriate comments. That's not 'puritan'; that's just about decency and respect. It reminds me of the DM comments section insisting in one article that anyone who objected to being pinched or slapped on the bum, was clearly fragile and oversensitive, instead of that behaviour being wrong.

A moral panic usually has some basis in fact. There are politicians whose behaviour has been seriously abusive. But, that doesn't alter the fact that some complaints are trivial or malicious. In the same way that child abuse is a reality, but some allegations of it are trivial or malicious. That seems to be pretty much the point that Janice Turner is making.

FF43

YellowSubmarine said:

It all comes back to the May Paradox. Everybody knows she's finished after June's fiasco including in fairness herself. The question is does she still have a use. It's precisely because that she is finished that letting her take the fall and deliver Brexit is good resource management. But that supposes she is both finished and yet strong enough to deliver Brexit. The equilibrium that's breaking down is about May be weak in a Goldilocks sort of way. Weak enough to have have to go before 2022 but still strong enough to deliver what europhobes want.

This would all apply in reverse. If she was recovering enough to perhaps get through to 2022 that perversely might have provoked a challenge. Equally europhobes now have to decide whether to roll the dice. There is now the small but significant possibility that May takes down Brexit with her. Of course a leadership election runs all sorts of other risks for europhobes but that politics. But May's Goldilocks weakness is cooling down and the equilibrium that goes with it.

The greater paradox is that Leavers require Brexit to be a success but only Remainers can deliver it*

* Success in relative terms. Brexit "success" will be worse than what we had before, but people accept it. Remainers who expected the worst might be agreeably surprised, but Leavers would have to accept that Leave made things worse and they were operating off a false premise in the referendum.

rkrkrk

The_Apocalypse said:

Re that Janice Turner piece: why should minor indiscretions be 'tolerated'? If someone does something I don't like, I'll let them know.

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

"Roundheads have routed the randy old fools — Janice Turner

We are entering a new age of Puritanism where even minor indiscretions by ageing dinosaurs will not be tolerated"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/roundheads-have-routed-the-randy-old-fools-7q5dzfts6

Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.

We are already getting a reaction from the usual suspects: Douglas Murray, most likely Brendan O'Neil. But the reality is much of this is a reaction to the election of Trump, the revelation of alleged sexual harassment at FOX, and now Weinstein. This is the 'backlash' against recent examples of men appearing to 'get away' with sexual harassment and worse. Also, this is not a 'moral panic'; it involves low-level cases of alleged harassment ranging all the way up to alleged rape. That cannot be simply dismissed as everyone getting wound up over 'nothing'.

Right wingers have already had their 'backlash' with Brexit, with Trump, with all the right-leaning to far right parties being elected across Europe. Now, this is the backlash to that socially conservative worldview.

As Krishnan Guru-Murthy‏ has said:
https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/926236543622230017
The dressing up of this as 'puritan' is also ridiculous. You don't have to be a 'puritan' to not expect men to be touching up your leg, groping you, or rubbing up against you, or to go to work and not have to hear sexually inappropriate comments. That's not 'puritan'; that's just about decency and respect. It reminds me of the DM comments section insisting in one article that anyone who objected to being pinched or slapped on the bum, was clearly fragile and oversensitive, instead of that behaviour being wrong.

I have to say I was really shocked by the #metoo campaign on Facebook where basically all of my female friends have been harassed/worse - as well as a much smaller number of male friends.

It feels to me as if that campaign has been very successful at provoking a discussion as well as claiming a few scalps.

The_Apocalypse

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Re that Janice Turner piece: why should minor indiscretions be 'tolerated'? If someone does something I don't like, I'll let them know.

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

"Roundheads have routed the randy old fools — Janice Turner

We are entering a new age of Puritanism where even minor indiscretions by ageing dinosaurs will not be tolerated"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/roundheads-have-routed-the-randy-old-fools-7q5dzfts6

Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.

We are already getting a reaction from the usual suspects: Douglas Murray, most likely Brendan O'Neil. But the reality is much of this is a reaction to the election of Trump, the revelation of alleged sexual harassment at FOX, and now Weinstein. This is the 'backlash' against recent examples of men appearing to 'get away' with sexual harassment and worse. Also, this is not a 'moral panic'; it involves low-level cases of alleged harassment ranging all the way up to alleged rape. That cannot be simply dismissed as everyone getting wound up over 'nothing'.

Right wingers have already had their 'backlash' with Brexit, with Trump, with all the right-leaning to far right parties being elected across Europe. Now, this is the backlash to that socially conservative worldview.

As Krishnan Guru-Murthy‏ has said:
https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/926236543622230017
The dressing up of this as 'puritan' is also ridiculous. You don't have to be a 'puritan' to not expect men to be touching up your leg, groping you, or rubbing up against you, or to go to work and not have to hear sexually inappropriate comments. That's not 'puritan'; that's just about decency and respect. It reminds me of the DM comments section insisting in one article that anyone who objected to being pinched or slapped on the bum, was clearly fragile and oversensitive, instead of that behaviour being wrong.

A moral panic usually has some basis in fact. There are politicians whose behaviour has been seriously abusive. But, that doesn't alter the fact that some complaints are trivial or malicious. In the same way that child abuse is a reality, but some allegations of it are trivial or malicious. That seems to be pretty much the point that Janice Turner is making.

Out of all the cases, there's only one that I'd say could be said to be 'trivial', and even then it still raised important questions, and arguably is illuminative of the kind of environment which facilitates the more darker behaviour.

williamglenn

FF43 said:

YellowSubmarine said:

It all comes back to the May Paradox. Everybody knows she's finished after June's fiasco including in fairness herself. The question is does she still have a use. It's precisely because that she is finished that letting her take the fall and deliver Brexit is good resource management. But that supposes she is both finished and yet strong enough to deliver Brexit. The equilibrium that's breaking down is about May be weak in a Goldilocks sort of way. Weak enough to have have to go before 2022 but still strong enough to deliver what europhobes want.

This would all apply in reverse. If she was recovering enough to perhaps get through to 2022 that perversely might have provoked a challenge. Equally europhobes now have to decide whether to roll the dice. There is now the small but significant possibility that May takes down Brexit with her. Of course a leadership election runs all sorts of other risks for europhobes but that politics. But May's Goldilocks weakness is cooling down and the equilibrium that goes with it.

The greater paradox is that Leavers require Brexit to be a success but only Remainers can deliver it

I think it goes deeper than that: Leavers require Brexit to be a success(*) but only the EU can deliver it. The success of their project depends entirely on the people from whom they are supposed to be taking back control.

* In relative terms, naturally.

oxfordsimon

rkrkrk said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Re that Janice Turner piece: why should minor indiscretions be 'tolerated'? If someone does something I don't like, I'll let them know.

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

"Roundheads have routed the randy old fools — Janice Turner

We are entering a new age of Puritanism where even minor indiscretions by ageing dinosaurs will not be tolerated"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/roundheads-have-routed-the-randy-old-fools-7q5dzfts6

Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.

We are already getting a reaction from the usual suspects: Douglas Murray, most likely Brendan O'Neil. But the reality is much of this is a reaction to the election of Trump, the revelation of alleged sexual harassment at FOX, and now Weinstein. This is the 'backlash' against recent examples of men appearing to 'get away' with sexual harassment and worse. Also, this is not a 'moral panic'; it involves low-level cases of alleged harassment ranging all the way up to alleged rape. That cannot be simply dismissed as everyone getting wound up over 'nothing'.

Right wingers have already had their 'backlash' with Brexit, with Trump, with all the right-leaning to far right parties being elected across Europe. Now, this is the backlash to that socially conservative worldview.

As Krishnan Guru-Murthy‏ has said:
https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/926236543622230017
The dressing up of this as 'puritan' is also ridiculous. You don't have to be a 'puritan' to not expect men to be touching up your leg, groping you, or rubbing up against you, or to go to work and not have to hear sexually inappropriate comments. That's not 'puritan'; that's just about decency and respect. It reminds me of the DM comments section insisting in one article that anyone who objected to being pinched or slapped on the bum, was clearly fragile and oversensitive, instead of that behaviour being wrong.

I have to say I was really shocked by the #metoo campaign on Facebook where basically all of my female friends have been harassed/worse - as well as a much smaller number of male friends.

It feels to me as if that campaign has been very successful at provoking a discussion as well as claiming a few scalps.

It is language like 'claiming a few scalps' that I find worrying. We should be aiming for justice - and that is not about victories/defeats or 'scalps'. I think everyone should be working towards securing justice for victims and fair hearings for the accused. At the moment, I worry that we aren't getting that.

The_Apocalypse

rkrkrk said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Re that Janice Turner piece: why should minor indiscretions be 'tolerated'? If someone does something I don't like, I'll let them know.

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

"Roundheads have routed the randy old fools — Janice Turner

We are entering a new age of Puritanism where even minor indiscretions by ageing dinosaurs will not be tolerated"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/roundheads-have-routed-the-randy-old-fools-7q5dzfts6

Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.

We are already getting a reaction from the usual suspects: Douglas Murray, most likely Brendan O'Neil. But the reality is much of this is a reaction to the election of Trump, the revelation of alleged sexual harassment at FOX, and now Weinstein. This is the 'backlash' against recent examples of men appearing to 'get away' with sexual harassment and worse. Also, this is not a 'moral panic'; it involves low-level cases of alleged harassment ranging all the way up to alleged rape. That cannot be simply dismissed as everyone getting wound up over 'nothing'.

Right wingers have already had their 'backlash' with Brexit, with Trump, with all the right-leaning to far right parties being elected across Europe. Now, this is the backlash to that socially conservative worldview.

As Krishnan Guru-Murthy‏ has said:
https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/926236543622230017
The dressing up of this as 'puritan' is also ridiculous. You don't have to be a 'puritan' to not expect men to be touching up your leg, groping you, or rubbing up against you, or to go to work and not have to hear sexually inappropriate comments. That's not 'puritan'; that's just about decency and respect. It reminds me of the DM comments section insisting in one article that anyone who objected to being pinched or slapped on the bum, was clearly fragile and oversensitive, instead of that behaviour being wrong.

I have to say I was really shocked by the #metoo campaign on Facebook where basically all of my female friends have been harassed/worse - as well as a much smaller number of male friends.

It feels to me as if that campaign has been very successful at provoking a discussion as well as claiming a few scalps.

Yep - most of my friends have been harassed, I've experienced it as well.

I'm happy this subject is being discussed.

Nigelb

The_Apocalypse said:

Re that Janice Turner piece: why should minor indiscretions be 'tolerated'? If someone does something I don't like, I'll let them know.

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

"Roundheads have routed the randy old fools — Janice Turner

We are entering a new age of Puritanism where even minor indiscretions by ageing dinosaurs will not be tolerated"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/roundheads-have-routed-the-randy-old-fools-7q5dzfts6

Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.

We are already getting a reaction from the usual suspects: Douglas Murray, most likely Brendan O'Neil. But the reality is much of this is a reaction to the election of Trump, the revelation of alleged sexual harassment at FOX, and now Weinstein. This is the 'backlash' against recent examples of men appearing to 'get away' with sexual harassment and worse. Also, this is not a 'moral panic'; it involves low-level cases of alleged harassment ranging all the way up to alleged rape. That cannot be simply dismissed as everyone getting wound up over 'nothing'.

Right wingers have already had their 'backlash' with Brexit, with Trump, with all the right-leaning to far right parties being elected across Europe. Now, this is the backlash to that socially conservative worldview.

As Krishnan Guru-Murthy‏ has said:
https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/926236543622230017
The dressing up of this as 'puritan' is also ridiculous. You don't have to be a 'puritan' to not expect men to be touching up your leg, groping you, or rubbing up against you, or to go to work and not have to hear sexually inappropriate comments. That's not 'puritan'; that's just about decency and respect. It reminds me of the DM comments section insisting in one article that anyone who objected to being pinched or slapped on the bum, was clearly fragile and oversensitive, instead of that behaviour being wrong.

Absolutely right (though I'm slightly uncomfortable with the idea that this is all about "right wingers", because it isn't).
This piece in the Guardian - and no doubt there are those who will roll their eyes because it's the Guardian, and it concerns the theatre world, but whatever - is very much on point:
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2017/nov/04/royal-court-vicky-featherstone-we-all-knew-about-sexual-harassment

another_richard

Richard_Nabavi said:

Monksfield said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Metatron said:

Are people not overrating Ruth Davidson?

No they are not.

I think they are, she has the whiff of desperate Tories projecting all their hopes on her.

Not at all. She's exactly the kind of leader we need: articulate, inspiring, passionate, modern, politically astute, and free of the unfortunate baggage most of the Cabinet has picked up.

Of course there are the minor inconveniences that she might not want the job, and is not in a position to get it, but you can't have everything!

And the even bigger inconveniences that the only ideas she has had are:

1) Keep WFA in Scotland but not in England and Wales
2) Build endless new towns (financing and locations not revealed)

Nigelb

FF43 said:

YellowSubmarine said:

It all comes back to the May Paradox. Everybody knows she's finished after June's fiasco including in fairness herself. The question is does she still have a use. It's precisely because that she is finished that letting her take the fall and deliver Brexit is good resource management. But that supposes she is both finished and yet strong enough to deliver Brexit. The equilibrium that's breaking down is about May be weak in a Goldilocks sort of way. Weak enough to have have to go before 2022 but still strong enough to deliver what europhobes want.

This would all apply in reverse. If she was recovering enough to perhaps get through to 2022 that perversely might have provoked a challenge. Equally europhobes now have to decide whether to roll the dice. There is now the small but significant possibility that May takes down Brexit with her. Of course a leadership election runs all sorts of other risks for europhobes but that politics. But May's Goldilocks weakness is cooling down and the equilibrium that goes with it.

The greater paradox is that Leavers require Brexit to be a success but only Remainers can deliver it*

* Success in relative terms. Brexit "success" will be worse than what we had before, but people accept it. Remainers who expected the worst might be agreeably surprised, but Leavers would have to accept that Leave made things worse and they were operating off a false premise in the referendum.

I note Europe is already saying David Davis' "basic Brexit" fallback position is a 'fantasy' -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/04/britain-living-fantasy-land-hopes-basic-brexit-senior-eu-officials/

midwinter

The_Apocalypse said:

Re that Janice Turner piece: why should minor indiscretions be 'tolerated'? If someone does something I don't like, I'll let them know.

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

"Roundheads have routed the randy old fools — Janice Turner

We are entering a new age of Puritanism where even minor indiscretions by ageing dinosaurs will not be tolerated"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/roundheads-have-routed-the-randy-old-fools-7q5dzfts6

Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.

We are already getting a reaction from the usual suspects: Douglas Murray, most likely Brendan O'Neil. But the reality is much of this is a reaction to the election of Trump, the revelation of alleged sexual harassment at FOX, and now Weinstein. This is the 'backlash' against recent examples of men appearing to 'get away' with sexual harassment and worse. Also, this is not a 'moral panic'; it involves low-level cases of alleged harassment ranging all the way up to alleged rape. That cannot be simply dismissed as everyone getting wound up over 'nothing'.

Right wingers have already had their 'backlash' with Brexit, with Trump, with all the right-leaning to far right parties being elected across Europe. Now, this is the backlash to that socially conservative worldview.

As Krishnan Guru-Murthy‏ has said:
https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/926236543622230017
The dressing up of this as 'puritan' is also ridiculous. You don't have to be a 'puritan' to not expect men to be touching up your leg, groping you, or rubbing up against you, or to go to work and not have to hear sexually inappropriate comments. That's not 'puritan'; that's just about decency and respect. It reminds me of the DM comments section insisting in one article that anyone who objected to being pinched or slapped on the bum, was clearly fragile and oversensitive, instead of that behaviour being wrong.

Just to clarify. You're suggesting that opposition to sexual harassment is a backlash to a socially conservative world view?

rkrkrk

oxfordsimon said:

rkrkrk said:

I have to say I was really shocked by the #metoo campaign on Facebook where basically all of my female friends have been harassed/worse - as well as a much smaller number of male friends.

It feels to me as if that campaign has been very successful at provoking a discussion as well as claiming a few scalps.

It is language like 'claiming a few scalps' that I find worrying. We should be aiming for justice - and that is not about victories/defeats or 'scalps'. I think everyone should be working towards securing justice for victims and fair hearings for the accused. At the moment, I worry that we aren't getting that.

I don’t know whether Weinstein or Spacey can or ever will be prosecuted.
Perhaps scalps was a bit glib but it is important that people know powerful people can’t automatically get away with it. When you look at Trump, B. Clinton, Saville and others you can’t blame people for wondering...

In the long run I think this current media focus will be helpful to ensure that victims feel more confident to come forward.

The_Apocalypse

Nigelb said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Re that Janice Turner piece: why should minor indiscretions be 'tolerated'? If someone does something I don't like, I'll let them know.

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

"Roundheads have routed the randy old fools — Janice Turner

We are entering a new age of Puritanism where even minor indiscretions by ageing dinosaurs will not be tolerated"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/roundheads-have-routed-the-randy-old-fools-7q5dzfts6

Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.

We are already getting a reaction from the usual suspects: Douglas Murray, most likely Brendan O'Neil. But the reality is much of this is a reaction to the election of Trump, the revelation of alleged sexual harassment at FOX, and now Weinstein. This is the 'backlash' against recent examples of men appearing to 'get away' with sexual harassment and worse. Also, this is not a 'moral panic'; it involves low-level cases of alleged harassment ranging all the way up to alleged rape. That cannot be simply dismissed as everyone getting wound up over 'nothing'.

Right wingers have already had their 'backlash' with Brexit, with Trump, with all the right-leaning to far right parties being elected across Europe. Now, this is the backlash to that socially conservative worldview.

As Krishnan Guru-Murthy‏ has said:
https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/926236543622230017
The dressing up of this as 'puritan' is also ridiculous. You don't have to be a 'puritan' to not expect men to be touching up your leg, groping you, or rubbing up against you, or to go to work and not have to hear sexually inappropriate comments. That's not 'puritan'; that's just about decency and respect. It reminds me of the DM comments section insisting in one article that anyone who objected to being pinched or slapped on the bum, was clearly fragile and oversensitive, instead of that behaviour being wrong.

Absolutely right (though I'm slightly uncomfortable with the idea that this is all about "right wingers", because it isn't).
This piece in the Guardian - and no doubt there are those who will roll their eyes because it's the Guardian, and it concerns the theatre world, but whatever - is very much on point:
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2017/nov/04/royal-court-vicky-featherstone-we-all-knew-about-sexual-harassment

I didn't mean to imply it's all about right wingers. It was more in reference to those characterising what's happened as puritan, and 'pc gone mad'' etc, as most of those commentators who don't see all of this as a step in the right direction have generally been on the political right - O'Neill and Douglas as I mentioned before, but also Moore today, and the likes of Vine and Pierce earlier on this week.

kle4

oxfordsimon said:

rkrkrk said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Re that Janice Turner piece: why should minor indiscretions be 'tolerated'? If someone does something I don't like, I'll let them know.

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

"Roundheads have routed the randy old fools — Janice Turner

We are entering a new age of Puritanism where even minor indiscretions by ageing dinosaurs will not be tolerated"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/roundheads-have-routed-the-randy-old-fools-7q5dzfts6

Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.

We are alr

Right wingers have already had their 'backlash' with Brexit, with Trump, with all the right-leaning to far right parties being elected across Europe. Now, this is the backlash to that socially conservative worldview.

As Krishnan Guru-Murthy‏ has said:
https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/926236543622230017
The dressing up of tg wrong.

I have to say I was really shocked by the #metoo campaign on Facebook where basically all of my female friends have been harassed/worse - as well as a much smaller number of male friends.

It feels to me as if that campaign has been very successful at provoking a discussion as well as claiming a few scalps.

It is language like 'claiming a few scalps' that I find worrying. We should be aiming for justice - and that is not about victories/defeats or 'scalps'. I think everyone should be working towards securing justice for victims and fair hearings for the accused. At the moment, I worry that we aren't getting that.

I think that's a reasonable way of looking at it. We need people who have been abused to feel able to go to the police, we need people who have been mistreated to feel able to go to the appropriate authority in that instance, be it party hierarchy or work or something, and hopefully those who have committed wrongdoing will be punished. But no one, I would hope, would think that all allegations equal an offense, or that all offenses are equal, and therefore merely costing some jobs does not in itself suggest an improvement in the situation with the culture long term, and if it is the primary goal then in fact might distract energies from solving the problem rather than merely seeking scalps, which is a part of it but not the whole of it. For now I'm not concerned about it becoming a witchhunt, there has been an overdone counter in some quarters, but a constant reminder that just because there is a problem does not mean everyone accused is guilty is also reasonable so people keep perspective, that we want to collect the scalps of those who deserve it, not just get as many scalps as we can.

AndyJS

The_Apocalypse said:

Re that Janice Turner piece: why should minor indiscretions be 'tolerated'? If someone does something I don't like, I'll let them know.

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

"Roundheads have routed the randy old fools — Janice Turner

We are entering a new age of Puritanism where even minor indiscretions by ageing dinosaurs will not be tolerated"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/roundheads-have-routed-the-randy-old-fools-7q5dzfts6

Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.

We are already getting a reaction from the usual suspects: Douglas Murray, most likely Brendan O'Neil. But the reality is much of this is a reaction to the election of Trump, the revelation of alleged sexual harassment at FOX, and now Weinstein. This is the 'backlash' against recent examples of men appearing to 'get away' with sexual harassment and worse. Also, this is not a 'moral panic'; it involves low-level cases of alleged harassment ranging all the way up to alleged rape. That cannot be simply dismissed as everyone getting wound up over 'nothing'.

Right wingers have already had their 'backlash' with Brexit, with Trump, with all the right-leaning to far right parties being elected across Europe. Now, this is the backlash to that socially conservative worldview.

As Krishnan Guru-Murthy‏ has said:
https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/926236543622230017
The dressing up of this as 'puritan' is also ridiculous. You don't have to be a 'puritan' to not expect men to be touching up your leg, groping you, or rubbing up against you, or to go to work and not have to hear sexually inappropriate comments. That's not 'puritan'; that's just about decency and respect. It reminds me of the DM comments section insisting in one article that anyone who objected to being pinched or slapped on the bum, was clearly fragile and oversensitive, instead of that behaviour being wrong.

What's wrong with social conservatism?

Nigelb

The_Apocalypse said:

Nigelb said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Re that Janice Turner piece: why should minor indiscretions be 'tolerated'? If someone does something I don't like, I'll let them know.

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

"Roundheads have routed the randy old fools — Janice Turner

We are entering a new age of Puritanism where even minor indiscretions by ageing dinosaurs will not be tolerated"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/roundheads-have-routed-the-randy-old-fools-7q5dzfts6

Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.

Snip...

As Krishnan Guru-Murthy‏ has said:
https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/926236543622230017
The dressing up of this as 'puritan' is also ridiculous. You don't have to be a 'puritan' to not expect men to be touching up your leg, groping you, or rubbing up against you, or to go to work and not have to hear sexually inappropriate comments. That's not 'puritan'; that's just about decency and respect. It reminds me of the DM comments section insisting in one article that anyone who objected to being pinched or slapped on the bum, was clearly fragile and oversensitive, instead of that behaviour being wrong.

Absolutely right (though I'm slightly uncomfortable with the idea that this is all about "right wingers", because it isn't).
This piece in the Guardian - and no doubt there are those who will roll their eyes because it's the Guardian, and it concerns the theatre world, but whatever - is very much on point:
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2017/nov/04/royal-court-vicky-featherstone-we-all-knew-about-sexual-harassment

I didn't mean to imply it's all about right wingers. It was more in reference to those characterising what's happened as puritan, and 'pc gone mad'' etc, as most of those commentators who don't see all of this as a step in the right direction have generally been on the political right - O'Neill and Douglas as I mentioned before, but also Moore today, and the likes of Vine and Pierce earlier on this week.

Fair point.

The_Apocalypse

midwinter said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Re that Janice Turner piece: why should minor indiscretions be 'tolerated'? If someone does something I don't like, I'll let them know.

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

"Roundheads have routed the randy old fools — Janice Turner

We are entering a new age of Puritanism where even minor indiscretions by ageing dinosaurs will not be tolerated"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/roundheads-have-routed-the-randy-old-fools-7q5dzfts6

Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.

We are already getting a reaction from the usual suspects: Douglas Murray, most likely Brendan O'Neil. But the reality is much of this is a reaction to the election of Trump, the revelation of alleged sexual harassment at FOX, and now Weinstein. This is the 'backlash' against recent examples of men appearing to 'get away' with sexual harassment and worse. Also, this is not a 'moral panic'; it involves low-level cases of alleged harassment ranging all the way up to alleged rape. That cannot be simply dismissed as everyone getting wound up over 'nothing'.

Right wingers have already had their 'backlash' with Brexit, with Trump, with all the right-leaning to far right parties being elected across Europe. Now, this is the backlash to that socially conservative worldview.

As Krishnan Guru-Murthy‏ has said:
https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/926236543622230017
The dressing up of this as 'puritan' is also ridiculous. You don't have to be a 'puritan' to not expect men to be touching up your leg, groping you, or rubbing up against you, or to go to work and not have to hear sexually inappropriate comments. That's not 'puritan'; that's just about decency and respect. It reminds me of the DM comments section insisting in one article that anyone who objected to being pinched or slapped on the bum, was clearly fragile and oversensitive, instead of that behaviour being wrong.

Just to clarify. You're suggesting that opposition to sexual harassment is a backlash to a socially conservative world view?

Yes, I don't think that's a controversial point to make. It's not those on the Left of the Tory party, nor is it left-liberal commentators who are calling these allegations a sign of puritanism (generally speaking).

Nigelb

AndyJS said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Re that Janice Turner piece: why should minor indiscretions be 'tolerated'? If someone does something I don't like, I'll let them know.

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

"Roundheads have routed the randy old fools — Janice Turner

We are entering a new age of Puritanism where even minor indiscretions by ageing dinosaurs will not be tolerated"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/roundheads-have-routed-the-randy-old-fools-7q5dzfts6

Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.

We are already getting a reaction from the usual suspects: Douglas Murray, most likely Brendan O'Neil. But the reality is much of this is a reaction to the election of Trump, the revelation of alleged sexual harassment at FOX, and now Weinstein. This is the 'backlash' against recent examples of men appearing to 'get away' with sexual harassment and worse. Also, this is not a 'moral panic'; it involves low-level cases of alleged harassment ranging all the way up to alleged rape. That cannot be simply dismissed as everyone getting wound up over 'nothing'.

Right wingers have already had their 'backlash' with Brexit, with Trump, with all the right-leaning to far right parties being elected across Europe. Now, this is the backlash to that socially conservative worldview.

As Krishnan Guru-Murthy‏ has said:
https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/926236543622230017
The dressing up of this as 'puritan' is also ridiculous. You don't have to be a 'puritan' to not expect men to be touching up your leg, groping you, or rubbing up against you, or to go to work and not have to hear sexually inappropriate comments. That's not 'puritan'; that's just about decency and respect. It reminds me of the DM comments section insisting in one article that anyone who objected to being pinched or slapped on the bum, was clearly fragile and oversensitive, instead of that behaviour being wrong.

What's wrong with social conservatism?

I guess it depends what you're conserving ?
(The Conservative party has often, at its best, helped lead social change when it recognises it's necessary.)

AlastairMeeks

I've managed to get to 50 without ever feeling inclined to use such authority as I have to press myself onto others. I don't regard myself as some kind of unworldly saint.

Talk about Puritanism is ridiculous,

The_Apocalypse

AndyJS said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Re that Janice Turner piece: why should minor indiscretions be 'tolerated'? If someone does something I don't like, I'll let them know.

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

"Roundheads have routed the randy old fools — Janice Turner

We are entering a new age of Puritanism where even minor indiscretions by ageing dinosaurs will not be tolerated"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/roundheads-have-routed-the-randy-old-fools-7q5dzfts6

Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.

We are already getting a reaction from the usual suspects: Douglas Murray, most likely Brendan O'Neil. But the reality is much of this is a reaction to the election of Trump, the revelation of alleged sexual harassment at FOX, and now Weinstein. This is the 'backlash' against recent examples of men appearing to 'get away' with sexual harassment and worse. Also, this is not a 'moral panic'; it involves low-level cases of alleged harassment ranging all the way up to alleged rape. That cannot be simply dismissed as everyone getting wound up over 'nothing'.

Right wingers have already had their 'backlash' with Brexit, with Trump, with all the right-leaning to far right parties being elected across Europe. Now, this is the backlash to that socially conservative worldview.

As Krishnan Guru-Murthy‏ has said:
https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/926236543622230017
The dressing up of this as 'puritan' is also ridiculous. You don't have to be a 'puritan' to not expect men to be touching up your leg, groping you, or rubbing up against you, or to go to work and not have to hear sexually inappropriate comments. That's not 'puritan'; that's just about decency and respect. It reminds me of the DM comments section insisting in one article that anyone who objected to being pinched or slapped on the bum, was clearly fragile and oversensitive, instead of that behaviour being wrong.

What's wrong with social conservatism?

Pretty much everything, in my view (I'm very socially liberal). I'm not a fan of the because 'I put up with it in my generation so should you' attitude, for example that social conservatives that I know have been telling me over the last week in light of these recent allegations in Westminster.

midwinter

The_Apocalypse said:

midwinter said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Re that Janice Turner piece: why should minor indiscretions be 'tolerated'? If someone does something I don't like, I'll let them know.

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

"Roundheads have routed the randy old fools — Janice Turner

We are entering a new age of Puritanism where even minor indiscretions by ageing dinosaurs will not be tolerated"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/roundheads-have-routed-the-randy-old-fools-7q5dzfts6

Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.

We are already getting a reaction from the usual suspects: Douglas Murray, most likely Brendan O'Neil. But the reality is much of this is a reaction to the election of Trump, the revelation of alleged sexual harassment at FOX, and now Weinstein. This is the 'backlash' against recent examples of men appearing to 'get away' with sexual harassment and worse. Also, this is not a 'moral panic'; it involves low-level cases of alleged harassment ranging all the way up to alleged rape. That cannot be simply dismissed as everyone getting wound up over 'nothing'.

Right wingers have already had their 'backlash' with Brexit, with Trump, with all the right-leaning to far right parties being elected across Europe. Now, this is the backlash to that socially conservative worldview.

As Krishnan Guru-Murthy‏ has said:
https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/926236543622230017
The dressing up of this as 'puritan' is also ridiculous. You don't have to be a 'puritan' to not expect men to be touching up your leg, groping you, or rubbing up against you, or to go to work and not have to hear sexually inappropriate comments. That's not 'puritan'; that's just about decency and respect. It reminds me of the DM comments section insisting in one article that anyone who objected to being pinched or slapped on the bum, was clearly fragile and oversensitive, instead of that behaviour being wrong.

Just to clarify. You're suggesting that opposition to sexual harassment is a backlash to a socially conservative world view?

Yes, I don't think that's a controversial point to make. It's not those on the Left of the Tory party, nor is it left-liberal commentators who are calling these allegations a sign of puritanism.

Personally I think it's a backlash against people behaving inappropriately and has absolutely nothing to do with ones political alignment.

TwistedFireStopper

AlastairMeeks said:

I've managed to get to 50 without ever feeling inclined to use such authority as I have to press myself onto others. I don't regard myself as some kind of unworldly saint.

Talk about Puritanism is ridiculous,

Absolutely, Alastair. I'd be ashamed if my sons, aged 18, 20 and 22 had to have some sort of Code Of Conduct on how to behave around young women. That it is the great and the good who clearly can't control themselves just shows how morally corrupt they all are.

oxfordsimon

TwistedFireStopper said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I've managed to get to 50 without ever feeling inclined to use such authority as I have to press myself onto others. I don't regard myself as some kind of unworldly saint.

Talk about Puritanism is ridiculous,

Absolutely, Alastair. I'd be ashamed if my sons, aged 18, 20 and 22 had to have some sort of Code Of Conduct on how to behave around young women. That it is the great and the good who clearly can't control themselves just shows how morally corrupt they all are.

We must stop tarring everyone as being corrupt. Yes, there are some who have overstepped the mark and, in some case, their behaviour could well have been bad enough to warrant criminal charges being laid. But it is not true of all of 'the great and the good' - it is a small subset of people who have transgressed.

Pong

midwinter said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Re that Janice Turner piece: why should minor indiscretions be 'tolerated'? If someone does something I don't like, I'll let them know.

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

"Roundheads have routed the randy old fools — Janice Turner

We are entering a new age of Puritanism where even minor indiscretions by ageing dinosaurs will not be tolerated"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/roundheads-have-routed-the-randy-old-fools-7q5dzfts6

Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.

We are already getting a reaction from the usual suspects: Douglas Murray, most likely Brendan O'Neil. But the reality is much of this is a reaction to the election of Trump, the revelation of alleged sexual harassment at FOX, and now Weinstein. This is the 'backlash' against recent examples of men appearing to 'get away' with sexual harassment and worse. Also, this is not a 'moral panic'; it involves low-level cases of alleged harassment ranging all the way up to alleged rape. That cannot be simply dismissed as everyone getting wound up over 'nothing'.

Right wingers have already had their 'backlash' with Brexit, with Trump, with all the right-leaning to far right parties being elected across Europe. Now, this is the backlash to that socially conservative worldview.

As Krishnan Guru-Murthy‏ has said:
https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/926236543622230017
The dressing up of this as 'puritan' is also ridiculous. You don't have to be a 'puritan' to not expect men to be touching up your leg, groping you, or rubbing up against you, or to go to work and not have to hear sexually inappropriate comments. That's not 'puritan'; that's just about decency and respect. It reminds me of the DM comments section insisting in one article that anyone who objected to being pinched or slapped on the bum, was clearly fragile and oversensitive, instead of that behaviour being wrong.

Just to clarify. You're suggesting that opposition to sexual harassment is a backlash to a socially conservative world view?

The people I find really interesting are the old school moralistic religious/post-religious social conservatives - esp. socially conservative women who preach monogamous marriage / purity-in-thought-and-deed / strong punishment for those who transgress.

In my mind, they form a natural coalition with the young #metoo 's

For eg, Anne Widdecombe surprised me with her thoughts;

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/875482/Westminster-sex-scandal-ann-widdecombe-snowflake-mp-women-liberation-feminism-video

another_richard

The_Apocalypse said:

AndyJS said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Re that Janice Turner piece: why should minor indiscretions be 'tolerated'? If someone does something I don't like, I'll let them know.

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

"Roundheads have routed the randy old fools — Janice Turner

We are entering a new age of Puritanism where even minor indiscretions by ageing dinosaurs will not be tolerated"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/roundheads-have-routed-the-randy-old-fools-7q5dzfts6

Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.

We are already getting a reaction from the usual suspects: Douglas Murray, most likely Brendan O'Neil. But the reality is much of this is a reaction to the election of Trump, the revelation of alleged sexual harassment at FOX, and now Weinstein. This is the 'backlash' against recent examples of men appearing to 'get away' with sexual harassment and worse. Also, this is not a 'moral panic'; it involves low-level cases of alleged harassment ranging all the way up to alleged rape. That cannot be simply dismissed as everyone getting wound up over 'nothing'.

Right wingers have already had their 'backlash' with Brexit, with Trump, with all the right-leaning to far right parties being elected across Europe. Now, this is the backlash to that socially conservative worldview.

As Krishnan Guru-Murthy‏ has said:
https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/926236543622230017
The dressing up of this as 'puritan' is also ridiculous. You don't have to be a 'puritan' to not expect men to be touching up your leg, groping you, or rubbing up against you, or to go to work and not have to hear sexually inappropriate comments. That's not 'puritan'; that's just about decency and respect. It reminds me of the DM comments section insisting in one article that anyone who objected to being pinched or slapped on the bum, was clearly fragile and oversensitive, instead of that behaviour being wrong.

What's wrong with social conservatism?

Pretty much everything, in my view (I'm very socially liberal). I'm not a fan of the because 'I put up with it in my generation so should you' attitude, for example that social conservatives that I know have been telling me over the last week in light of these recent allegations in Westminster.

Yet it is people who purport to be socially liberal who have a remarkable silence about FGM.

Something which tends to be mentioned here only by people of the political centre or right and it should be noted a large majority of the victims reside in areas with Labour MPs and Labour councils.

AlastairMeeks

oxfordsimon said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I've managed to get to 50 without ever feeling inclined to use such authority as I have to press myself onto others. I don't regard myself as some kind of unworldly saint.

Talk about Puritanism is ridiculous,

Absolutely, Alastair. I'd be ashamed if my sons, aged 18, 20 and 22 had to have some sort of Code Of Conduct on how to behave around young women. That it is the great and the good who clearly can't control themselves just shows how morally corrupt they all are.

We must stop tarring everyone as being corrupt. Yes, there are some who have overstepped the mark and, in some case, their behaviour could well have been bad enough to warrant criminal charges being laid. But it is not true of all of 'the great and the good' - it is a small subset of people who have transgressed.

First, the subset doesn't seem that small.

Secondly, such actions seem to have been universally tolerated, indeed seen as useful leverage by others.

Westminster seems to have a serious culture problem.