Enough is enough though in being aggravated by the same idiotic, hateful nonsense perpetuated by Mr Meeks, someone who no longer deserves any respect from any reasonable person - his bitterness, childish logic and extremist ranting is not outweighed by his intellect and insight on other points, not when he postures about his moral superiority. He will probably be having an orgasm at having upset the 'right' people, but I will have to give him that, but respect? Undeserved. Fare thee well.
I assume you have similarly strong feelings about those who bang on about Labour and anti semitism to score political points, or is it perhaps only things you have voted for you don't like questioned?
I 'bang on' about Labour and anti-Semitism, and I have no 'political points' to score. Although you'd probably disagree about that latter clause ...
American cultural influences mean that I'm pleading the fifth at this point.
Enough is enough though in being aggravated by the same idiotic, hateful nonsense perpetuated by Mr Meeks, someone who no longer deserves any respect from any reasonable person - his bitterness, childish logic and extremist ranting is not outweighed by his intellect and insight on other points, not when he postures about his moral superiority. He will probably be having an orgasm at having upset the 'right' people, but I will have to give him that, but respect? Undeserved. Fare thee well.
I assume you have similarly strong feelings about those who bang on about Labour and anti semitism to score political points, or is it perhaps only things you have voted for you don't like questioned?
The two things are significantly different.
Those who discuss the problems of Labour and antisemitism rarely if ever make it a point to repeatedly attack other contributors with name-calling and other abuse.
That is not what happens with regards to the regular forum contributor under discussion here.
I really do wish there was an ignore function within the Vanilla software - so that we could all make choices as to who to read on here. It would make it possible to just avoid those who might trigger us into intemperate behaviour.
Political debates should be robust and challenging. But name-calling and abuse from any side is unacceptable.
So calling anyone who disagrees with you about Corbyn a cultist doesn't count as name-calling?
The idea that there is a cult-like aspect to the behaviour of ardent Corbyn supporters is very well established and goes well beyond these walls.
If something looks like a cult, sounds like a cult and acts like a cult, it is reasonable to describe it as a cult.
That is not abusive.
Hmm, I think there is a lot more evidence to say that the Brexit campaign contained racism/xenophobia and leave voters still voted for it than Corbyn supporters are a cult. I think the majority of experts on cults would find the labelling laughable.
Edit: Also isn't this the whole point?
Alastair isn't saying people he never met smell or normal looking people looking funny, he is saying what he believes to be accurate and it is insulting. People using cult, those who genuinely believe it (I'd like to assume nobody who understands what cults actually are) are doing the same as Alastair.
Enough is enough though in being aggravated by the same idiotic, hateful nonsense perpetuated by Mr Meeks, someone who no longer deserves any respect from any reasonable person - his bitterness, childish logic and extremist ranting is not outweighed by his intellect and insight on other points, not when he postures about his moral superiority. He will probably be having an orgasm at having upset the 'right' people, but I will have to give him that, but respect? Undeserved. Fare thee well.
I assume you have similarly strong feelings about those who bang on about Labour and anti semitism to score political points, or is it perhaps only things you have voted for you don't like questioned?
The two things are significantly different.
Those who discuss the problems of Labour and antisemitism rarely if ever make it a point to repeatedly attack other contributors with name-calling and other abuse.
That is not what happens with regards to the regular forum contributor under discussion here.
I really do wish there was an ignore function within the Vanilla software - so that we could all make choices as to who to read on here. It would make it possible to just avoid those who might trigger us into intemperate behaviour.
Political debates should be robust and challenging. But name-calling and abuse from any side is unacceptable.
So calling anyone who disagrees with you about Corbyn a cultist doesn't count as name-calling?
The idea that there is a cult-like aspect to the behaviour of ardent Corbyn supporters is very well established and goes well beyond these walls.
If something looks like a cult, sounds like a cult and acts like a cult, it is reasonable to describe it as a cult.
That is not abusive.
Sure, if you assume a bunch of political opinions as fact then you get cult as a kinda accurate description. The same, of course, goes for "xenophobic lies".
More realistically, agreeing with most things a political figure says is obviously not sufficient to call somebody a cultist, and even if it were you could use a less derogatory term like "religion". Feigned innocence aside, it's obviously a name intended to poke fun. Which is fine as long as you don't turn into a snowflake the instant somebody uses equally strident language about you.
In fact, @stodge, I don't think Cable's idea of opening up to registered supporters (if that is what he's planning) is a bad one. Labour have used it to colossally expand their membership base, as after payment of the fee registered supporters could upgrade to full membership for what amounted to a cut price. If something similar were to happen with the Liberal Democrats it could not only repair the party's finances but revitalise its membership base.
The question is: what do the Lib Dems need to produce a sustainable mass-market party?
I'd argue the leader isn't directly the problem: it is the message. Under Kennedy it became a party of protest, which is a quick way to increase voting percentages. But as Clegg found, those protest votes will soon shift for the most bogus of reasons.
IMO what they need to do is produce a message of *what* the Lib Dems stand for, disregarding the other parties. A firm philosophical base that can be sold to the electorate. This is what Lib Dems are. This is what being a Lib Dem means.
And that's what they've been failing to do for the last couple of decades. And it's difficult to do, as everyone will judge them wrt the other parties. But it needs to be done.
It's also why I think banging on about the EU and a second referendum is utterly counter-productive in the long term, at least without that base message as well.
Sure, if you assume a bunch of political opinions as fact then you get cult as a kinda accurate description. The same, of course, goes for "xenophobic lies".
More realistically, agreeing with most things a political figure says is obviously not sufficient to call somebody a cultist, and even if it were you could use a less derogatory term like "religion". Feigned innocence aside, it's obviously a name intended to poke fun. Which is fine as long as you don't turn into a snowflake the instant somebody uses equally strident language about you.
It is not a name intended to poke fun. And I have - as far as I can recall - called anyone a 'cultist' on here. I may be wrong - but I do not think I have used that form of language.
The behaviour of ardent Corbyn supporters that is seen on Twitter and elsewhere is what I call out and they are not expressing political opinions, they are attacking people in hateful ways.
Their behaviour is encouraged and enabled by the high command surrounding Corbyn. Action could have been taken to shut it down - but that action has not been taken.
Calling that out is perfectly valid.
Calling out actions of the Leave campaign are perfectly valid. Doing so in an abusive and increasingly personal way to fellow members of this forum is not.
Enough is enough though in being aggravated by the same idiotic, hateful nonsense perpetuated by Mr Meeks, someone who no longer deserves any respect from any reasonable person - his bitterness, childish logic and extremist ranting is not outweighed by his intellect and insight on other points, not when he postures about his moral superiority. He will probably be having an orgasm at having upset the 'right' people, but I will have to give him that, but respect? Undeserved. Fare thee well.
I assume you have similarly strong feelings about those who bang on about Labour and anti semitism to score political points, or is it perhaps only things you have voted for you don't like questioned?
The two things are significantly different.
Those who discuss the problems of Labour and antisemitism rarely if ever make it a point to repeatedly attack other contributors with name-calling and other abuse.
That is not what happens with regards to the regular forum contributor under discussion here.
I really do wish there was an ignore function within the Vanilla software - so that we could all make choices as to who to read on here. It would make it possible to just avoid those who might trigger us into intemperate behaviour.
Political debates should be robust and challenging. But name-calling and abuse from any side is unacceptable.
So calling anyone who disagrees with you about Corbyn a cultist doesn't count as name-calling?
The idea that there is a cult-like aspect to the behaviour of ardent Corbyn supporters is very well established and goes well beyond these walls.
If something looks like a cult, sounds like a cult and acts like a cult, it is reasonable to describe it as a cult.
That is not abusive.
Sure, if you assume a bunch of political opinions as fact then you get cult as a kinda accurate description. The same, of course, goes for "xenophobic lies".
More realistically, agreeing with most things a political figure says is obviously not sufficient to call somebody a cultist, and even if it were you could use a less derogatory term like "religion". Feigned innocence aside, it's obviously a name intended to poke fun. Which is fine as long as you don't turn into a snowflake the instant somebody uses equally strident language about you.
Fanboy or something like roadie (whilst not actually travelling with him just in terms of support) would be probably somewhere near accurate but still derogatory term for a section of the most passionate of them. Cult is just complete overkill for an actual serious point, fair enough for a low level insult to poke fun.
The no deal it is. It doesn't have to be at the expense of the EU's integrity.
Saying the integrity of the EU takes precedence over a bespoke relationship with the UK is hardly controversial across the Channel. German car manufacturers (who were supposed to push for the easiest deal ever in our favour) said the same thing.
And this. Although I think No Deal might last a couple of weeks longer than Brussels does.
Cult is a constant in reference to Labour supporters or sometimes more particularly Corbyn supporters, with accusations that anti semitism is used to impress these people, the left or sometimes Muslims, because obviously these groups love anti semitism. There may not be an individual who does it as consistently as Alastair but there is only one of him and the criticism mainly goes to Alastair, I suspect because there are far more Brexit supporters than Corbyn supporters.
The cult thing itself is very low level and I don't expect this to be a Labour friendly place so I don't hugely mind but Alastair is right when he talks about hypocrisy. He does also criticise Corbyn/Labour, I think he is similarly OTT in that regard as he is with Brexit, I do take his posts on it more seriously though because he is at least consistent in that regard.
Nobody has ever called me a cultist, but I could live with it. "pb tory" is probably an implied accusation of cultism. Xenophobe and liar, and deliberate supporter of xenophobic lies, are in a different class altogether.
I had hoped this would stop. Instead it is getting worse to the extent that it raises concerns about the mental wellbeing of the poster concerned. In the absence of an actual ignore button (which would be welcome) I propose to exercise my own virtual ignore-fu and to cease to respond to the posts in question.
In fact, @stodge, I don't think Cable's idea of opening up to registered supporters (if that is what he's planning) is a bad one. Labour have used it to colossally expand their membership base, as after payment of the fee registered supporters could upgrade to full membership for what amounted to a cut price. If something similar were to happen with the Liberal Democrats it could not only repair the party's finances but revitalise its membership base.
The question is: what do the Lib Dems need to produce a sustainable mass-market party?
I'd argue the leader isn't directly the problem: it is the message. Under Kennedy it became a party of protest, which is a quick way to increase voting percentages. But as Clegg found, those protest votes will soon shift for the most bogus of reasons.
IMO what they need to do is produce a message of *what* the Lib Dems stand for, disregarding the other parties. A firm philosophical base that can be sold to the electorate. This is what Lib Dems are. This is what being a Lib Dem means.
And that's what they've been failing to do for the last couple of decades. And it's difficult to do, as everyone will judge them wrt the other parties. But it needs to be done.
It's also why I think banging on about the EU and a second referendum is utterly counter-productive in the long term, at least without that base message as well.
That's what they tried to do under Sinclair in the 1930s. Disastrous failure.
Under Grimond, they concentrated on rebuilding a local base and campaigning on local issues. This revived the party's fortunes, but did begin the 'all things to all men' tradition that was brought to a juddering halt in 2010.
Sure, if you assume a bunch of political opinions as fact then you get cult as a kinda accurate description. The same, of course, goes for "xenophobic lies".
More realistically, agreeing with most things a political figure says is obviously not sufficient to call somebody a cultist, and even if it were you could use a less derogatory term like "religion". Feigned innocence aside, it's obviously a name intended to poke fun. Which is fine as long as you don't turn into a snowflake the instant somebody uses equally strident language about you.
It is not a name intended to poke fun. And I have - as far as I can recall - called anyone a 'cultist' on here. I may be wrong - but I do not think I have used that form of language.
The behaviour of ardent Corbyn supporters that is seen on Twitter and elsewhere is what I call out and they are not expressing political opinions, they are attacking people in hateful ways.
Their behaviour is encouraged and enabled by the high command surrounding Corbyn. Action could have been taken to shut it down - but that action has not been taken.
Calling that out is perfectly valid.
Calling out actions of the Leave campaign are perfectly valid. Doing so in an abusive and increasingly personal way to fellow members of this forum is not.
Just to be clear I wasn't accusing you of calling anybody a cultist, but that language is common on the site.
Maybe Meeks had said worse than I've seen, but "xenophobic lies" really doesn't seem worse than "cultist"
The no deal it is. It doesn't have to be at the expense of the EU's integrity.
Saying the integrity of the EU takes precedence over a bespoke relationship with the UK is hardly controversial across the Channel. German car manufacturers (who were supposed to push for the easiest deal ever in our favour) said the same thing.
And this. Although I think No Deal might last a couple of weeks longer than Brussels does.
In fact, @stodge, I don't think Cable's idea of opening up to registered supporters (if that is what he's planning) is a bad one. Labour have used it to colossally expand their membership base, as after payment of the fee registered supporters could upgrade to full membership for what amounted to a cut price. If something similar were to happen with the Liberal Democrats it could not only repair the party's finances but revitalise its membership base.
The question is: what do the Lib Dems need to produce a sustainable mass-market party?
I'd argue the leader isn't directly the problem: it is the message. Under Kennedy it became a party of protest, which is a quick way to increase voting percentages. But as Clegg found, those protest votes will soon shift for the most bogus of reasons.
IMO what they need to do is produce a message of *what* the Lib Dems stand for, disregarding the other parties. A firm philosophical base that can be sold to the electorate. This is what Lib Dems are. This is what being a Lib Dem means.
And that's what they've been failing to do for the last couple of decades. And it's difficult to do, as everyone will judge them wrt the other parties. But it needs to be done.
It's also why I think banging on about the EU and a second referendum is utterly counter-productive in the long term, at least without that base message as well.
That's what they tried to do under Sinclair in the 1930s. Disastrous failure.
Under Grimond, they concentrated on rebuilding a local base and campaigning on local issues. This revived the party's fortunes, but did begin the 'all things to all men' tradition that was brought to a juddering halt in 2010.
Do you have more info on that please, as I was unaware the Liberal Democrats were around in the 1930s, and also believe society, politics and the media have changed somewhat in eighty years.
The no deal it is. It doesn't have to be at the expense of the EU's integrity.
Saying the integrity of the EU takes precedence over a bespoke relationship with the UK is hardly controversial across the Channel. German car manufacturers (who were supposed to push for the easiest deal ever in our favour) said the same thing.
And this. Although I think No Deal might last a couple of weeks longer than Brussels does.
It is comments like that from Brussels insiders that make it difficult to think other than they are not negotiating with an open mind and in good faith.
I have said for a long time that the whole process should have been externally moderated - difficult as that would have been to agree at the start, it would have facilitated a more honest set of discussions.
Sure, if you assume a bunch of political opinions as fact then you get cult as a kinda accurate description. The same, of course, goes for "xenophobic lies".
More realistically, agreeing with most things a political figure says is obviously not sufficient to call somebody a cultist, and even if it were you could use a less derogatory term like "religion". Feigned innocence aside, it's obviously a name intended to poke fun. Which is fine as long as you don't turn into a snowflake the instant somebody uses equally strident language about you.
It is not a name intended to poke fun. And I have - as far as I can recall - called anyone a 'cultist' on here. I may be wrong - but I do not think I have used that form of language.
The behaviour of ardent Corbyn supporters that is seen on Twitter and elsewhere is what I call out and they are not expressing political opinions, they are attacking people in hateful ways.
Their behaviour is encouraged and enabled by the high command surrounding Corbyn. Action could have been taken to shut it down - but that action has not been taken.
Calling that out is perfectly valid.
Calling out actions of the Leave campaign are perfectly valid. Doing so in an abusive and increasingly personal way to fellow members of this forum is not.
The accusation isn't you personally anymore than your accusation is directed at say Nick Palmer personally.
Are you trying to claim that attacking people in hateful ways is carried out just by Corbynites?
Troubling that these people hate Abbott and other allies of Corbyn as well as Corbyn himself, seen as they get so much abuse. I had always assumed that was from their opponents.....
Can you point to a single thing the Tories have done more than Labour to stop abuse?
As far as I know both leaders have called it out, yet still Diane Abbott gets more abuse than any other MP. So why are you not calling the Tories cultists?
Sure, if you assume a bunch of political opinions as fact then you get cult as a kinda accurate description. The same, of course, goes for "xenophobic lies".
More realistically, agreeing with most things a political figure says is obviously not sufficient to call somebody a cultist, and even if it were you could use a less derogatory term like "religion". Feigned innocence aside, it's obviously a name intended to poke fun. Which is fine as long as you don't turn into a snowflake the instant somebody uses equally strident language about you.
It is not a name intended to poke fun. And I have - as far as I can recall - called anyone a 'cultist' on here. I may be wrong - but I do not think I have used that form of language.
The behaviour of ardent Corbyn supporters that is seen on Twitter and elsewhere is what I call out and they are not expressing political opinions, they are attacking people in hateful ways.
Their behaviour is encouraged and enabled by the high command surrounding Corbyn. Action could have been taken to shut it down - but that action has not been taken.
Calling that out is perfectly valid.
Calling out actions of the Leave campaign are perfectly valid. Doing so in an abusive and increasingly personal way to fellow members of this forum is not.
The accusation isn't you personally anymore than your accusation is directed at say Nick Palmer personally.
Are you trying to claim that attacking people in hateful ways is carried out just by Corbynites?
Troubling that these people hate Abbott and other allies of Corbyn as well as Corbyn himself, seen as they get so much abuse. I had always assumed that was from their opponents.....
Can you point to a single thing the Tories have done more than Labour to stop abuse?
As far as I know both leaders have called it out, yet still Diane Abbott gets more abuse than any other MP. So why are you not calling the Tories cultists?
The no deal it is. It doesn't have to be at the expense of the EU's integrity.
Saying the integrity of the EU takes precedence over a bespoke relationship with the UK is hardly controversial across the Channel. German car manufacturers (who were supposed to push for the easiest deal ever in our favour) said the same thing.
And this. Although I think No Deal might last a couple of weeks longer than Brussels does.
It is comments like that from Brussels insiders that make it difficult to think other than they are not negotiating with an open mind and in good faith.
I have said for a long time that the whole process should have been externally moderated - difficult as that would have been to agree at the start, it would have facilitated a more honest set of discussions.
Cult is a constant in reference to Labour supporters or sometimes more particularly Corbyn supporters, with accusations that anti semitism is used to impress these people, the left or sometimes Muslims, because obviously these groups love anti semitism. There may not be an individual who does it as consistently as Alastair but there is only one of him and the criticism mainly goes to Alastair, I suspect because there are far more Brexit supporters than Corbyn supporters.
The cult thing itself is very low level and I don't expect this to be a Labour friendly place so I don't hugely mind but Alastair is right when he talks about hypocrisy. He does also criticise Corbyn/Labour, I think he is similarly OTT in that regard as he is with Brexit, I do take his posts on it more seriously though because he is at least consistent in that regard.
Nobody has ever called me a cultist, but I could live with it. "pb tory" is probably an implied accusation of cultism. Xenophobe and liar, and deliberate supporter of xenophobic lies, are in a different class altogether.
I had hoped this would stop. Instead it is getting worse to the extent that it raises concerns about the mental wellbeing of the poster concerned. In the absence of an actual ignore button (which would be welcome) I propose to exercise my own virtual ignore-fu and to cease to respond to the posts in question.
pb tory is probably more of a descriptive thing than anything. Unless people here actually take the Tory label itself as an insult but I thought that would have pretty much died off, I use Tory and Conservative completely interchangeably and purely to describe them as members/supporters/voters of the conservative party.
Cult has negative connotations outside of a political context.
Cult is a constant in reference to Labour supporters or sometimes more particularly Corbyn supporters, with accusations that anti semitism is used to impress these people, the left or sometimes Muslims, because obviously these groups love anti semitism. There may not be an individual who does it as consistently as Alastair but there is only one of him and the criticism mainly goes to Alastair, I suspect because there are far more Brexit supporters than Corbyn supporters.
The cult thing itself is very low level and I don't expect this to be a Labour friendly place so I don't hugely mind but Alastair is right when he talks about hypocrisy. He does also criticise Corbyn/Labour, I think he is similarly OTT in that regard as he is with Brexit, I do take his posts on it more seriously though because he is at least consistent in that regard.
Nobody has ever called me a cultist, but I could live with it. "pb tory" is probably an implied accusation of cultism. Xenophobe and liar, and deliberate supporter of xenophobic lies, are in a different class altogether.
I had hoped this would stop. Instead it is getting worse to the extent that it raises concerns about the mental wellbeing of the poster concerned. In the absence of an actual ignore button (which would be welcome) I propose to exercise my own virtual ignore-fu and to cease to respond to the posts in question.
Yes, internet chatrooms work a lot better when everyone ignores everyone else.
Look if you are unable to argue cogently against the position of any poster, just say so. Don't give us all this "mental wellbeing" bolleaux.
Sure, if you assume a bunch of political opinions as fact then you get cult as a kinda accurate description. The same, of course, goes for "xenophobic lies".
More realistically, agreeing with most things a political figure says is obviously not sufficient to call somebody a cultist, and even if it were you could use a less derogatory term like "religion". Feigned innocence aside, it's obviously a name intended to poke fun. Which is fine as long as you don't turn into a snowflake the instant somebody uses equally strident language about you.
It is not a name intended to poke fun. And I have - as far as I can recall - called anyone a 'cultist' on here. I may be wrong - but I do not think I have used that form of language.
The behaviour of ardent Corbyn supporters that is seen on Twitter and elsewhere is what I call out and they are not expressing political opinions, they are attacking people in hateful ways.
Their behaviour is encouraged and enabled by the high command surrounding Corbyn. Action could have been taken to shut it down - but that action has not been taken.
Calling that out is perfectly valid.
Calling out actions of the Leave campaign are perfectly valid. Doing so in an abusive and increasingly personal way to fellow members of this forum is not.
The accusation isn't you personally anymore than your accusation is directed at say Nick Palmer personally.
Are you trying to claim that attacking people in hateful ways is carried out just by Corbynites?
Troubling that these people hate Abbott and other allies of Corbyn as well as Corbyn himself, seen as they get so much abuse. I had always assumed that was from their opponents.....
Can you point to a single thing the Tories have done more than Labour to stop abuse?
As far as I know both leaders have called it out, yet still Diane Abbott gets more abuse than any other MP. So why are you not calling the Tories cultists?
And of course when a prominent Tory writes actual Islamophobic dog whistles in a national newspaper, a lot of the reaction here was "well he *had* to poke fun of those women's appearance and signal mainstream acceptance to the people who despise them, because he cares so much about feminism!"
Is cognitive dissonance a symptom of cult membership?
Cult is a constant in reference to Labour supporters or sometimes more particularly Corbyn supporters, with accusations that anti semitism is used to impress these people, the left or sometimes Muslims, because obviously these groups love anti semitism. There may not be an individual who does it as consistently as Alastair but there is only one of him and the criticism mainly goes to Alastair, I suspect because there are far more Brexit supporters than Corbyn supporters.
The cult thing itself is very low level and I don't expect this to be a Labour friendly place so I don't hugely mind but Alastair is right when he talks about hypocrisy. He does also criticise Corbyn/Labour, I think he is similarly OTT in that regard as he is with Brexit, I do take his posts on it more seriously though because he is at least consistent in that regard.
Nobody has ever called me a cultist, but I could live with it. "pb tory" is probably an implied accusation of cultism. Xenophobe and liar, and deliberate supporter of xenophobic lies, are in a different class altogether.
I had hoped this would stop. Instead it is getting worse to the extent that it raises concerns about the mental wellbeing of the poster concerned. In the absence of an actual ignore button (which would be welcome) I propose to exercise my own virtual ignore-fu and to cease to respond to the posts in question.
pb tory is probably more of a descriptive thing than anything. Unless people here actually take the Tory label itself as an insult but I thought that would have pretty much died off, I use Tory and Conservative completely interchangeably and purely to describe them as members/supporters/voters of the conservative party.
Cult has negative connotations outside of a political context.
I think *every* poster who has been on here for more than a few years has been called a 'PB Tory' at some time or other. It leads me to wonder if we might all be PB Tories at heart.
Although I reckon you might escape that fate. Now there's a challenge!
In fact, @stodge, I don't think Cable's idea of opening up to registered supporters (if that is what he's planning) is a bad one. Labour have used it to colossally expand their membership base, as after payment of the fee registered supporters could upgrade to full membership for what amounted to a cut price. If something similar were to happen with the Liberal Democrats it could not only repair the party's finances but revitalise its membership base.
The question is: what do the Lib Dems need to produce a sustainable mass-market party?
I'd argue the leader isn't directly the problem: it is the message. Under Kennedy it became a party of protest, which is a quick way to increase voting percentages. But as Clegg found, those protest votes will soon shift for the most bogus of reasons.
IMO what they need to do is produce a message of *what* the Lib Dems stand for, disregarding the other parties. A firm philosophical base that can be sold to the electorate. This is what Lib Dems are. This is what being a Lib Dem means.
And that's what they've been failing to do for the last couple of decades. And it's difficult to do, as everyone will judge them wrt the other parties. But it needs to be done.
It's also why I think banging on about the EU and a second referendum is utterly counter-productive in the long term, at least without that base message as well.
That's what they tried to do under Sinclair in the 1930s. Disastrous failure.
Under Grimond, they concentrated on rebuilding a local base and campaigning on local issues. This revived the party's fortunes, but did begin the 'all things to all men' tradition that was brought to a juddering halt in 2010.
Do you have more info on that please, as I was unaware the Liberal Democrats were around in the 1930s, and also believe society, politics and the media have changed somewhat in eighty years.
There was a general shortage of democracy in the Thirties, so they just called themselves Liberals.
Edit - fun quiz fact. In 1918-22, ten new democracies were created in Europe. Which is the only state so created to have remained governed by democratic principles from that day to this?
Cult is a constant in reference to Labour supporters or sometimes more particularly Corbyn supporters, with accusations that anti semitism is used to impress these people, the left or sometimes Muslims, because obviously these groups love anti semitism. There may not be an individual who does it as consistently as Alastair but there is only one of him and the criticism mainly goes to Alastair, I suspect because there are far more Brexit supporters than Corbyn supporters.
The cult thing itself is very low level and I don't expect this to be a Labour friendly place so I don't hugely mind but Alastair is right when he talks about hypocrisy. He does also criticise Corbyn/Labour, I think he is similarly OTT in that regard as he is with Brexit, I do take his posts on it more seriously though because he is at least consistent in that regard.
Nobody has ever called me a cultist, but I could live with it. "pb tory" is probably an implied accusation of cultism. Xenophobe and liar, and deliberate supporter of xenophobic lies, are in a different class altogether.
I had hoped this would stop. Instead it is getting worse to the extent that it raises concerns about the mental wellbeing of the poster concerned. In the absence of an actual ignore button (which would be welcome) I propose to exercise my own virtual ignore-fu and to cease to respond to the posts in question.
pb tory is probably more of a descriptive thing than anything. Unless people here actually take the Tory label itself as an insult but I thought that would have pretty much died off, I use Tory and Conservative completely interchangeably and purely to describe them as members/supporters/voters of the conservative party.
Cult has negative connotations outside of a political context.
I was a bit surprised to learn that some people are offended by "centrist dad". I always took that one too be mostly affectionate
The accusation isn't you personally anymore than your accusation is directed at say Nick Palmer personally.
Are you trying to claim that attacking people in hateful ways is carried out just by Corbynites?
Troubling that these people hate Abbott and other allies of Corbyn as well as Corbyn himself, seen as they get so much abuse. I had always assumed that was from their opponents.....
Can you point to a single thing the Tories have done more than Labour to stop abuse?
As far as I know both leaders have called it out, yet still Diane Abbott gets more abuse than any other MP. So why are you not calling the Tories cultists?
I am not denying that there is abuse coming from right and left towards a range of targets. I have never done so.
But I have never seen the level of coordinated group think as that being demonstrated by those who are posting abuse from profiles with tags such as #JC4PM, #JC9 or any of the other identifiers that are prevalent.
It is the level of seeming coordination that is troubling. And it is associated with the Leader of the Labour Party. I do not believe he is sitting at a keyboard personally controlling this sort of activity. But he is not taking any practical steps to stop it.
Now I have not seen the level of coordinated activity from far right-wing abusers. That may be because I am not looking in the right places. But I am not aware of it being done in the name of Theresa May. If you can point me towards any such groupings, I am happy to be corrected and to respond accordingly.
I am more than willing to condemn abuse from any source. But I am more concerned when it appears to be part of a coordinated campaign from those who proclaim their allegiance to the Leader of the Opposition.
Cult is a constant in reference to Labour supporters or sometimes more particularly Corbyn supporters, with accusations that anti semitism is used to impress these people, the left or sometimes Muslims, because obviously these groups love anti semitism. There may not be an individual who does it as consistently as Alastair but there is only one of him and the criticism mainly goes to Alastair, I suspect because there are far more Brexit supporters than Corbyn supporters.
The cult thing itself is very low level and I don't expect this to be a Labour friendly place so I don't hugely mind but Alastair is right when he talks about hypocrisy. He does also criticise Corbyn/Labour, I think he is similarly OTT in that regard as he is with Brexit, I do take his posts on it more seriously though because he is at least consistent in that regard.
Nobody has ever called me a cultist, but I could live with it. "pb tory" is probably an implied accusation of cultism. Xenophobe and liar, and deliberate supporter of xenophobic lies, are in a different class altogether.
I had hoped this would stop. Instead it is getting worse to the extent that it raises concerns about the mental wellbeing of the poster concerned. In the absence of an actual ignore button (which would be welcome) I propose to exercise my own virtual ignore-fu and to cease to respond to the posts in question.
Yes, internet chatrooms work a lot better when everyone ignores everyone else.
Look if you are unable to argue cogently against the position of any poster, just say so. Don't give us all this "mental wellbeing" bolleaux.
I am able to argue cogently against this position, I have done so and it serves no useful purpose. If it were me posting like this, I'd be worried about me - I am not making it up. And it's spelt bollocks.
In fact, @stodge, I don't think Cable's idea of opening up to registered supporters (if that is what he's planning) is a bad one. Labour have used it to colossally expand their membership base, as after payment of the fee registered supporters could upgrade to full membership for what amounted to a cut price. If something similar were to happen with the Liberal Democrats it could not only repair the party's finances but revitalise its membership base.
The question is: what do the Lib Dems need to produce a sustainable mass-market party?
I'd argue the leader isn't directly the problem: it is the message. Under Kennedy it became a party of protest, which is a quick way to increase voting percentages. But as Clegg found, those protest votes will soon shift for the most bogus of reasons.
IMO what they need to do is produce a message of *what* the Lib Dems stand for, disregarding the other parties. A firm philosophical base that can be sold to the electorate. This is what Lib Dems are. This is what being a Lib Dem means.
And that's what they've been failing to do for the last couple of decades. And it's difficult to do, as everyone will judge them wrt the other parties. But it needs to be done.
It's also why I think banging on about the EU and a second referendum is utterly counter-productive in the long term, at least without that base message as well.
That's what they tried to do under Sinclair in the 1930s. Disastrous failure.
Under Grimond, they concentrated on rebuilding a local base and campaigning on local issues. This revived the party's fortunes, but did begin the 'all things to all men' tradition that was brought to a juddering halt in 2010.
Do you have more info on that please, as I was unaware the Liberal Democrats were around in the 1930s, and also believe society, politics and the media have changed somewhat in eighty years.
There was a general shortage of democracy in the Thirties, so they just called themselves Liberals.
Edit - fun quiz fact. In 1918-22, ten new democracies were created in Europe. Which is the only state so created to have remained governed by democratic principles from that day to this?
The no deal it is. It doesn't have to be at the expense of the EU's integrity.
Saying the integrity of the EU takes precedence over a bespoke relationship with the UK is hardly controversial across the Channel. German car manufacturers (who were supposed to push for the easiest deal ever in our favour) said the same thing.
And this. Although I think No Deal might last a couple of weeks longer than Brussels does.
It is comments like that from Brussels insiders that make it difficult to think other than they are not negotiating with an open mind and in good faith.
I have said for a long time that the whole process should have been externally moderated - difficult as that would have been to agree at the start, it would have facilitated a more honest set of discussions.
The anonymous quoted EU official is overegging. Planes will fly even with "No Deal". He is also unusually tactless. Nevertheless :
1. No Deal is unsustainable. The EU won't do deals by default. 2. As a multilateral organisation running a complex and somewhat fragile system of rules and treaties the EU will not make any changes to accommodate a state that has rejected membership.
An arrangement is necessary but it will be on the EU's terms. We will commit to following its rules without having any say over them. Which, frankly, sucks. Of course I never voted for this. I voted Remain.
In fact, @stodge, I don't think Cable's idea of opening up to registered supporters (if that is what he's planning) is a bad one. Labour have used it to colossally expand their membership base, as after payment of the fee registered supporters could upgrade to full membership for what amounted to a cut price. If something similar were to happen with the Liberal Democrats it could not only repair the party's finances but revitalise its membership base.
The question is: what do the Lib Dems need to produce a sustainable mass-market party?
I'd argue the leader isn't directly the problem: it is the message. Under Kennedy it became a party of protest, which is a quick way to increase voting percentages. But as Clegg found, those protest votes will soon shift for the most bogus of reasons.
IMO what they need to do is produce a message of *what* the Lib Dems stand for, disregarding the other parties. A firm philosophical base that can be sold to the electorate. This is what Lib Dems are. This is what being a Lib Dem means.
And that's what they've been failing to do for the last couple of decades. And it's difficult to do, as everyone will judge them wrt the other parties. But it needs to be done.
It's also why I think banging on about the EU and a second referendum is utterly counter-productive in the long term, at least without that base message as well.
That's what they tried to do under Sinclair in the 1930s. Disastrous failure.
Under Grimond, they concentrated on rebuilding a local base and campaigning on local issues. This revived the party's fortunes, but did begin the 'all things to all men' tradition that was brought to a juddering halt in 2010.
Do you have more info on that please, as I was unaware the Liberal Democrats were around in the 1930s, and also believe society, politics and the media have changed somewhat in eighty years.
There was a general shortage of democracy in the Thirties, so they just called themselves Liberals.
Edit - fun quiz fact. In 1918-22, ten new democracies were created in Europe. Which is the only state so created to have remained governed by democratic principles from that day to this?
And of course when a prominent Tory writes actual Islamophobic dog whistles in a national newspaper, a lot of the reaction here was "well he *had* to poke fun of those women's appearance and signal mainstream acceptance to the people who despise them, because he cares so much about feminism!"
Is cognitive dissonance a symptom of cult membership?
Boris's comments were much more nuanced - and clever - than that - and that is why it is referred to as a 'dog-whistle' rather than being out-and-out condemned.
For instance, I regularly call out Islamaphobia on here (and frequently restrict myself, as it's a pointless argument). Yet I can see an argument for going further than Boris said: I might be convinced of banning face coverings - the burka, and perhaps the niqab, in certain limited circumstances such as in courts. But that is far from a general ban in public.
This is why Boris was so clever (and I'd say contemptibly so) in his writing: it raised his profile, was defensible (he said it should not be banned, which is more liberal than my position), and yet also sounded as though he wanted it to be banned. Very annoyingly canny.
Cult is a constant in reference to Labour supporters or sometimes more particularly Corbyn supporters, with accusations that anti semitism is used to impress these people, the left or sometimes Muslims, because obviously these groups love anti semitism. There may not be an individual who does it as consistently as Alastair but there is only one of him and the criticism mainly goes to Alastair, I suspect because there are far more Brexit supporters than Corbyn supporters.
The cult thing itself is very low level and I don't expect this to be a Labour friendly place so I don't hugely mind but Alastair is right when he talks about hypocrisy. He does also criticise Corbyn/Labour, I think he is similarly OTT in that regard as he is with Brexit, I do take his posts on it more seriously though because he is at least consistent in that regard.
Nobody has ever called me a cultist, but I could live with it. "pb tory" is probably an implied accusation of cultism. Xenophobe and liar, and deliberate supporter of xenophobic lies, are in a different class altogether.
I had hoped this would stop. Instead it is getting worse to the extent that it raises concerns about the mental wellbeing of the poster concerned. In the absence of an actual ignore button (which would be welcome) I propose to exercise my own virtual ignore-fu and to cease to respond to the posts in question.
Yes, internet chatrooms work a lot better when everyone ignores everyone else.
Look if you are unable to argue cogently against the position of any poster, just say so. Don't give us all this "mental wellbeing" bolleaux.
I am able to argue cogently against this position, I have done so and it serves no useful purpose. If it were me posting like this, I'd be worried about me - I am not making it up. And it's spelt bollocks.
^ Exactly this. Trying to discuss Alastair's position on the Leave campaign with him is to bang one's head against a brick wall.
Cult is a constant in reference to Labour supporters or sometimes more particularly Corbyn supporters, with accusations that anti semitism is used to impress these people, the left or sometimes Muslims, because obviously these groups love anti semitism. There may not be an individual who does it as consistently as Alastair but there is only one of him and the criticism mainly goes to Alastair, I suspect because there are far more Brexit supporters than Corbyn supporters.
The cult thing itself is very low level and I don't expect this to be a Labour friendly place so I don't hugely mind but Alastair is right when he talks about hypocrisy. He does also criticise Corbyn/Labour, I think he is similarly OTT in that regard as he is with Brexit, I do take his posts on it more seriously though because he is at least consistent in that regard.
Nobody has ever called me a cultist, but I could live with it. "pb tory" is probably an implied accusation of cultism. Xenophobe and liar, and deliberate supporter of xenophobic lies, are in a different class altogether.
I had hoped this would stop. Instead it is getting worse to the extent that it raises concerns about the mental wellbeing of the poster concerned. In the absence of an actual ignore button (which would be welcome) I propose to exercise my own virtual ignore-fu and to cease to respond to the posts in question.
pb tory is probably more of a descriptive thing than anything. Unless people here actually take the Tory label itself as an insult but I thought that would have pretty much died off, I use Tory and Conservative completely interchangeably and purely to describe them as members/supporters/voters of the conservative party.
Cult has negative connotations outside of a political context.
I think *every* poster who has been on here for more than a few years has been called a 'PB Tory' at some time or other. It leads me to wonder if we might all be PB Tories at heart.
Although I reckon you might escape that fate. Now there's a challenge!
Haha, as a white male I do have the outfit, just need to discover the attitude!
Edit: To go back to the original point if you called someone who isn't a Tory, or say didn't even vote Tory in the last election and you knew this then I guess it would be a very mild insult but in terms of actually addressing say David Hedson then pb tory is an accurate label the way pb labour would be for Nick Palmer.
And of course when a prominent Tory writes actual Islamophobic dog whistles in a national newspaper, a lot of the reaction here was "well he *had* to poke fun of those women's appearance and signal mainstream acceptance to the people who despise them, because he cares so much about feminism!"
Is cognitive dissonance a symptom of cult membership?
Boris's comments were much more nuanced - and clever - than that - and that is why it is referred to as a 'dog-whistle' rather than being out-and-out condemned.
For instance, I regularly call out Islamaphobia on here (and frequently restrict myself, as it's a pointless argument). Yet I can see an argument for going further than Boris said: I might be convinced of banning face coverings - the burka, and perhaps the niqab, in certain limited circumstances such as in courts. But that is far from a general ban in public.
This is why Boris was so clever (and I'd say contemptibly so) in his writing: it raised his profile, was defensible (he said it should not be banned, which is more liberal than my position), and yet also sounded as though he wanted it to be banned. Very annoyingly canny.
'''Dog-whistle' also serves as a handy way of insulting those who agree with someone. What does it say about them that they respond to one?
Cult is a constant in reference to Labour supporters or sometimes more particularly Corbyn supporters, with accusations that anti semitism is used to impress these people, the left or sometimes Muslims, because obviously these groups love anti semitism. There may not be an individual who does it as consistently as Alastair but there is only one of him and the criticism mainly goes to Alastair, I suspect because there are far more Brexit supporters than Corbyn supporters.
The cult thing itself is very low level and I don't expect this to be a Labour friendly place so I don't hugely mind but Alastair is right when he talks about hypocrisy. He does also criticise Corbyn/Labour, I think he is similarly OTT in that regard as he is with Brexit, I do take his posts on it more seriously though because he is at least consistent in that regard.
Nobody has ever called me a cultist, but I could live with it. "pb tory" is probably an implied accusation of cultism. Xenophobe and liar, and deliberate supporter of xenophobic lies, are in a different class altogether.
I had hoped this would stop. Instead it is getting worse to the extent that it raises concerns about the mental wellbeing of the poster concerned. In the absence of an actual ignore button (which would be welcome) I propose to exercise my own virtual ignore-fu and to cease to respond to the posts in question.
Yes, internet chatrooms work a lot better when everyone ignores everyone else.
Look if you are unable to argue cogently against the position of any poster, just say so. Don't give us all this "mental wellbeing" bolleaux.
I am able to argue cogently against this position, I have done so and it serves no useful purpose. If it were me posting like this, I'd be worried about me - I am not making it up. And it's spelt bollocks.
So you are arguing against repetitiveness on PB. That's got to be a Grade One LOL
Cult is a constant in reference to Labour supporters or sometimes more particularly Corbyn supporters, with accusations that anti semitism is used to impress these people, the left or sometimes Muslims, because obviously these groups love anti semitism. There may not be an individual who does it as consistently as Alastair but there is only one of him and the criticism mainly goes to Alastair, I suspect because there are far more Brexit supporters than Corbyn supporters.
The cult thing itself is very low level and I don't expect this to be a Labour friendly place so I don't hugely mind but Alastair is right when he talks about hypocrisy. He does also criticise Corbyn/Labour, I think he is similarly OTT in that regard as he is with Brexit, I do take his posts on it more seriously though because he is at least consistent in that regard.
Nobody has ever called me a cultist, but I could live with it. "pb tory" is probably an implied accusation of cultism. Xenophobe and liar, and deliberate supporter of xenophobic lies, are in a different class altogether.
I had hoped this would stop. Instead it is getting worse to the extent that it raises concerns about the mental wellbeing of the poster concerned. In the absence of an actual ignore button (which would be welcome) I propose to exercise my own virtual ignore-fu and to cease to respond to the posts in question.
pb tory is probably more of a descriptive thing than anything. Unless people here actually take the Tory label itself as an insult but I thought that would have pretty much died off, I use Tory and Conservative completely interchangeably and purely to describe them as members/supporters/voters of the conservative party.
Cult has negative connotations outside of a political context.
I was a bit surprised to learn that some people are offended by "centrist dad". I always took that one too be mostly affectionate
These things always depend on how they're used. Basically whatever term the sneering gang of charlatans gritting a media career off their unequivocal support for Corbyn go for isn't used pleasantly but chucked around as nastily as possible. Quite an endearing term on its own. Bloody annoying when people in their 30s are pretending to be down wiv that kidz by going 'haha look at these old people who remember things like decent indie bands and competent governments'' at people who are the same age as them. Less offensive, more just endlessly grating behaviour from dismal individuals of the sort who were unbearable tits at university and have now found a way to prolong that existence and inflict themselves on more people.
There was a general shortage of democracy in the Thirties, so they just called themselves Liberals.
Edit - fun quiz fact. In 1918-22, ten new democracies were created in Europe. Which is the only state so created to have remained governed by democratic principles from that day to this?
Indeed, it's even more impressive when you remember a number of well-established democracies - Spain springs to mind - and others that had at least democratic elements - Italy, Germany, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria - drifted into dictatorship in the 1930s. And that's not even including countries overrun by the Nazis in the war (Norway, Denmark, France, Holland, Belgium).
Somehow despite an extremely unpropitious start Ireland has survived it all. They may have been lucky in the personalities involved, especially Cosgrave and de Valera, but it's still a mighty impressive achievement.
There was a general shortage of democracy in the Thirties, so they just called themselves Liberals.
Edit - fun quiz fact. In 1918-22, ten new democracies were created in Europe. Which is the only state so created to have remained governed by democratic principles from that day to this?
RoI?
That would be my bet, given the European democracies were created out of the spoils of a world war, and barely had time to establish themselves before another world war, and then a cold war, enveloped them. RoI was far enough out of the way in Europe to avoid this, and the others that avoided it - such as Switzerland - were already established.
There was a general shortage of democracy in the Thirties, so they just called themselves Liberals.
Edit - fun quiz fact. In 1918-22, ten new democracies were created in Europe. Which is the only state so created to have remained governed by democratic principles from that day to this?
Indeed, it's even more impressive when you remember a number of well-established democracies - Spain springs to mind - and others that had at least democratic elements - Italy, Germany, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria - drifted into dictatorship in the 1930s. And that's not even including countries overrun by the Nazis in the war (Norway, Denmark, France, Holland, Belgium).
Somehow despite an extremely unpropitious start Ireland has survived it all. They may have been lucky in the personalities involved, especially Cosgrave and de Valera, but it's still a mighty impressive achievement.
It also helped being out of reach of the Wehrmacht too.
That would be my bet, given the European democracies were created out of the spoils of a world war, and barely had time to establish themselves before another world war, and then a cold war, enveloped them. RoI was far enough out of the way in Europe to avoid this, and the others that avoided it - such as Switzerland - were already established.
But I'm probably wrong.
No you're right.
However, I should point out that none of the new democracies other than Ireland made it as far as the Second World War. The only other one still functioning as a democratic state in 1938 was Czechoslovakia. The others all had dictatorships in place.
The US and Mexico have reached common ground on key trade terms as pressure mounts to complete renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
US President Donald Trump, a frequent critic of the existing deal, announced the apparent breakthrough on Monday.
The final outcome remained in doubt as Canada, the third country in the treaty, has not signed off.
Cult is a constant in reference to Labour supporters or sometimes more particularly Corbyn supporters, with accusations that anti semitism is used to impress these people, the left or sometimes Muslims, because obviously these groups love anti semitism. There may not be an individual who does it as consistently as Alastair but there is only one of him and the criticism mainly goes to Alastair, I suspect because there are far more Brexit supporters than Corbyn supporters.
The cult thing itself is very low level and I don't expect this to be a Labour friendly place so I don't hugely mind but Alastair is right when he talks about hypocrisy. He does also criticise Corbyn/Labour, I think he is similarly OTT in that regard as he is with Brexit, I do take his posts on it more seriously though because he is at least consistent in that regard.
Nobody has ever called me a cultist, but I could live with it. "pb tory" is probably an implied accusation of cultism. Xenophobe and liar, and deliberate supporter of xenophobic lies, are in a different class altogether.
I had hoped this would stop. Instead it is getting worse to the extent that it raises concerns about the mental wellbeing of the poster concerned. In the absence of an actual ignore button (which would be welcome) I propose to exercise my own virtual ignore-fu and to cease to respond to the posts in question.
Yes, internet chatrooms work a lot better when everyone ignores everyone else.
Look if you are unable to argue cogently against the position of any poster, just say so. Don't give us all this "mental wellbeing" bolleaux.
I am able to argue cogently against this position, I have done so and it serves no useful purpose. If it were me posting like this, I'd be worried about me - I am not making it up. And it's spelt bollocks.
^ Exactly this. Trying to discuss Alastair's position on the Leave campaign with him is to bang one's head against a brick wall.
You don’t try. One poster yesterday literally wrote “wibble”. You told me to “fuck yourself”. You don’t address the clear xenophobia in the literature you distributed. Yet you opine on the moral agonies other face on an analogous problem. Hypocrite, much.
NB I note the creep of the year professes to be worried about my mental wellbeing. Psychiatry begins at home.
There was a general shortage of democracy in the Thirties, so they just called themselves Liberals.
Edit - fun quiz fact. In 1918-22, ten new democracies were created in Europe. Which is the only state so created to have remained governed by democratic principles from that day to this?
Indeed, it's even more impressive when you remember a number of well-established democracies - Spain springs to mind - and others that had at least democratic elements - Italy, Germany, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria - drifted into dictatorship in the 1930s. And that's not even including countries overrun by the Nazis in the war (Norway, Denmark, France, Holland, Belgium).
Somehow despite an extremely unpropitious start Ireland has survived it all. They may have been lucky in the personalities involved, especially Cosgrave and de Valera, but it's still a mighty impressive achievement.
It also helped being out of reach of the Wehrmacht too.
It did - but see my reply to the good Mr Jessop above. With the exception of Czechoslovakia it wasn't the Nazis that killed off the democracies. Austria, for example, had become a dictatorship long before the Anschluss. Spain went from parliamentary democracy to military dictatorship in 1923. Mussolini took power in the 1920s.
We were just watching the new series of University Challenge, and it rather evilly occurs to me that as he ages, Jeremy Paxman is increasingly looking like a pantomime dame.
That would be my bet, given the European democracies were created out of the spoils of a world war, and barely had time to establish themselves before another world war, and then a cold war, enveloped them. RoI was far enough out of the way in Europe to avoid this, and the others that avoided it - such as Switzerland - were already established.
But I'm probably wrong.
No you're right.
However, I should point out that none of the new democracies other than Ireland made it as far as the Second World War. The only other one still functioning as a democratic state in 1938 was Czechoslovakia. The others all had dictatorships in place.
Thanks. I find that surprising, but understandable.
The anonymous quoted EU official is overegging. Planes will fly even with "No Deal".
Except they won't.
Our contingency planning for "no deal" assumes we get a deal to keep the planes flying...
So if this official is actually real (one has to doubt) and not on hallucinogenic on drugs ( a fair possibility one thinks) they wish to bring Britain to its knees by basically recreating the blockade of the Kriegsmarine/Luftwaffe of about 1941 or Boney’s Continental System circa 1807. Sans the violence to be fair.
And this would engender support for the wonders of the EU how exactly?
The anonymous quoted EU official is overegging. Planes will fly even with "No Deal".
Except they won't.
Our contingency planning for "no deal" assumes we get a deal to keep the planes flying...
There will be an arrangement for flying planes in the situation of a No Deal - temporary, limited and favouring the EU. It will be painful and unsustainable. The EU wants us out with the least damage to them. It doesn't mean they will give us a deal without the Withdrawal Agreement.
Sure, if you assume a bunch of political opinions as fact then you get cult as a kinda accurate description. The same, of course, goes for "xenophobic lies".
More realistically, agreeing with most things a political figure says is obviously not sufficient to call somebody a cultist, and even if it were you could use a less derogatory term like "religion". Feigned innocence aside, it's obviously a name intended to poke fun. Which is fine as long as you don't turn into a snowflake the instant somebody uses equally strident language about you.
It is not a name intended to poke fun. And I have - as far as I can recall - called anyone a 'cultist' on here. I may
Their behaviour is encouraged and enabled by the high command surrounding Corbyn. Action could have been taken to shut it down - but that action has not been taken.
Calling that out is perfectly valid.
Calling out actions of the Leave campaign are perfectly valid. Doing so in an abusive and increasingly personal way to fellow members of this forum is not.
The accusation isn't you personally anymore than your
As far as I know both leaders have called it out, yet still Diane Abbott gets more abuse than any other MP. So why are you not calling the Tories cultists?
"Diane Abbott gets more abuse than any other MP"
Citation required.
The abuse Diane Abbott gets is awful. At one time she may have got the most abuse, but I'd wager Luciana Berger and Margaret Hodge now get much more. And I wonder why?
Of course nastiness exists in every part of politics. The problem with Corbynism is that bothering people as not just those who disagree, but inherently evil, displaying bad faiith and corrupt results in the tacit sanctioning of widespread abuse. If you're not on board for whatever reason - even if that reason is objecting to Corbyn indulging in racism - you're a target for open abuse. It's a nasty, rotten feedback loop that's pretty well predicted by Albert Camus in The Rebel. As the project and its leader's are infallible those who speak against it and them must be sent to the guillotine says Saint-Just. Thankfully Corbynistas only have Twitter accounts and badly made memes.
And of course when a prominent Tory writes actual Islamophobic dog whistles in a national newspaper, a lot of the reaction here was "well he *had* to poke fun of those women's appearance and signal mainstream acceptance to the people who despise them, because he cares so much about feminism!"
Is cognitive dissonance a symptom of cult membership?
Boris's comments were much more nuanced - and clever - than that - and that is why it is referred to as a 'dog-whistle' rather than being out-and-out condemned.
For instance, I regularly call out Islamaphobia on here (and frequently restrict myself, as it's a pointless argument). Yet I can see an argument for going further than Boris said: I might be convinced of banning face coverings - the burka, and perhaps the niqab, in certain limited circumstances such as in courts. But that is far from a general ban in public.
This is why Boris was so clever (and I'd say contemptibly so) in his writing: it raised his profile, was defensible (he said it should not be banned, which is more liberal than my position), and yet also sounded as though he wanted it to be banned. Very annoyingly canny.
I wouldn't say equating women wearing the burqa with bank robbers and terrorists is nuanced.
The anonymous quoted EU official is overegging. Planes will fly even with "No Deal".
Except they won't.
Our contingency planning for "no deal" assumes we get a deal to keep the planes flying...
So if this official is actually real (one has to doubt) and not on hallucinogenic on drugs ( a fair possibility one thinks) they wish to bring Britain to its knees by basically recreating the blockade of the Kriegsmarine/Luftwaffe of about 1941 or Boney’s Continental System circa 1807. Sans the violence to be fair.
And this would engender support for the wonders of the EU how exactly?
The one thing that the EU could do to be more disliked by Britain and the people of Europe is to be intransigent.
The anonymous quoted EU official is overegging. Planes will fly even with "No Deal".
Except they won't.
Our contingency planning for "no deal" assumes we get a deal to keep the planes flying...
If the major air hub in Euope goes down, there will be hell to pay in Brussels, from all the heads of states saying WTF???
If Heathrow goes down, the entire airline system across the globe goes to pieces. Not just the pathetic EU countries.
Isn't there a possibility that if we leave with literally no deal every plane on the planet will have to be grounded, because pretty much every plane has British parts in it and there will be no recognised competent authority to certify them as airworthy?
That really would see the stuff that comes out of Trump's mouth hit the fan...
Look at the abusers of Diane Abbott and you could probably see lots of conflation with Brexit support and anti immigration rhetoric, this doesn't make prominent conservatives responsible for the abuse anymore than someone sticking JC9 in their name makes Corbyn responsible. The Conservatives have taken no action to stop it. Far more than Corbyn does I think the Conservatives really could do something about it. Call out the right wing newspapers for example who probably are a big driver in the mountains of abuse Labour MPs get.
Of the people (I've heard of anyway) jailed recently for abusing or going further than just abuse and threatening to kill MPs have been far right, nothing to do with Labour or the Conservatives. If you are talking about general abuse on the internet for example then it is filled with all sides doing it. This one woman I follow Ash Shakar gets some disgusting racist and sexist abuse, being a left winger herself it isn't from the left it is coming. She is one of hundreds (if not thousands) of examples of people on all sides of the political spectrum who get abused by other parts.
People who think their political philosophy doesn't also contain people online going around giving disgusting abuse online are either naive or have a such a niche political philosophy that there isn't really enough people online following it to abuse other people. These people are no more coordinated on the left than they are on the right.
What you have got these days and Diane herself said this, is a much easier method to abuse people, the internet. If someone wanted to send racist or sexist abuse (or even death threats) to Diane when she first started it was a lot more effort and probably feels more personal with a letter. Now it is easy and anyone can fire off abuse at any target.
Look at all the abuse that flew around regarding Brexit, one Labour MP even got killed. None of that can be put at Corbyn or his supporters door.
You don’t try. One poster yesterday literally wrote “wibble”. You told me to “fuck yourself”. You don’t address the clear xenophobia in the literature you distributed. Yet you opine on the moral agonies other face on an analogous problem. Hypocrite, much.
NB I note the creep of the year professes to be worried about my mental wellbeing. Psychiatry begins at home.
Alastair: I have sympathy with your view on this, and my extended family are directly in the line of such xenophobia. But I would plead with you to tone it down a bit. We know your position, which you have stated firmly and consistently on many occasions.
Your threaders are uniformly good, and often surprising in the line you take. Your below-the-line comments sometimes seem as though they are written by a different person.
And of course when a prominent Tory writes actual Islamophobic dog whistles in a national newspaper, a lot of the reaction here was "well he *had* to poke fun of those women's appearance and signal mainstream acceptance to the people who despise them, because he cares so much about feminism!"
Is cognitive dissonance a symptom of cult membership?
Boris's comments were much more nuanced - and clever - than that - and that is why it is referred to as a 'dog-whistle' rather than being out-and-out condemned.
For instance, I regularly call out Islamaphobia on here (and frequently restrict myself, as it's a pointless argument). Yet I can see an argument for going further than Boris said: I might be convinced of banning face coverings - the burka, and perhaps the niqab, in certain limited circumstances such as in courts. But that is far from a general ban in public.
This is why Boris was so clever (and I'd say contemptibly so) in his writing: it raised his profile, was defensible (he said it should not be banned, which is more liberal than my position), and yet also sounded as though he wanted it to be banned. Very annoyingly canny.
I wouldn't say equating women wearing the burqa with bank robbers and terrorists is nuanced.
Exactly. The thrust of his argument may have been nuanced, but the way he stated it was not. A deliberate tactic on his part, though I'm not sure if that makes it more or less reprehensible
The anonymous quoted EU official is overegging. Planes will fly even with "No Deal".
Except they won't.
Our contingency planning for "no deal" assumes we get a deal to keep the planes flying...
So if this official is actually real (one has to doubt) and not on hallucinogenic on drugs ( a fair possibility one thinks) they wish to bring Britain to its knees by basically recreating the blockade of the Kriegsmarine/Luftwaffe of about 1941 or Boney’s Continental System circa 1807. Sans the violence to be fair.
And this would engender support for the wonders of the EU how exactly?
There was a general shortage of democracy in the Thirties, so they just called themselves Liberals.
Edit - fun quiz fact. In 1918-22, ten new democracies were created in Europe. Which is the only state so created to have remained governed by democratic principles from that day to this?
Indeed, it's even more impressive when you remember a number of well-established democracies - Spain springs to mind - and others that had at least democratic elements - Italy, Germany, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria - drifted into dictatorship in the 1930s. And that's not even including countries overrun by the Nazis in the war (Norway, Denmark, France, Holland, Belgium).
Somehow despite an extremely unpropitious start Ireland has survived it all. They may have been lucky in the personalities involved, especially Cosgrave and de Valera, but it's still a mighty impressive achievement.
The speech made by the Taisoeach on Pope Francis’s recent visit was very interesting. He said that the Catholic church had been absolutely central to Ireland’s first century as an independent nation but that, in its second, there needed to be a new relationship , a new concordat. And a senior Irish bishop who was interviewed accepted that the church would be a minority in the new state ie only one of the influences on its cilture and laws.
I wonder if such a change will make a united Ireland more likely. It will be harder for Northern Unionists to claim that Home Rule is Rome rule. And even though parties like the DUP have very old-fashioned (practically Catholic) views on social issues (ironically enough), I wonder how representative of the Northern Irish population they really are on this.
Might it be easier for the North to vote for a united Ireland, the more socially liberal the south becomes?
You don’t try. One poster yesterday literally wrote “wibble”. You told me to “fuck yourself”. You don’t address the clear xenophobia in the literature you distributed. Yet you opine on the moral agonies other face on an analogous problem. Hypocrite, much.
NB I note the creep of the year professes to be worried about my mental wellbeing. Psychiatry begins at home.
Alastair: I have sympathy with your view on this, and my extended family are directly in the line of such xenophobia. But I would plead with you to tone it down a bit. We know your position, which you have stated firmly and consistently on many occasions.
Your threaders are uniformly good, and often surprising in the line you take. Your below-the-line comments sometimes seem as though they are written by a different person.
I am not going to be silent in the face of the disgusting hypocrisy shown by the many Leavers on here who flunked the test that moderate Labour supporters are now facing. They are completely disqualified from commenting on it yet are shameless about their pick n mix racism.
The success of their xenophobic campaign is the single most important fact of British politics today. It would be perverse to be mute about it.
The anonymous quoted EU official is overegging. Planes will fly even with "No Deal".
Except they won't.
Our contingency planning for "no deal" assumes we get a deal to keep the planes flying...
If the major air hub in Euope goes down, there will be hell to pay in Brussels, from all the heads of states saying WTF???
If Heathrow goes down, the entire airline system across the globe goes to pieces. Not just the pathetic EU countries.
Isn't there a possibility that if we leave with literally no deal every plane on the planet will have to be grounded, because pretty much every plane has British parts in it and there will be no recognised competent authority to certify them as airworthy?
That really would see the stuff that comes out of Trump's mouth hit the fan...
Aren't they already certified?
Future certifications would be an issue as would maintenance but existing certifications don't expire as far as I know.
Cult is a constant in reference to Labour supporters or sometimes more particularly Corbyn supporters, with accusations that anti semitism is used to impress these people, the left or sometimes Muslims, because obviously these groups love anti semitism. There may not be an individual who does it as consistently as Alastair but there is only one of him and the criticism mainly goes to Alastair, I suspect because there are far more Brexit supporters than Corbyn supporters.
The cult thing itself is very low level and I don't expect this to be a Labour friendly place so I don't hugely mind but Alastair is right when he talks about hypocrisy. He does also criticise Corbyn/Labour, I think he is similarly OTT in that regard as he is with Brexit, I do take his posts on it more seriously though because he is at least consistent in that regard.
Nobody has ever called me a cultist, but I could live with it. "pb tory" is probably an implied accusation of cultism. Xenophobe and liar, and deliberate supporter of xenophobic lies, are in a different class altogether.
I had hoped this would stop. Instead it is getting worse to the extent that it raises concerns about the mental wellbeing of the poster concerned. In the absence of an actual ignore button (which would be welcome) I propose to exercise my own virtual ignore-fu and to cease to respond to the posts in question.
Yes, internet chatrooms work a lot better when everyone ignores everyone else.
Look if you are unable to argue cogently against the position of any poster, just say so. Don't give us all this "mental wellbeing" bolleaux.
I am able to argue cogently against this position, I have done so and it serves no useful purpose. If it were me posting like this, I'd be worried about me - I am not making it up. And it's spelt bollocks.
^ Exactly this. Trying to discuss Alastair's position on the Leave campaign with him is to bang one's head against a brick wall.
You don’t try. One poster yesterday literally wrote “wibble”. You told me to “fuck yourself”. You don’t address the clear xenophobia in the literature you distributed. Yet you opine on the moral agonies other face on an analogous problem. Hypocrite, much.
NB I note the creep of the year professes to be worried about my mental wellbeing. Psychiatry begins at home.
In the past I have tried to engage with you on this. There's a good reason I don't bother any more.
The anonymous quoted EU official is overegging. Planes will fly even with "No Deal".
Except they won't.
Our contingency planning for "no deal" assumes we get a deal to keep the planes flying...
So if this official is actually real (one has to doubt) and not on hallucinogenic on drugs ( a fair possibility one thinks) they wish to bring Britain to its knees by basically recreating the blockade of the Kriegsmarine/Luftwaffe of about 1941 or Boney’s Continental System circa 1807. Sans the violence to be fair.
And this would engender support for the wonders of the EU how exactly?
And of course when a prominent Tory writes actual Islamophobic dog whistles in a national newspaper, a lot of the reaction here was "well he *had* to poke fun of those women's appearance and signal mainstream acceptance to the people who despise them, because he cares so much about feminism!"
Is cognitive dissonance a symptom of cult membership?
Boris's comments were much more nuanced - and clever - than that - and that is why it is referred to as a 'dog-whistle' rather than being out-and-out condemned.
For instance, I regularly call out Islamaphobia on here (and frequently restrict myself, as it's a pointless argument). Yet I can see an argument for going further than Boris said: I might be convinced of banning face coverings - the burka, and perhaps the niqab, in certain limited circumstances such as in courts. But that is far from a general ban in public.
This is why Boris was so clever (and I'd say contemptibly so) in his writing: it raised his profile, was defensible (he said it should not be banned, which is more liberal than my position), and yet also sounded as though he wanted it to be banned. Very annoyingly canny.
I wouldn't say equating women wearing the burqa with bank robbers and terrorists is nuanced.
You must find the state of political discourse terrible, as such comparisons are sadly all too common.
Cult is a constant in reference to Labour supporters or sometimes more particularly Corbyn supporters, with accusations that anti semitism is used to impress these people, the left or sometimes Muslims, because obviously these groups love anti semitism. There may not be an individual who does it as consistently as Alastair but there is only one of him and the criticism mainly goes to Alastair, I suspect because there are far more Brexit supporters than Corbyn supporters.
The cult thing itself is very low level and I don't expect this to be a Labour friendly place so I don't hugely mind but Alastair is right when he talks about hypocrisy. He does also criticise Corbyn/Labour, I think he is similarly OTT in that regard as he is with Brexit, I do take his posts on it more seriously though because he is at least consistent in that regard.
Nobody has ever called me a cultist, but I could live with it. "pb tory" is probably an implied accusation of cultism. Xenophobe and liar, and deliberate supporter of xenophobic lies, are in a different class altogether.
I had hoped this would stop. Instead it is getting worse to the extent that it raises concerns about the mental wellbeing of the poster concerned. In the absence of an actual ignore button (which would be welcome) I propose to exercise my own virtual ignore-fu and to cease to respond to the posts in question.
Yes, internet chatrooms work a lot better when everyone ignores everyone else.
Look if you are unable to argue cogently against the position of any poster, just say so. Don't give us all this "mental wellbeing" bolleaux.
I am able to argue cogently against this position, I have done so and it serves no useful purpose. If it were me posting like this, I'd be worried about me - I am not making it up. And it's spelt bollocks.
^ Exactly this. Trying to discuss Alastair's position on the Leave campaign with him is to bang one's head against a brick wall.
You don’t try. One poster yesterday literally wrote “wibble”. You told me to “fuck yourself”. You don’t address the clear xenophobia in the literature you distributed. Yet you opine on the moral agonies other face on an analogous problem. Hypocrite, much.
NB I note the creep of the year professes to be worried about my mental wellbeing. Psychiatry begins at home.
In the past I have tried to engage with you on this. There's a good reason I don't bother any more.
Go away and luxuriate in your hypocrisy then. Just don’t expect to express it on here unchallenged.
The anonymous quoted EU official is overegging. Planes will fly even with "No Deal".
Except they won't.
Our contingency planning for "no deal" assumes we get a deal to keep the planes flying...
So if this official is actually real (one has to doubt) and not on hallucinogenic on drugs ( a fair possibility one thinks) they wish to bring Britain to its knees by basically recreating the blockade of the Kriegsmarine/Luftwaffe of about 1941 or Boney’s Continental System circa 1807. Sans the violence to be fair.
And this would engender support for the wonders of the EU how exactly?
The EU-Boat Menace
Boris will be along shortly to advocate giving them Das Boot...
The abuse Diane Abbott gets is awful. At one time she may have got the most abuse, but I'd wager Luciana Berger and Margaret Hodge now get much more. And I wonder why?
Of course nastiness exists in every part of politics. The problem with Corbynism is that bothering people as not just those who disagree, but inherently evil, displaying bad faiith and corrupt results in the tacit sanctioning of widespread abuse. If you're not on board for whatever reason - even if that reason is objecting to Corbyn indulging in racism - you're a target for open abuse. It's a nasty, rotten feedback loop that's pretty well predicted by Albert Camus in The Rebel. As the project and its leader's are infallible those who speak against it and them must be sent to the guillotine says Saint-Just. Thankfully Corbynistas only have Twitter accounts and badly made memes.
Couldn't seem to find Jossia's original post so I'll respond here.
___________________________________________ A recent survey found that a third of all abuse sent to politicians goes to the shadow home secretary, one of Jeremy Corbyn’s closest allies, who 30 years ago became Britain’s first black female MP. ____________________________________________
_____________________________________________ Diane Abbott alone received almost half of all the abusive tweets sent to female MPs in the run-up to the general election, research by Amnesty International has revealed. _____________________________________________
Now onto MJW.
This is one of your literally made up in your own head facts like Tommy Robinson being a big Corbyn fan. Abbott who is clearly a Corbyn ally gets more abuse than other MPs.
Using your logic it is because of hateful people like you stuck in a feedback loop, you even have the lying (or being kind making things up) angle going on.
I don't think you are responsible for hateful idiots online abusing MPs that share your political philosophy though, even if there do seem to be much more of them then there are left wing trolls I don't think you or your political philosophy are responsible.
Maybe I just have the advantage of my arguments on the left (or in the Labour party at least) 'winning' so I can looking at things much more clearly rather than having the anger of loss driving my views...
You don’t try. One poster yesterday literally wrote “wibble”. You told me to “fuck yourself”. You don’t address the clear xenophobia in the literature you distributed. Yet you opine on the moral agonies other face on an analogous problem. Hypocrite, much.
NB I note the creep of the year professes to be worried about my mental wellbeing. Psychiatry begins at home.
Alastair: I have sympathy with your view on this, and my extended family are directly in the line of such xenophobia. But I would plead with you to tone it down a bit. We know your position, which you have stated firmly and consistently on many occasions.
Your threaders are uniformly good, and often surprising in the line you take. Your below-the-line comments sometimes seem as though they are written by a different person.
Sometimes idee fixees are right. A good topic for, say, a term paper might be "discuss the role of xenophobia in the Brexit campaign". Pretty ignorant, I'd read it. Or can anybody on this site write a contribution giving chapter and verse?
According to the constituency analysis of the large YouGov poll, Chelmsford, Colchester and Ipswich all now back Remain. EssexIt needs to get out there campaigning again. :-)
That would be my bet, given the European democracies were created out of the spoils of a world war, and barely had time to establish themselves before another world war, and then a cold war, enveloped them. RoI was far enough out of the way in Europe to avoid this, and the others that avoided it - such as Switzerland - were already established.
But I'm probably wrong.
No you're right.
However, I should point out that none of the new democracies other than Ireland made it as far as the Second World War. The only other one still functioning as a democratic state in 1938 was Czechoslovakia. The others all had dictatorships in place.
Thanks. I find that surprising, but understandable.
Finland remained democratic from 1918 through WW2 to the present day. I think it and Sweden are the only two countries in the whole of continental Europe that can claim this. (Not counting Denmark as the democratic government that they'd previously tolerated there was suppressed by the Nazis in 1943.)
There was a general shortage of democracy in the Thirties, so they just called themselves Liberals.
Edit - fun quiz fact. In 1918-22, ten new democracies were created in Europe. Which is the only state so created to have remained governed by democratic principles from that day to this?
Indeed, it's even more impressive when you remember a number of well-established democracies - Spain springs to mind - and others that had at least democratic elements - Italy, Germany, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria - drifted into dictatorship in the 1930s. And that's not even including countries overrun by the Nazis in the war (Norway, Denmark, France, Holland, Belgium).
Somehow despite an extremely unpropitious start Ireland has survived it all. They may have been lucky in the personalities involved, especially Cosgrave and de Valera, but it's still a mighty impressive achievement.
The speech made by the Taisoeach on Pope Francis’s recent visit was very interesting. He said that the Catholic church had been absolutely central to Ireland’s first century as an independent nation but that, in its second, there needed to be a new relationship , a new concordat. And a senior Irish bishop who was interviewed accepted that the church would be a minority in the new state ie only one of the influences on its cilture and laws.
I wonder if such a change will make a united Ireland more likely. It will be harder for Northern Unionists to claim that Home Rule is Rome rule. And even though parties like the DUP have very old-fashioned (practically Catholic) views on social issues (ironically enough), I wonder how representative of the Northern Irish population they really are on this.
Might it be easier for the North to vote for a united Ireland, the more socially liberal the south becomes?
I would say it might. It certainly removes one major barrier. However, I'm doubtful if it's quite as simple as a change in religion or the status of religion. Don't forget, for all its influence (Mother and Child) the Catholic Church never had been established in Ireland and its influence has been waning steadily for fifty years, including a removal from the constitution in 1973. If therefore 'Home Rule is Rome Rule' were the only barrier Northern Ireland's Unionists would have ceased to be terribly exercised about the south a long time ago.
The anonymous quoted EU official is overegging. Planes will fly even with "No Deal".
Except they won't.
Our contingency planning for "no deal" assumes we get a deal to keep the planes flying...
If the major air hub in Euope goes down, there will be hell to pay in Brussels, from all the heads of states saying WTF???
If Heathrow goes down, the entire airline system across the globe goes to pieces. Not just the pathetic EU countries.
Isn't there a possibility that if we leave with literally no deal every plane on the planet will have to be grounded, because pretty much every plane has British parts in it and there will be no recognised competent authority to certify them as airworthy?
That really would see the stuff that comes out of Trump's mouth hit the fan...
Theroritically yes, if the EU wish to upset every airline in the world. In practice one assumes that they would agree themselves to keep existing plane parts produced before Brexit date certified, while grounding all British registered planes (and pilots, and airlines, and air traffic controllers etc, including private pilots and small planes).
Note that this is nothing to to with any trade agreements on who can fly commercial passenger planes where, that’s a completely different subject in itself.
Sure, if you assume a bunch of political opinions as fact then you get cult as a kinda accurate description. The same, of course, goes for "xenophobic lies".
More realistically, agreeing with most things a political figure says is obviously not sufficient to call somebody a cultist, and even if it were you could use a less derogatory term like "religion". Feigned innocence aside, it's obviously a name intended to poke fun. Which is fine as long as you don't turn into a snowflake the instant somebody uses equally strident language about you.
It is not a name intended to poke fun. And I have - as far as I can recall - called anyone a 'cultist' on here. I may be wrong - but I do not think I have used that form of language.
The behaviour of ardent Corbyn supporters that is seen on Twitter and elsewhere is what I call out and they are not expressing political opinions, they are attacking people in hateful ways.
Their behaviour is encouraged and enabled by the high command surrounding Corbyn. Action could have been taken to shut it down - but that action has not been taken.
Calling that out is perfectly valid.
Calling out actions of the Leave campaign are perfectly valid. Doing so in an abusive and increasingly personal way to fellow members of this forum is not.
The accusation isn't you personally anymore than your accusation is directed at say Nick Palmer personally.
Are you trying to claim that attacking people in hateful ways is carried out just by Corbynites?
Troubling that these people hate Abbott and other allies of Corbyn as well as Corbyn himself, seen as they get so much abuse. I had always assumed that was from their opponents.....
Can you point to a single thing the Tories have done more than Labour to stop abuse?
As far as I know both leaders have called it out, yet still Diane Abbott gets more abuse than any other MP. So why are you not calling the Tories cultists?
"Diane Abbott gets more abuse than any other MP"
Citation required.
There's always the old putting 'Diane Abbott gets more abuse than any other MP' into Google method.
'Diane Abbott more abused than any other MPs during election'
That would be my bet, given the European democracies were created out of the spoils of a world war, and barely had time to establish themselves before another world war, and then a cold war, enveloped them. RoI was far enough out of the way in Europe to avoid this, and the others that avoided it - such as Switzerland - were already established.
But I'm probably wrong.
No you're right.
However, I should point out that none of the new democracies other than Ireland made it as far as the Second World War. The only other one still functioning as a democratic state in 1938 was Czechoslovakia. The others all had dictatorships in place.
Thanks. I find that surprising, but understandable.
Finland remained democratic from 1918 through WW2 to the present day. I think it and Sweden are the only two countries in the whole of continental Europe that can claim this. (Not counting Denmark as the democratic government that they'd previously tolerated there was suppressed by the Nazis in 1943.)
Switzerland. (And Finland of course had already been democratic before 1917, although its Head of State was the Tsar.)
There was a general shortage of democracy in the Thirties, so they just called themselves Liberals.
Edit - fun quiz fact. In 1918-22, ten new democracies were created in Europe. Which is the only state so created to have remained governed by democratic principles from that day to this?
Indeed, it's even more impressive when you remember a number of well-established democracies - Spain springs to mind - and others that had at least democratic elements - Italy, Germany, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria - drifted into dictatorship in the 1930s. And that's not even including countries overrun by the Nazis in the war (Norway, Denmark, France, Holland, Belgium).
Somehow despite an extremely unpropitious start Ireland has survived it all. They may have been lucky in the personalities involved, especially Cosgrave and de Valera, but it's still a mighty impressive achievement.
The speech made by the Taisoeach on Pope Francis’s recent visit was very interesting. He said that the Catholic church had been absolutely central to Ireland’s first century as an independent nation but that, in its second, there needed to be a new relationship , a new concordat. And a senior Irish bishop who was interviewed accepted that the church would be a minority in the new state ie only one of the influences on its cilture and laws.
I wonder if such a change will make a united Ireland more likely. It will be harder for Northern Unionists to claim that Home Rule is Rome rule. And even though parties like the DUP have very old-fashioned (practically Catholic) views on social issues (ironically enough), I wonder how representative of the Northern Irish population they really are on this.
Might it be easier for the North to vote for a united Ireland, the more socially liberal the south becomes?
Im just baxk from a week in Cork. Media coverage was generally moving beyond the catholic church and asking it to face up to its recent failures, something it is as yet very reluctant to do. Pope Francis was hardly on the plane home and a new wave of accusations came in from America.
The church side of the equation is dying bit by bit but that;s not exactly going to create a wish for Northern Prods to join the south, it;s one barrier less but it;s not a motivant.
The harder bit of the equation is for both parties to face up to the wave of violence they have inflicted on each other and find a settlement. Currently we have a cease fire not real peace.
The anonymous quoted EU official is overegging. Planes will fly even with "No Deal".
Except they won't.
Our contingency planning for "no deal" assumes we get a deal to keep the planes flying...
So if this official is actually real (one has to doubt) and not on hallucinogenic on drugs ( a fair possibility one thinks) they wish to bring Britain to its knees by basically recreating the blockade of the Kriegsmarine/Luftwaffe of about 1941 or Boney’s Continental System circa 1807. Sans the violence to be fair.
And this would engender support for the wonders of the EU how exactly?
No. The EU27 are merely protecting their own interests in the negotiations. It is not the EU that is campaigning for a #peoplesvote, that is from British voters and activists.
The more desperation that we see from the Brexiteers, the more it seems like the Life of Brian sketch:
Sure, if you assume a bunch of political opinions as fact then you get cult as a kinda accurate description. The same, of course, goes for "xenophobic lies".
More realistically, agreeing with most things a political figure says is obviously not sufficient to call somebody a cultist, and even if it were you could use a less derogatory term like "religion". Feigned innocence aside, it's obviously a name intended to poke fun. Which is fine as long as you don't turn into a snowflake the instant somebody uses equally strident language about you.
It is not a name intended to poke fun. And I have - as far as I can recall - called anyone a 'cultist' on here. I may be wrong - but I do not think I have used that form of language.
The behaviour of ardent Corbyn supporters that is seen on Twitter and elsewhere is what I call out and they are not expressing political opinions, they are attacking people in hateful ways.
Their behaviour is encouraged and enabled by the high command surrounding Corbyn. Action could have been taken to shut it down - but that action has not been taken.
Calling that out is perfectly valid.
Calling out actions of the Leave campaign are perfectly valid. Doing so in an abusive and increasingly personal way to fellow members of this forum is not.
The accusation isn't you personally anymore than your accusation is directed at say Nick Palmer personally.
Are you trying to claim that attacking people in hateful ways is carried out just by Corbynites?
Troubling that these people hate Abbott and other allies of Corbyn as well as Corbyn himself, seen as they get so much abuse. I had always assumed that was from their opponents.....
Can you point to a single thing the Tories have done more than Labour to stop abuse?
As far as I know both leaders have called it out, yet still Diane Abbott gets more abuse than any other MP. So why are you not calling the Tories cultists?
"Diane Abbott gets more abuse than any other MP"
Citation required.
There's always the old putting 'Diane Abbott gets more abuse than any other MP' into Google method.
'Diane Abbott more abused than any other MPs during election'
How much of that abuse was because she was black, female and about her physical appearance, and how much was about the fact that she’s illiterate, innumerate and racist?
The anonymous quoted EU official is overegging. Planes will fly even with "No Deal".
Except they won't.
Our contingency planning for "no deal" assumes we get a deal to keep the planes flying...
If the major air hub in Euope goes down, there will be hell to pay in Brussels, from all the heads of states saying WTF???
If Heathrow goes down, the entire airline system across the globe goes to pieces. Not just the pathetic EU countries.
Isn't there a possibility that if we leave with literally no deal every plane on the planet will have to be grounded, because pretty much every plane has British parts in it and there will be no recognised competent authority to certify them as airworthy?
That really would see the stuff that comes out of Trump's mouth hit the fan...
Theroritically yes, if the EU wish to upset every airline in the world. In practice one assumes that they would agree themselves to keep existing plane parts produced before Brexit date certified, while grounding all British registered planes (and pilots, and airlines, and air traffic controllers etc, including private pilots and small planes).
Note that this is nothing to to with any trade agreements on who can fly commercial passenger planes where, that’s a completely different subject in itself.
The interesting point is that if the EU say no EU manufacturer can use UK made spare parts after Brexit, because they are not certified, but the FAA says we have an agreement with the UK and the spare parts from the UK are certified for use. Who has shot themselves in the foot.
Look at the abusers of Diane Abbott and you could probably see lots of conflation with Brexit support and anti immigration rhetoric, this doesn't make prominent conservatives responsible for the abuse anymore than someone sticking JC9 in their name makes Corbyn responsible. The Conservatives have taken no action to stop it. Far more than Corbyn does I think the Conservatives really could do something about it. Call out the right wing newspapers for example who probably are a big driver in the mountains of abuse Labour MPs get.
Of the people (I've heard of anyway) jailed recently for abusing or going further than just abuse and threatening to kill MPs have been far right, nothing to do with Labour or the Conservatives. If you are talking about general abuse on the internet for example then it is filled with all sides doing it. This one woman I follow Ash Shakar gets some disgusting racist and sexist abuse, being a left winger herself it isn't from the left it is coming. She is one of hundreds (if not thousands) of examples of people on all sides of the political spectrum who get abused by other parts.
People who think their political philosophy doesn't also contain people online going around giving disgusting abuse online are either naive or have a such a niche political philosophy that there isn't really enough people online following it to abuse other people. These people are no more coordinated on the left than they are on the right.
What you have got these days and Diane herself said this, is a much easier method to abuse people, the internet. If someone wanted to send racist or sexist abuse (or even death threats) to Diane when she first started it was a lot more effort and probably feels more personal with a letter. Now it is easy and anyone can fire off abuse at any target.
Look at all the abuse that flew around regarding Brexit, one Labour MP even got killed. None of that can be put at Corbyn or his supporters door.
It’s not hard to be polite. You and I have disagreed about some issues on this forum, though not on what you say above, but I hope I have always been polite even as we have argued hard for our positions.
Occasional invective can be fun! Endless abuse is just awful. I do feel a bit sorry for politicians - and, even more, their staff - having to read a load of abuse.
Sometimes I long for the days of pen and ink. It slows people down. The very speed of the internet makes it so much easier for people to spew out what is in their heads, 99% of which is not worth making public.
The anonymous quoted EU official is overegging. Planes will fly even with "No Deal".
Except they won't.
Our contingency planning for "no deal" assumes we get a deal to keep the planes flying...
So if this official is actually real (one has to doubt) and not on hallucinogenic on drugs ( a fair possibility one thinks) they wish to bring Britain to its knees by basically recreating the blockade of the Kriegsmarine/Luftwaffe of about 1941 or Boney’s Continental System circa 1807. Sans the violence to be fair.
And this would engender support for the wonders of the EU how exactly?
No. The EU27 are merely protecting their own interests in the negotiations. It is not the EU that is campaigning for a #peoplesvote, that is from British voters and activists.
The more desperation that we see from the Brexiteers, the more it seems like the Life of Brian sketch:
Sure, if you assume a bunch of political opinions as fact then you get cult as a kinda accurate description. The same, of course, goes for "xenophobic lies".
More realistically, agreeing with most things a political figure says is obviously not sufficient to call somebody a cultist, and even if it were you could use a less derogatory term like "religion". Feigned innocence aside, it's obviously a name intended to poke fun. Which is fine as long as you don't turn into a snowflake the instant somebody uses equally strident language about you.
It is not a name intended to poke fun. And I have - as far as I can recall - called anyone a 'cultist' on here. I may be wrong - but I do not think I have used that form of language.
The behaviour of ardent Corbyn supporters that is seen on Twitter and elsewhere is what I call out and they are not expressing political opinions, they are attacking people in hateful ways.
Their behaviour is encouraged and enabled by the high command surrounding Corbyn. Action could have been taken to shut it down - but that action has not been taken.
Calling that out is perfectly valid.
Calling out actions of the Leave campaign are perfectly valid. Doing so in an abusive and increasingly personal way to fellow members of this forum is not.
The accusation isn't you personally anymore than your accusation is directed at say Nick Palmer personally.
Are you trying to claim that attacking people in hateful ways is carried out just by Corbynites?
Troubling that these people hate Abbott and other allies of Corbyn as well as Corbyn himself, seen as they get so much abuse. I had always assumed that was from their opponents.....
Can you point to a single thing the Tories have done more than Labour to stop abuse?
As far as I know both leaders have called it out, yet still Diane Abbott gets more abuse than any other MP. So why are you not calling the Tories cultists?
"Diane Abbott gets more abuse than any other MP"
Citation required.
There's always the old putting 'Diane Abbott gets more abuse than any other MP' into Google method.
'Diane Abbott more abused than any other MPs during election'
Yeah I think was literally my search as well, thought it was pretty well known anyway. Shows how good the media is at shaping people's views. A Labour MP has very recently been killed, one recently went to court to send someone down who wanted them dead the guy who killed a Muslim in Corbyn's constituency wanted to get Corbyn, Abbott gets mountains and mountains of abuse and yet the papers often paint a different story....
The anonymous quoted EU official is overegging. Planes will fly even with "No Deal".
Except they won't.
Our contingency planning for "no deal" assumes we get a deal to keep the planes flying...
So if this official is actually real (one has to doubt) and not on hallucinogenic on drugs ( a fair possibility one thinks) they wish to bring Britain to its knees by basically recreating the blockade of the Kriegsmarine/Luftwaffe of about 1941 or Boney’s Continental System circa 1807. Sans the violence to be fair.
And this would engender support for the wonders of the EU how exactly?
No. The EU27 are merely protecting their own interests in the negotiations. It is not the EU that is campaigning for a #peoplesvote, that is from British voters and activists.
The more desperation that we see from the Brexiteers, the more it seems like the Life of Brian sketch:
The anonymous quoted EU official is overegging. Planes will fly even with "No Deal".
Except they won't.
Our contingency planning for "no deal" assumes we get a deal to keep the planes flying...
So if this official is actually real (one has to doubt) and not on hallucinogenic on drugs ( a fair possibility one thinks) they wish to bring Britain to its knees by basically recreating the blockade of the Kriegsmarine/Luftwaffe of about 1941 or Boney’s Continental System circa 1807. Sans the violence to be fair.
And this would engender support for the wonders of the EU how exactly?
No. The EU27 are merely protecting their own interests in the negotiations. It is not the EU that is campaigning for a #peoplesvote, that is from British voters and activists.
The more desperation that we see from the Brexiteers, the more it seems like the Life of Brian sketch:
___________________________________________ A recent survey found that a third of all abuse sent to politicians goes to the shadow home secretary, one of Jeremy Corbyn’s closest allies, who 30 years ago became Britain’s first black female MP. ____________________________________________
_____________________________________________ Diane Abbott alone received almost half of all the abusive tweets sent to female MPs in the run-up to the general election, research by Amnesty International has revealed. _____________________________________________
Now onto MJW.
This is one of your literally made up in your own head facts like Tommy Robinson being a big Corbyn fan. Abbott who is clearly a Corbyn ally gets more abuse than other MPs.
Using your logic it is because of hateful people like you stuck in a feedback loop, you even have the lying (or being kind making things up) angle going on.
I don't think you are responsible for hateful idiots online abusing MPs that share your political philosophy though, even if there do seem to be much more of them then there are left wing trolls I don't think you or your political philosophy are responsible.
Maybe I just have the advantage of my arguments on the left (or in the Labour party at least) 'winning' so I can looking at things much more clearly rather than having the anger of loss driving my views...
Hahahaha. You don't know my political philosophy for a start, other than opposing the racism at the top of the Labour Party. You're calling me hateful? Well perhaps those who call you a cultist are right. There's none so blind as that. Plus There's no feedback loop on my side, just repeatedly stating my moral objections to a bad man and a bad politician.
And you won't 'win'. Not in the end. Frauds eventually get found out. And even without its more hateful elements that's what Corbynism is. Socialism for underpants gnomes who declare a solution for, admittedly real ills, they do not possess. When we get real Socialism, the kind that can help people, back I'll be happy as Larry.
The anonymous quoted EU official is overegging. Planes will fly even with "No Deal".
Except they won't.
Our contingency planning for "no deal" assumes we get a deal to keep the planes flying...
If the major air hub in Euope goes down, there will be hell to pay in Brussels, from all the heads of states saying WTF???
If Heathrow goes down, the entire airline system across the globe goes to pieces. Not just the pathetic EU countries.
Isn't there a possibility that if we leave with literally no deal every plane on the planet will have to be grounded, because pretty much every plane has British parts in it and there will be no recognised competent authority to certify them as airworthy?
That really would see the stuff that comes out of Trump's mouth hit the fan...
Theroritically yes, if the EU wish to upset every airline in the world. In practice one assumes that they would agree themselves to keep existing plane parts produced before Brexit date certified, while grounding all British registered planes (and pilots, and airlines, and air traffic controllers etc, including private pilots and small planes).
Note that this is nothing to to with any trade agreements on who can fly commercial passenger planes where, that’s a completely different subject in itself.
The interesting point is that if the EU say no EU manufacturer can use UK made spare parts after Brexit, because they are not certified, but the FAA says we have an agreement with the UK and the spare parts from the UK are certified for use. Who has shot themselves in the foot.
The EU will argue that the FAA doesn’t have that authority, because the UK have no right to sign such an agreement without their own certifying authority (and associated testing and paperwork). The Americans (and the Chinese) could well get away with it in practice.
There would be an awful lot of very upset people around the world, and it would be the EU they’d be upset at for refusing to even discuss aviation as a subject up until now. Their only comment on the subject has been the EASA ‘Notice to Stakeholders’ linked above.
There’s definitely now the outline of a thread header in my head about Brexit and Aviation.
The anonymous quoted EU official is overegging. Planes will fly even with "No Deal".
Except they won't.
Our contingency planning for "no deal" assumes we get a deal to keep the planes flying...
So if this official is actually real (one has to doubt) and not on hallucinogenic on drugs ( a fair possibility one thinks) they wish to bring Britain to its knees by basically recreating the blockade of the Kriegsmarine/Luftwaffe of about 1941 or Boney’s Continental System circa 1807. Sans the violence to be fair.
And this would engender support for the wonders of the EU how exactly?
No. The EU27 are merely protecting their own interests in the negotiations. It is not the EU that is campaigning for a #peoplesvote, that is from British voters and activists.
The more desperation that we see from the Brexiteers, the more it seems like the Life of Brian sketch:
___________________________________________ A recent survey found that a third of all abuse sent to politicians goes to the shadow home secretary, one of Jeremy Corbyn’s closest allies, who 30 years ago became Britain’s first black female MP. ____________________________________________
_____________________________________________ Diane Abbott alone received almost half of all the abusive tweets sent to female MPs in the run-up to the general election, research by Amnesty International has revealed. _____________________________________________
(Snip)
I treat research into this matter with a certain amount of suspicion. In this case, it covers only one form of abuse (twitter), and does not say what is, or is not, abuse - and there are worrying indications that it might not exactly be scientific.
As an example, Abbott's performance during the campaign was lamentable. Saying that is not 'abuse'. Neither is criticising her choice of school of her children. Calling her a b****h or the n-word is obvious abuse. In between there is a large grey area. Then there is the fact that one person or group can essentially spam abuse.
Don't get me wrong, the abuse she did get is horrific.
However, I'd expect anyone condemning this to condemn the abuse that Jewish Labour MPs are routinely getting from other so-called Labour figures. But Jezza couldn't even be bothered to stay in the commons to listen to his own MPs testimonies about it ...
Sure, if you assume a bunch of political opinions as fact then you get cult as a kinda accurate description. The same, of course, goes for "xenophobic lies".
More realistically, agreeing with most things a political figure says is obviously not sufficient to call somebody a cultist, and even if it were you could use a less derogatory term like "religion". Feigned innocence aside, it's obviously a name intended to poke fun. Which is fine as long as you don't turn into a snowflake the instant somebody uses equally strident language about you.
It is not a name intended to poke fun. And I have - as far as I can recall - called anyone a 'cultist' on here. I may be wrong - but I do not think I have used that form of language.
The behaviour of ardent Corbyn supporters that is seen on Twitter and elsewhere is what I call out and they are not expressing political opinions, they are attacking people in hateful ways.
Their behaviour is encouraged and enabled by the high command surrounding Corbyn. Action could have been taken to shut it down - but that action has not been taken.
Calling that out is perfectly valid.
Calling out actions of the Leave campaign are perfectly valid. Doing so in an abusive and increasingly personal way to fellow members of this forum is not.
The accusation isn't you personally anymore than your accusation is directed at say Nick Palmer personally.
Are you trying to claim that attacking people in hateful ways is carried out just by Corbynites?
Troubling that these people hate Abbott and other allies of Corbyn as well as Corbyn himself, seen as they get so much abuse. I had always assumed that was from their opponents.....
Can you point to a single thing the Tories have done more than Labour to stop abuse?
As far as I know both leaders have called it out, yet still Diane Abbott gets more abuse than any other MP. So why are you not calling the Tories cultists?
"Diane Abbott gets more abuse than any other MP"
Citation required.
There's always the old putting 'Diane Abbott gets more abuse than any other MP' into Google method.
'Diane Abbott more abused than any other MPs during election'
How much of that abuse was because she was black, female and about her physical appearance, and how much was about the fact that she’s illiterate, innumerate and racist?
No idea, but I'd assume a reputable study would have pretty stringent criteria for abuse.
e.g. 'you're illiterate, innumerate and racist' probably wouldn't be, but 'you're an illiterate, innumerate and racist black cow' would be.
The anonymous quoted EU official is overegging. Planes will fly even with "No Deal".
Except they won't.
Our contingency planning for "no deal" assumes we get a deal to keep the planes flying...
If the major air hub in Euope goes down, there will be hell to pay in Brussels, from all the heads of states saying WTF???
If Heathrow goes down, the entire airline system across the globe goes to pieces. Not just the pathetic EU countries.
Isn't there a possibility that if we leave with literally no deal every plane on the planet will have to be grounded, because pretty much every plane has British parts in it and there will be no recognised competent authority to certify them as airworthy?
That really would see the stuff that comes out of Trump's mouth hit the fan...
Theroritically yes, if the EU wish to upset every airline in the world. In practice one assumes that they would agree themselves to keep existing plane parts produced before Brexit date certified, while grounding all British registered planes (and pilots, and airlines, and air traffic controllers etc, including private pilots and small planes).
Note that this is nothing to to with any trade agreements on who can fly commercial passenger planes where, that’s a completely different subject in itself.
The interesting point is that if the EU say no EU manufacturer can use UK made spare parts after Brexit, because they are not certified, but the FAA says we have an agreement with the UK and the spare parts from the UK are certified for use. Who has shot themselves in the foot.
The EU will argue that the FAA doesn’t have that authority, because the UK have no right to sign such an agreement without their own certifying authority (and associated testing and paperwork). The Americans (and the Chinese) could well get away with it in practice.
There would be an awful lot of very upset people around the world, and it would be the EU they’d be upset at for refusing to even discuss aviation as a subject up until now. Their only comment on the subject has been the EASA ‘Notice to Stakeholders’ linked above.
There’s definitely now the outline of a thread header in my head about Brexit and Aviation.
Please do write it. I really don’t understand why the EU has the right, apparently, to stop all flights in the world.
The anonymous quoted EU official is overegging. Planes will fly even with "No Deal".
Except they won't.
Our contingency planning for "no deal" assumes we get a deal to keep the planes flying...
So if this official is actually real (one has to doubt) and not on hallucinogenic on drugs ( a fair possibility one thinks) they wish to bring Britain to its knees by basically recreating the blockade of the Kriegsmarine/Luftwaffe of about 1941 or Boney’s Continental System circa 1807. Sans the violence to be fair.
And this would engender support for the wonders of the EU how exactly?
No. The EU27 are merely protecting their own interests in the negotiations. It is not the EU that is campaigning for a #peoplesvote, that is from British voters and activists.
The more desperation that we see from the Brexiteers, the more it seems like the Life of Brian sketch:
So in this distopian scenario, the planes stop, the ferries stop, economic activity “ceases” all due to the away and support for the EU will go up?
I think not.
I don't think they are bothered about post Brexit British sympathies.
Well they really should be. We will still be off the north coast of France for a few hundred million years yet.
They have other interests. The Brexiteers will have managed a feat unmanaged in 2000 years, to isolate us with no allies on the continent, and with half the nation blaming the EU and half blaming the Tories.
Welcome to the dystopian future Britain. Like Belarus with more rain.
It’s not hard to be polite. You and I have disagreed about some issues on this forum, though not on what you say above, but I hope I have always been polite even as we have argued hard for our positions.
Occasional invective can be fun! Endless abuse is just awful. I do feel a bit sorry for politicians - and, even more, their staff - having to read a load of abuse.
Sometimes I long for the days of pen and ink. It slows people down. The very speed of the internet makes it so much easier for people to spew out what is in their heads, 99% of which is not worth making public.
I think we have maybe thrown what I'd class as very mild barbs back and fore but it has mostly been polite but with very strong differences in our views!
I'm sure I've deleted and rewrote sentences a couple of times after a few more deep breaths
Whilst my eyes have narrowed (or maybe rolled) a few times reading your views it is mostly contained there so I wish you luck with things like enjoying your garden or your work when I see you posting about it.
I think the problem compounds with MPs and journalists as if you say something that I disagree with I can challenge you on it and you will quite possibly see it and if you don't reply I could even childishly declare some kind of victory. Whereas an MP can ignore it and possibly never see it, to get their attention, especially over the other shouting idiots you would have to do something more extreme.
As I wrote above it is always good to rewrite posts, but letters would take out a lot of anger I'm sure, many people would feel better before they ever sent it off and it they still feel strongly about an issue write a much more constructive letter. It would help if you just had to walk to a letter box before sending the message....
The anonymous quoted EU official is overegging. Planes will fly even with "No Deal".
Except they won't.
Our contingency planning for "no deal" assumes we get a deal to keep the planes flying...
So if this official is actually real (one has to doubt) and not on hallucinogenic on drugs ( a fair possibility one thinks) they wish to bring Britain to its knees by basically recreating the blockade of the Kriegsmarine/Luftwaffe of about 1941 or Boney’s Continental System circa 1807. Sans the violence to be fair.
And this would engender support for the wonders of the EU how exactly?
No. The EU27 are merely protecting their own interests in the negotiations. It is not the EU that is campaigning for a #peoplesvote, that is from British voters and activists.
The more desperation that we see from the Brexiteers, the more it seems like the Life of Brian sketch:
So in this distopian scenario, the planes stop, the ferries stop, economic activity “ceases” all due to the EU and support for the EU will go up?
I think not.
It is certainly not a given that the public will blame the EU for a car crash Brexit, The evidence so far seems to be that the majority of people attach most blame for the current chaos to the Tories and not to the EU.
In the immediate aftermath of the referendum many on the remain side believed that the EU's negotiating stance (divorce payment, no cherry-picking etc) would alienate remain supporters and lead to a decisive turn toward leave in UK public opinion. But this did not happen. The evidence suggests that there has, if anything, been a marginal shift in the opposite direction. So it is quite possible that the approach of the cliff edge could lead to a further movement to remain.
The anonymous quoted EU official is overegging. Planes will fly even with "No Deal".
Except they won't.
Our contingency planning for "no deal" assumes we get a deal to keep the planes flying...
So if this official is actually real (one has to doubt) and not on hallucinogenic on drugs ( a fair possibility one thinks) they wish to bring Britain to its knees by basically recreating the blockade of the Kriegsmarine/Luftwaffe of about 1941 or Boney’s Continental System circa 1807. Sans the violence to be fair.
And this would engender support for the wonders of the EU how exactly?
No. The EU27 are merely protecting their own interests in the negotiations. It is not the EU that is campaigning for a #peoplesvote, that is from British voters and activists.
The more desperation that we see from the Brexiteers, the more it seems like the Life of Brian sketch:
So in this distopian scenario, the planes stop, the ferries stop, economic activity “ceases” all due to the away and support for the EU will go up?
I think not.
I don't think they are bothered about post Brexit British sympathies.
Well they really should be. We will still be off the north coast of France for a few hundred million years yet.
They have other interests. The Brexiteers will have managed a feat unmanaged in 2000 years, to isolate us with no allies on the continent, and with half the nation blaming the EU and half blaming the Tories.
Welcome to the dystopian future Britain. Like Belarus with more rain.
dont be daft, this country has regularly been isolated with no continental allies.
Comments
Edit: Also isn't this the whole point?
Alastair isn't saying people he never met smell or normal looking people looking funny, he is saying what he believes to be accurate and it is insulting. People using cult, those who genuinely believe it (I'd like to assume nobody who understands what cults actually are) are doing the same as Alastair.
More realistically, agreeing with most things a political figure says is obviously not sufficient to call somebody a cultist, and even if it were you could use a less derogatory term like "religion". Feigned innocence aside, it's obviously a name intended to poke fun. Which is fine as long as you don't turn into a snowflake the instant somebody uses equally strident language about you.
I'd argue the leader isn't directly the problem: it is the message. Under Kennedy it became a party of protest, which is a quick way to increase voting percentages. But as Clegg found, those protest votes will soon shift for the most bogus of reasons.
IMO what they need to do is produce a message of *what* the Lib Dems stand for, disregarding the other parties. A firm philosophical base that can be sold to the electorate. This is what Lib Dems are. This is what being a Lib Dem means.
And that's what they've been failing to do for the last couple of decades. And it's difficult to do, as everyone will judge them wrt the other parties. But it needs to be done.
It's also why I think banging on about the EU and a second referendum is utterly counter-productive in the long term, at least without that base message as well.
The behaviour of ardent Corbyn supporters that is seen on Twitter and elsewhere is what I call out and they are not expressing political opinions, they are attacking people in hateful ways.
Their behaviour is encouraged and enabled by the high command surrounding Corbyn. Action could have been taken to shut it down - but that action has not been taken.
Calling that out is perfectly valid.
Calling out actions of the Leave campaign are perfectly valid. Doing so in an abusive and increasingly personal way to fellow members of this forum is not.
And this. Although I think No Deal might last a couple of weeks longer than Brussels does.
https://twitter.com/matt_dathan/status/1033990975729881088
I had hoped this would stop. Instead it is getting worse to the extent that it raises concerns about the mental wellbeing of the poster concerned. In the absence of an actual ignore button (which would be welcome) I propose to exercise my own virtual ignore-fu and to cease to respond to the posts in question.
Under Grimond, they concentrated on rebuilding a local base and campaigning on local issues. This revived the party's fortunes, but did begin the 'all things to all men' tradition that was brought to a juddering halt in 2010.
Maybe Meeks had said worse than I've seen, but "xenophobic lies" really doesn't seem worse than "cultist"
I have said for a long time that the whole process should have been externally moderated - difficult as that would have been to agree at the start, it would have facilitated a more honest set of discussions.
Are you trying to claim that attacking people in hateful ways is carried out just by Corbynites?
Troubling that these people hate Abbott and other allies of Corbyn as well as Corbyn himself, seen as they get so much abuse. I had always assumed that was from their opponents.....
Can you point to a single thing the Tories have done more than Labour to stop abuse?
As far as I know both leaders have called it out, yet still Diane Abbott gets more abuse than any other MP. So why are you not calling the Tories cultists?
Citation required.
Cult has negative connotations outside of a political context.
Look if you are unable to argue cogently against the position of any poster, just say so. Don't give us all this "mental wellbeing" bolleaux.
Is cognitive dissonance a symptom of cult membership?
Although I reckon you might escape that fate. Now there's a challenge!
Edit - fun quiz fact. In 1918-22, ten new democracies were created in Europe. Which is the only state so created to have remained governed by democratic principles from that day to this?
But I have never seen the level of coordinated group think as that being demonstrated by those who are posting abuse from profiles with tags such as #JC4PM, #JC9 or any of the other identifiers that are prevalent.
It is the level of seeming coordination that is troubling. And it is associated with the Leader of the Labour Party. I do not believe he is sitting at a keyboard personally controlling this sort of activity. But he is not taking any practical steps to stop it.
Now I have not seen the level of coordinated activity from far right-wing abusers. That may be because I am not looking in the right places. But I am not aware of it being done in the name of Theresa May. If you can point me towards any such groupings, I am happy to be corrected and to respond accordingly.
I am more than willing to condemn abuse from any source. But I am more concerned when it appears to be part of a coordinated campaign from those who proclaim their allegiance to the Leader of the Opposition.
1. No Deal is unsustainable. The EU won't do deals by default.
2. As a multilateral organisation running a complex and somewhat fragile system of rules and treaties the EU will not make any changes to accommodate a state that has rejected membership.
An arrangement is necessary but it will be on the EU's terms. We will commit to following its rules without having any say over them. Which, frankly, sucks. Of course I never voted for this. I voted Remain.
For instance, I regularly call out Islamaphobia on here (and frequently restrict myself, as it's a pointless argument). Yet I can see an argument for going further than Boris said: I might be convinced of banning face coverings - the burka, and perhaps the niqab, in certain limited circumstances such as in courts. But that is far from a general ban in public.
This is why Boris was so clever (and I'd say contemptibly so) in his writing: it raised his profile, was defensible (he said it should not be banned, which is more liberal than my position), and yet also sounded as though he wanted it to be banned. Very annoyingly canny.
Edit: To go back to the original point if you called someone who isn't a Tory, or say didn't even vote Tory in the last election and you knew this then I guess it would be a very mild insult but in terms of actually addressing say David Hedson then pb tory is an accurate label the way pb labour would be for Nick Palmer.
it's is spelt it's.
Indeed, it's even more impressive when you remember a number of well-established democracies - Spain springs to mind - and others that had at least democratic elements - Italy, Germany, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria - drifted into dictatorship in the 1930s. And that's not even including countries overrun by the Nazis in the war (Norway, Denmark, France, Holland, Belgium).
Somehow despite an extremely unpropitious start Ireland has survived it all. They may have been lucky in the personalities involved, especially Cosgrave and de Valera, but it's still a mighty impressive achievement.
That would be my bet, given the European democracies were created out of the spoils of a world war, and barely had time to establish themselves before another world war, and then a cold war, enveloped them. RoI was far enough out of the way in Europe to avoid this, and the others that avoided it - such as Switzerland - were already established.
But I'm probably wrong.
Our contingency planning for "no deal" assumes we get a deal to keep the planes flying...
However, I should point out that none of the new democracies other than Ireland made it as far as the Second World War. The only other one still functioning as a democratic state in 1938 was Czechoslovakia. The others all had dictatorships in place.
US President Donald Trump, a frequent critic of the existing deal, announced the apparent breakthrough on Monday.
The final outcome remained in doubt as Canada, the third country in the treaty, has not signed off.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45323634
NB I note the creep of the year professes to be worried about my mental wellbeing. Psychiatry begins at home.
And this would engender support for the wonders of the EU how exactly?
Of course nastiness exists in every part of politics. The problem with Corbynism is that bothering people as not just those who disagree, but inherently evil, displaying bad faiith and corrupt results in the tacit sanctioning of widespread abuse. If you're not on board for whatever reason - even if that reason is objecting to Corbyn indulging in racism - you're a target for open abuse. It's a nasty, rotten feedback loop that's pretty well predicted by Albert Camus in The Rebel. As the project and its leader's are infallible those who speak against it and them must be sent to the guillotine says Saint-Just. Thankfully Corbynistas only have Twitter accounts and badly made memes.
That really would see the stuff that comes out of Trump's mouth hit the fan...
Of the people (I've heard of anyway) jailed recently for abusing or going further than just abuse and threatening to kill MPs have been far right, nothing to do with Labour or the Conservatives. If you are talking about general abuse on the internet for example then it is filled with all sides doing it. This one woman I follow Ash Shakar gets some disgusting racist and sexist abuse, being a left winger herself it isn't from the left it is coming. She is one of hundreds (if not thousands) of examples of people on all sides of the political spectrum who get abused by other parts.
People who think their political philosophy doesn't also contain people online going around giving disgusting abuse online are either naive or have a such a niche political philosophy that there isn't really enough people online following it to abuse other people. These people are no more coordinated on the left than they are on the right.
What you have got these days and Diane herself said this, is a much easier method to abuse people, the internet. If someone wanted to send racist or sexist abuse (or even death threats) to Diane when she first started it was a lot more effort and probably feels more personal with a letter. Now it is easy and anyone can fire off abuse at any target.
Look at all the abuse that flew around regarding Brexit, one Labour MP even got killed. None of that can be put at Corbyn or his supporters door.
Your threaders are uniformly good, and often surprising in the line you take. Your below-the-line comments sometimes seem as though they are written by a different person.
I wonder if such a change will make a united Ireland more likely. It will be harder for Northern Unionists to claim that Home Rule is Rome rule. And even though parties like the DUP have very old-fashioned (practically Catholic) views on social issues (ironically enough), I wonder how representative of the Northern Irish population they really are on this.
Might it be easier for the North to vote for a united Ireland, the more socially liberal the south becomes?
The success of their xenophobic campaign is the single most important fact of British politics today. It would be perverse to be mute about it.
Future certifications would be an issue as would maintenance but existing certifications don't expire as far as I know.
Citation provided.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/diane-abbott-saturday-interview-why-am-i-abused-so-much-i-m-both-black-and-a-woman-fd2vhdrc5
___________________________________________
A recent survey found that a third of all abuse sent to politicians goes to the shadow home secretary, one of Jeremy Corbyn’s closest allies, who 30 years ago became Britain’s first black female MP.
____________________________________________
Also in the run up to the election.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/05/diane-abbott-more-abused-than-any-other-mps-during-election
_____________________________________________
Diane Abbott alone received almost half of all the abusive tweets sent to female MPs in the run-up to the general election, research by Amnesty International has revealed.
_____________________________________________
Now onto MJW.
This is one of your literally made up in your own head facts like Tommy Robinson being a big Corbyn fan. Abbott who is clearly a Corbyn ally gets more abuse than other MPs.
Using your logic it is because of hateful people like you stuck in a feedback loop, you even have the lying (or being kind making things up) angle going on.
I don't think you are responsible for hateful idiots online abusing MPs that share your political philosophy though, even if there do seem to be much more of them then there are left wing trolls I don't think you or your political philosophy are responsible.
Maybe I just have the advantage of my arguments on the left (or in the Labour party at least) 'winning' so I can looking at things much more clearly rather than having the anger of loss driving my views...
A good topic for, say, a term paper might be "discuss the role of xenophobia in the Brexit campaign".
Pretty ignorant, I'd read it.
Or can anybody on this site write a contribution giving chapter and verse?
Edit: forgot Switzerland! Doh!
Here is their document on the subject. Read it and tell me there’s any good faith in the negotiations.
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/legislation/brexit-notice-to-stakeholders-aviation-safety.pdf
Note that this is nothing to to with any trade agreements on who can fly commercial passenger planes where, that’s a completely different subject in itself.
'Diane Abbott more abused than any other MPs during election'
https://tinyurl.com/y9wev8d4
Im just baxk from a week in Cork. Media coverage was generally moving beyond the catholic church and asking it to face up to its recent failures, something it is as yet very reluctant to do. Pope Francis was hardly on the plane home and a new wave of accusations came in from America.
The church side of the equation is dying bit by bit but that;s not exactly going to create a wish for Northern Prods to join the south, it;s one barrier less but it;s not a motivant.
The harder bit of the equation is for both parties to face up to the wave of violence they have inflicted on each other and find a settlement. Currently we have a cease fire not real peace.
The more desperation that we see from the Brexiteers, the more it seems like the Life of Brian sketch:
https://youtu.be/Y7tvauOJMHo
Who has shot themselves in the foot.
Occasional invective can be fun! Endless abuse is just awful. I do feel a bit sorry for politicians - and, even more, their staff - having to read a load of abuse.
Sometimes I long for the days of pen and ink. It slows people down. The very speed of the internet makes it so much easier for people to spew out what is in their heads, 99% of which is not worth making public.
It takes a heart of stone.
I think not.
"The president will not be, as far as we know, attending the funeral," said McCain family friend Rick Davis. "That's just a fact."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45323772
And you won't 'win'. Not in the end. Frauds eventually get found out. And even without its more hateful elements that's what Corbynism is. Socialism for underpants gnomes who declare a solution for, admittedly real ills, they do not possess. When we get real Socialism, the kind that can help people, back I'll be happy as Larry.
There would be an awful lot of very upset people around the world, and it would be the EU they’d be upset at for refusing to even discuss aviation as a subject up until now. Their only comment on the subject has been the EASA ‘Notice to Stakeholders’ linked above.
There’s definitely now the outline of a thread header in my head about Brexit and Aviation.
As an example, Abbott's performance during the campaign was lamentable. Saying that is not 'abuse'. Neither is criticising her choice of school of her children. Calling her a b****h or the n-word is obvious abuse. In between there is a large grey area. Then there is the fact that one person or group can essentially spam abuse.
Don't get me wrong, the abuse she did get is horrific.
However, I'd expect anyone condemning this to condemn the abuse that Jewish Labour MPs are routinely getting from other so-called Labour figures. But Jezza couldn't even be bothered to stay in the commons to listen to his own MPs testimonies about it ...
(btw, this is useful: https://medium.com/@AmnestyInsights/unsocial-media-tracking-twitter-abuse-against-women-mps-fc28aeca498a )
e.g. 'you're illiterate, innumerate and racist' probably wouldn't be, but 'you're an illiterate, innumerate and racist black cow' would be.
If so, I’ll have a fiver on before the end of next month.
Welcome to the dystopian future Britain. Like Belarus with more rain.
I'm sure I've deleted and rewrote sentences a couple of times after a few more deep breaths
Whilst my eyes have narrowed (or maybe rolled) a few times reading your views it is mostly contained there so I wish you luck with things like enjoying your garden or your work when I see you posting about it.
I think the problem compounds with MPs and journalists as if you say something that I disagree with I can challenge you on it and you will quite possibly see it and if you don't reply I could even childishly declare some kind of victory. Whereas an MP can ignore it and possibly never see it, to get their attention, especially over the other shouting idiots you would have to do something more extreme.
As I wrote above it is always good to rewrite posts, but letters would take out a lot of anger I'm sure, many people would feel better before they ever sent it off and it they still feel strongly about an issue write a much more constructive letter. It would help if you just had to walk to a letter box before sending the message....
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16601555.nicola-sturgeon-facing-questions-over-alex-salmond-probe-meetings/
In the immediate aftermath of the referendum many on the remain side believed that the EU's negotiating stance (divorce payment, no cherry-picking etc) would alienate remain supporters and lead to a decisive turn toward leave in UK public opinion. But this did not happen. The evidence suggests that there has, if anything, been a marginal shift in the opposite direction. So it is quite possible that the approach of the cliff edge could lead to a further movement to remain.