Of course I can dismiss those who believe in inequality with marriage as wrong. Just as I can dismiss anyone who thinks interracial marriage should be illegal is wrong. The fact people held bad views in the past doesn't make them better now - though I'm not going to judge people from the past by today's standards I will more than happily judge anyone still clinging to such views TODAY.
As a married atheist I'm also prepared to dismiss anyone who brings religion into a debate on marriage as wrong too. Marriage is a civil institution that is not religious. Keep your religion in your Church and not the law.
You can certainly dismiss them as wrong, but you need to understand that in the future, your own views will be dismissed as wrong. And not just because views have moved further along a traditional to 'woke' continuum, but potentially because they have gone into reverse gear, or shifted completely in ways we cannot contemplate currently. To a large extent, we are merely responding to the social mores of our time. Much of what we believe now will one day seen to be as much a vulgar extreme of the early 21st century as the perriwigs or witch burnings of previous eras.
Objectively, the old people won and the young people lost. If we're trying to work out what's going on in politics, it won't help to pretend this didn't happen.
A few years ago I was rather taken with the idea that Richard Branson and Peter Gabriel had of "The Elders" - wise old heads from around the world that should be listened to. Made sense to me that opinions of people who have lived through turbulent times should be listened to. Now it seems they should be discarded.
Here's the site, haven't read it in years, it probably says Brexit is a disaster!
Better to study history than to listen to old gits. We are currently reliving 1649. Cromwell brandishes Charles' severed head and cries "let bygones be bygones". Unrepentant royalists mutter quietly "I'm not so sure about that". On the other flank, Levellers agitate for redistribution of the spoils and are beginning to suspect betrayal. The 1650s were a disastrous decade of continued skirmishes, hoarded wealth and a crashed economy.
Here in the 21st century the nation is as divided today as it was yesterday, and will be again tomorrow. The Brexit Project is totally reliant on the goodwill of the vanquished putting their shoulders to the wheel. Not much evidence that this is about to happen.
The scientific method doesn't involve shutting down debate.
Absolutely, but means discussing fact not opinion. Not all opinions are true. There is no debate on whether man made climate change Is real or dangerous. It’s a question of how bad and what we do about it.
No progress will be made in winning them round if they are disrespected, so it's in the best interests of everyone concerned by climate change to respect them.
I have no time for witch doctors, conspiracy nuts, flat earthers and climate sceptics. They do a lot of harm and should be challenged. They are entitled to their private views, but if they enter public debate they need to be called out as wrong.
You don't win anyone over to your side by sneering at them and calling them wrong.
And, I'd also draw a distinction between public figures who advocate, where you can challenge more robustly, and private individuals who may be followed or influence by them, where you absolutely need to be respectful.
My wife half-believes in tarot cards and palm readings. I think it's absolute bollocks, but I don't tell her so because it'd upset her and gives her a level of working through her thoughts & emotions, and she takes comfort in it.
There is such a thing as objective truth. Right?
I fear we may be getting into the realms of philosophy here..
If you can’t accept the concept that some things are true and some things are not, and every idea is equally valid we are completely lost.
It is not true that if you reject the concept that some things are true and some things are not that you have to accept that every idea is equally valid. That's a logical fallacy.
I suspect that objective truths are tautologies.
The world of words is fuzzy. Is it true that a six foot high man is very tall? What if he is a Norwegian? What if he comes from Papua New Guinea? There is always a context to "truths" except tautological truths. It is objectively true that a triangle has three sides. Scientific "laws" are not objectively true in spite of overwhelming evidence to support them.
Of course I can dismiss those who believe in inequality with marriage as wrong. Just as I can dismiss anyone who thinks interracial marriage should be illegal is wrong. The fact people held bad views in the past doesn't make them better now - though I'm not going to judge people from the past by today's standards I will more than happily judge anyone still clinging to such views TODAY.
As a married atheist I'm also prepared to dismiss anyone who brings religion into a debate on marriage as wrong too. Marriage is a civil institution that is not religious. Keep your religion in your Church and not the law.
Sorry Philip, I disagree. Nothing good can come of being dismissive or disrespectful of those who hold different values to you; you can certainly point out you very strongly disagree, but respectively.
For what it's worth, my wife and I got married in a CoE church; that was very special and important to us. We both feel (and felt) that getting married in a registry office is more a spectated legal transaction than a real marriage, but we'd never be so disrespectful as to tell our friends who chose that path that.
Some values deserve respect. Some don't.
If your values are extreme and despicable in my eyes - if you believe women should be men's chattel, if you don't believe people should be treated equally before the law etc, etc, etc then I'm not going to pretend to respect that. I don't.
Of course, there's a limit. I wouldn't respect the Nazis values, or those of ISIS,for example.
But, I'd still think the best way of steering most people away from those would be to engage with them and argue with respect to change their minds.
Deradicalisation adopts this approach all the time.
Of course I can dismiss those who believe in inequality with marriage as wrong. Just as I can dismiss anyone who thinks interracial marriage should be illegal is wrong. The fact people held bad views in the past doesn't make them better now - though I'm not going to judge people from the past by today's standards I will more than happily judge anyone still clinging to such views TODAY.
As a married atheist I'm also prepared to dismiss anyone who brings religion into a debate on marriage as wrong too. Marriage is a civil institution that is not religious. Keep your religion in your Church and not the law.
Sorry Philip, I disagree. Nothing good can come of being dismissive or disrespectful of those who hold different values to you; you can certainly point out you very strongly disagree, but respectively.
For what it's worth, my wife and I got married in a CoE church; that was very special and important to us. We both feel (and felt) that getting married in a registry office is more a spectated legal transaction than a real marriage, but we'd never be so disrespectful as to tell our friends who chose that path that.
Some values deserve respect. Some don't.
If your values are extreme and despicable in my eyes - if you believe women should be men's chattel, if you don't believe people should be treated equally before the law etc, etc, etc then I'm not going to pretend to respect that. I don't.
Of course, there's a limit. I wouldn't respect the Nazis values, or those of ISIS,for example.
But, I'd still think the best way of steering most people away from those would be to engage with them and argue with respect to change their minds.
Deradicalisation adopts this approach all the time.
Indeed, simply calling them all "deplorables" is extremely counter productive.
You can certainly argue that climate-change is an evidence based issue. You could maybe do it to an extent about the death penalty too.
However, same-sex marriage, immigration and tradition are really values judgements, and there are no right or wrong answers.
I'm surprised at the low levels of objection to religion. It wouldn't surprise me if fear of falling on the wrong side of intersectionality is a factor there, but those numbers are still lower than I thought.
On same sex marriage I very much believe there is a right and wrong answer and I would definitely say I don't respect those with the other opinion.
Either you believe in treating people equally or you don't. If you don't, I don't respect that.
I disagree. I have no objection to same-sex marriage, but views on this (even in this country) were very different only 15 years ago, and you can certainly construct arguments on different types of marriage and the purpose of marriage, as well as religious ones, that you can't just dismiss as 'wrong', even though I would respectfully disagree with them.
And, of course, we can't be certain of how views on social issues like this will evolve in future. It relates to human dynamics around sex, gender, relationships and communities, which tend to move from one strong consensus to another.
Of course I can dismiss those who believe in inequality with marriage as wrong. Just as I can dismiss anyone who thinks interracial marriage should be illegal is wrong. The fact people held bad views in the past doesn't make them better now - though I'm not going to judge people from the past by today's standards I will more than happily judge anyone still clinging to such views TODAY.
As a married atheist I'm also prepared to dismiss anyone who brings religion into a debate on marriage as wrong too. Marriage is a civil institution that is not religious. Keep your religion in your Church and not the law.
It is funny how your view of someone changes when we move onto different topics. I have strongly disagreed with you in the past on FPTP and the EU, but I find we were coming from exactly the same position the other day with regard to homosexuality and the work place and I'm finding we are of the same mind on the topic of marriage. I was going to make my argument here, but then decided it was pointless; you had made the points eloquently.
A brief moment of exuberant celebration at a victory when not liking defeat oneself does not strike me as being particular poor in the grace department. I hope for Sturgeon and the SNP to suffer politically, but that moment was utterly inconsequential.
Imagine if people had been obliged to restrain their exuberance for the Portillo Moment.....
Of course I can dismiss those who believe in inequality with marriage as wrong. Just as I can dismiss anyone who thinks interracial marriage should be illegal is wrong. The fact people held bad views in the past doesn't make them better now - though I'm not going to judge people from the past by today's standards I will more than happily judge anyone still clinging to such views TODAY.
As a married atheist I'm also prepared to dismiss anyone who brings religion into a debate on marriage as wrong too. Marriage is a civil institution that is not religious. Keep your religion in your Church and not the law.
You can certainly dismiss them as wrong, but you need to understand that in the future, your own views will be dismissed as wrong. And not just because views have moved further along a traditional to 'woke' continuum, but potentially because they have gone into reverse gear, or shifted completely in ways we cannot contemplate currently. To a large extent, we are merely responding to the social mores of our time. Much of what we believe now will one day seen to be as much a vulgar extreme of the early 21st century as the perriwigs or witch burnings of previous eras.
Absolutely which is fair enough. As I said I don't believe in judging people of the past by today's values but I'm more than happy to judge people of today based on what we know today.
If someone wants to treat a woman as chattel do you respect that? It used to be believed that it wasn't possible to rape your wife - if a woman says no to her husband and a man thinks its OK to rape her is that a belief you can respect? I'd certainly hope not.
Hurting others, in the law or outside it is not right in my eyes. Denying others basic liberties is not right.
Objectively, the old people won and the young people lost. If we're trying to work out what's going on in politics, it won't help to pretend this didn't happen.
A few years ago I was rather taken with the idea that Richard Branson and Peter Gabriel had of "The Elders" - wise old heads from around the world that should be listened to. Made sense to me that opinions of people who have lived through turbulent times should be listened to. Now it seems they should be discarded.
Here's the site, haven't read it in years, it probably says Brexit is a disaster!
Better to study history than to listen to old gits. We are currently reliving 1649. Cromwell brandishes Charles' severed head and cries "let bygones be bygones". Unrepentant royalists mutter quietly "I'm not so sure about that". On the other flank, Levellers agitate for redistribution of the spoils and are beginning to suspect betrayal. The 1650s were a disastrous decade of continued skirmishes, hoarded wealth and a crashed economy.
Here in the 21st century the nation is as divided today as it was yesterday, and will be again tomorrow. The Brexit Project is totally reliant on the goodwill of the vanquished putting their shoulders to the wheel. Not much evidence that this is about to happen.
Rubbish. What do you think we need from the vanquished, donate their pots and pans? The success of Britain as an independent country will depend on people doing what they have always done - operating within the law in their own self interest. Unless you have wind of a remainer general strike, that is exactly what will happen.
Of course I can dismiss those who believe in inequality with marriage as wrong. Just as I can dismiss anyone who thinks interracial marriage should be illegal is wrong. The fact people held bad views in the past doesn't make them better now - though I'm not going to judge people from the past by today's standards I will more than happily judge anyone still clinging to such views TODAY.
As a married atheist I'm also prepared to dismiss anyone who brings religion into a debate on marriage as wrong too. Marriage is a civil institution that is not religious. Keep your religion in your Church and not the law.
Sorry Philip, I disagree. Nothing good can come of being dismissive or disrespectful of those who hold different values to you; you can certainly point out you very strongly disagree, but respectively.
For what it's worth, my wife and I got married in a CoE church; that was very special and important to us. We both feel (and felt) that getting married in a registry office is more a spectated legal transaction than a real marriage, but we'd never be so disrespectful as to tell our friends who chose that path that.
Some values deserve respect. Some don't.
If your values are extreme and despicable in my eyes - if you believe women should be men's chattel, if you don't believe people should be treated equally before the law etc, etc, etc then I'm not going to pretend to respect that. I don't.
Of course, there's a limit. I wouldn't respect the Nazis values, or those of ISIS,for example.
But, I'd still think the best way of steering most people away from those would be to engage with them and argue with respect to change their minds.
Deradicalisation adopts this approach all the time.
Indeed, simply calling them all "deplorables" is extremely counter productive.
Hillary Clinton still thinks her 2016 defeat was a mathematical aberration and nothing to do with her.
Objectively, the old people won and the young people lost. If we're trying to work out what's going on in politics, it won't help to pretend this didn't happen.
A few years ago I was rather taken with the idea that Richard Branson and Peter Gabriel had of "The Elders" - wise old heads from around the world that should be listened to. Made sense to me that opinions of people who have lived through turbulent times should be listened to. Now it seems they should be discarded.
Here's the site, haven't read it in years, it probably says Brexit is a disaster!
Better to study history than to listen to old gits. We are currently reliving 1649. Cromwell brandishes Charles' severed head and cries "let bygones be bygones". Unrepentant royalists mutter quietly "I'm not so sure about that". On the other flank, Levellers agitate for redistribution of the spoils and are beginning to suspect betrayal. The 1650s were a disastrous decade of continued skirmishes, hoarded wealth and a crashed economy.
Here in the 21st century the nation is as divided today as it was yesterday, and will be again tomorrow. The Brexit Project is totally reliant on the goodwill of the vanquished putting their shoulders to the wheel. Not much evidence that this is about to happen.
I am afraid you lose all credibility when you equate armed violent struggle - literally a war - with a peaceful democratic process.
I see that PB means "Parody Brexit" in here this morning... "Us Leavers are more tolerant than Remainers, but anyone who listens to Ode to Joy is a traitor" and "We won, now everybody should be nice and not talk about this any more"
You can certainly argue that climate-change is an evidence based issue. You could maybe do it to an extent about the death penalty too.
However, same-sex marriage, immigration and tradition are really values judgements, and there are no right or wrong answers.
I'm surprised at the low levels of objection to religion. It wouldn't surprise me if fear of falling on the wrong side of intersectionality is a factor there, but those numbers are still lower than I thought.
On same sex marriage I very much believe there is a right and wrong answer and I would definitely say I don't respect those with the other opinion.
Either you believe in treating people equally or you don't. If you don't, I don't respect that.
I disagree. I have no objection to same-sex marriage, but views on this (even in this country) were very different only 15 years ago, and you can certainly construct arguments on different types of marriage and the purpose of marriage, as well as religious ones, that you can't just dismiss as 'wrong', even though I would respectfully disagree with them.
And, of course, we can't be certain of how views on social issues like this will evolve in future. It relates to human dynamics around sex, gender, relationships and communities, which tend to move from one strong consensus to another.
Of course I can dismiss those who believe in inequality with marriage as wrong. Just as I can dismiss anyone who thinks interracial marriage should be illegal is wrong. The fact people held bad views in the past doesn't make them better now - though I'm not going to judge people from the past by today's standards I will more than happily judge anyone still clinging to such views TODAY.
As a married atheist I'm also prepared to dismiss anyone who brings religion into a debate on marriage as wrong too. Marriage is a civil institution that is not religious. Keep your religion in your Church and not the law.
It is funny how your view of someone changes when we move onto different topics.
That should be a sage lesson to not label people in general, shouldn't it?
No-one falls into a simple category of labels. And there is probably something to admire and like in almost everyone.
Of course I can dismiss those who believe in inequality with marriage as wrong. Just as I can dismiss anyone who thinks interracial marriage should be illegal is wrong. The fact people held bad views in the past doesn't make them better now - though I'm not going to judge people from the past by today's standards I will more than happily judge anyone still clinging to such views TODAY.
As a married atheist I'm also prepared to dismiss anyone who brings religion into a debate on marriage as wrong too. Marriage is a civil institution that is not religious. Keep your religion in your Church and not the law.
You can certainly dismiss them as wrong, but you need to understand that in the future, your own views will be dismissed as wrong. And not just because views have moved further along a traditional to 'woke' continuum, but potentially because they have gone into reverse gear, or shifted completely in ways we cannot contemplate currently. To a large extent, we are merely responding to the social mores of our time. Much of what we believe now will one day seen to be as much a vulgar extreme of the early 21st century as the perriwigs or witch burnings of previous eras.
Absolutely which is fair enough. As I said I don't believe in judging people of the past by today's values but I'm more than happy to judge people of today based on what we know today.
If someone wants to treat a woman as chattel do you respect that? It used to be believed that it wasn't possible to rape your wife - if a woman says no to her husband and a man thinks its OK to rape her is that a belief you can respect? I'd certainly hope not.
Hurting others, in the law or outside it is not right in my eyes. Denying others basic liberties is not right.
I don't respect it in today's society, where there's no economical imperative, but I understand it in past societies, where strict observation of traditions was really a case of survival. That is to say I understand the rule. Not the act of raping anyone. Even then, I suspect there were many happy marriages and loving spouses. Kindness, forgiveness etc. are the only values that really endure.
Objectively, the old people won and the young people lost. If we're trying to work out what's going on in politics, it won't help to pretend this didn't happen.
A few years ago I was rather taken with the idea that Richard Branson and Peter Gabriel had of "The Elders" - wise old heads from around the world that should be listened to. Made sense to me that opinions of people who have lived through turbulent times should be listened to. Now it seems they should be discarded.
Here's the site, haven't read it in years, it probably says Brexit is a disaster!
Better to study history than to listen to old gits. We are currently reliving 1649. Cromwell brandishes Charles' severed head and cries "let bygones be bygones". Unrepentant royalists mutter quietly "I'm not so sure about that". On the other flank, Levellers agitate for redistribution of the spoils and are beginning to suspect betrayal. The 1650s were a disastrous decade of continued skirmishes, hoarded wealth and a crashed economy.
Here in the 21st century the nation is as divided today as it was yesterday, and will be again tomorrow. The Brexit Project is totally reliant on the goodwill of the vanquished putting their shoulders to the wheel. Not much evidence that this is about to happen.
I am afraid you lose all credibility when you equate armed violent struggle - literally a war - with a peaceful democratic process.
Actually, he is equating the aftermath of a war with the aftermath of Brexit. The war was over by 1649.
I see that PB means "Parody Brexit" in here this morning... "Us Leavers are more tolerant than Remainers, but anyone who listens to Ode to Joy is a traitor" and "We won, now everybody should be nice and not talk about this any more"
Comedy gold....
As comedic as pretending lots of people were suggesting listening to ode to joy is a traitor, to the point of being symboilc of PB.
Oh wait, its not comedic, its stupid, and willfully so. Nice touch by combining points from different comments made at different times as though they were made together and thus more hypocritical. Kudos.
I see that PB means "Parody Brexit" in here this morning... "Us Leavers are more tolerant than Remainers, but anyone who listens to Ode to Joy is a traitor" and "We won, now everybody should be nice and not talk about this any more"
Comedy gold....
As comedic as pretending lots of people were suggesting listening to ode to joy is a traitor, to the point of being symboilc of PB.
Oh wait, its not comedic, its stupid, and willfully so.
The comments are interesting, and sort of bear out the findings of the poll. If you are certain you are right, why should you respect the views of those who disagree with you?
I think the big difference lies in the distribution of the Leave/Remain vote. The Remain vote is more heavily concentrated than the Leave vote, which is more evenly distributed. Leavers are more likely to encounter people who disagree with them.
Likewise the Labour vote.
I've speculated before that if you're renting a room in Walthamstow and many thousands in debt a resentment might arise plus a desperate desire to believe you are morally and/or intellectually superior to 'people like them'.
I think that a lot of people around Corbyn took the view that the voters needed to regain the confidence of the Labour Party, rather than the other way around.
I think the new 'rules of engagement' would probably have gone down better as a personal pledge from the author not to do those things, regardless of how others behave.
I see that PB means "Parody Brexit" in here this morning... "Us Leavers are more tolerant than Remainers, but anyone who listens to Ode to Joy is a traitor" and "We won, now everybody should be nice and not talk about this any more"
Comedy gold....
As comedic as pretending lots of people were suggesting listening to ode to joy is a traitor, to the point of being symboilc of PB.
Oh wait, its not comedic, its stupid, and willfully so. Nice touch by combining points from different comments made at different times as though they were made together and thus more hypocritical. Kudos.
Actually, both comments are made here in this thread. Admittedly, they were about an hour or two apart so you have me bang to rights there....
I see that PB means "Parody Brexit" in here this morning... "Us Leavers are more tolerant than Remainers, but anyone who listens to Ode to Joy is a traitor" and "We won, now everybody should be nice and not talk about this any more"
Comedy gold....
As comedic as pretending lots of people were suggesting listening to ode to joy is a traitor, to the point of being symboilc of PB.
Oh wait, its not comedic, its stupid, and willfully so. Nice touch by combining points from different comments made at different times as though they were made together and thus more hypocritical. Kudos.
Actually, both comments are made here in this thread. Admittedly, they were about an hour or two apart so you have me bang to rights there....
Objectively, the old people won and the young people lost. If we're trying to work out what's going on in politics, it won't help to pretend this didn't happen.
A few years ago I was rather taken with the idea that Richard Branson and Peter Gabriel had of "The Elders" - wise old heads from around the world that should be listened to. Made sense to me that opinions of people who have lived through turbulent times should be listened to. Now it seems they should be discarded.
Here's the site, haven't read it in years, it probably says Brexit is a disaster!
Better to study history than to listen to old gits. We are currently reliving 1649. Cromwell brandishes Charles' severed head and cries "let bygones be bygones". Unrepentant royalists mutter quietly "I'm not so sure about that". On the other flank, Levellers agitate for redistribution of the spoils and are beginning to suspect betrayal. The 1650s were a disastrous decade of continued skirmishes, hoarded wealth and a crashed economy.
Here in the 21st century the nation is as divided today as it was yesterday, and will be again tomorrow. The Brexit Project is totally reliant on the goodwill of the vanquished putting their shoulders to the wheel. Not much evidence that this is about to happen.
I am afraid you lose all credibility when you equate armed violent struggle - literally a war - with a peaceful democratic process.
I'm not exactly equating them. I'm predicting the next decade based on the fact that the democratic process hasn't resolved anything. Just look around you.
Objectively, the old people won and the young people lost. If we're trying to work out what's going on in politics, it won't help to pretend this didn't happen.
That's the wider problem with our political system, that older people have been winning for some time now. Just look at how even richer pensioners are protected. Brexit simply pushes the government to orient a bit more attention toward a different cohort of pensioners.
It isn't healthy, and risks something breaking if it carries on.
Of course I can dismiss those who believe in inequality with marriage as wrong. Just as I can dismiss anyone who thinks interracial marriage should be illegal is wrong. The fact people held bad views in the past doesn't make them better now - though I'm not going to judge people from the past by today's standards I will more than happily judge anyone still clinging to such views TODAY.
As a married atheist I'm also prepared to dismiss anyone who brings religion into a debate on marriage as wrong too. Marriage is a civil institution that is not religious. Keep your religion in your Church and not the law.
Sorry Philip, I disagree. Nothing good can come of being dismissive or disrespectful of those who hold different values to you; you can certainly point out you very strongly disagree, but respectively.
For what it's worth, my wife and I got married in a CoE church; that was very special and important to us. We both feel (and felt) that getting married in a registry office is more a spectated legal transaction than a real marriage, but we'd never be so disrespectful as to tell our friends who chose that path that.
Some values deserve respect. Some don't.
If your values are extreme and despicable in my eyes - if you believe women should be men's chattel, if you don't believe people should be treated equally before the law etc, etc, etc then I'm not going to pretend to respect that. I don't.
Of course, there's a limit. I wouldn't respect the Nazis values, or those of ISIS,for example.
But, I'd still think the best way of steering most people away from those would be to engage with them and argue with respect to change their minds.
Deradicalisation adopts this approach all the time.
Indeed, simply calling them all "deplorables" is extremely counter productive.
Hillary Clinton still thinks her 2016 defeat was a mathematical aberration and nothing to do with her.
She's a real smart political operator, that one.
For someone who is clearly very clever, she's a proper moron.
I see that PB means "Parody Brexit" in here this morning... "Us Leavers are more tolerant than Remainers, but anyone who listens to Ode to Joy is a traitor" and "We won, now everybody should be nice and not talk about this any more"
Comedy gold....
As comedic as pretending lots of people were suggesting listening to ode to joy is a traitor, to the point of being symboilc of PB.
Oh wait, its not comedic, its stupid, and willfully so.
It's almost as if Leavers are not of one mind.
They certainly act as if they are sharing one brain between them
I see that PB means "Parody Brexit" in here this morning... "Us Leavers are more tolerant than Remainers, but anyone who listens to Ode to Joy is a traitor" and "We won, now everybody should be nice and not talk about this any more"
Comedy gold....
As comedic as pretending lots of people were suggesting listening to ode to joy is a traitor, to the point of being symboilc of PB.
Oh wait, its not comedic, its stupid, and willfully so.
It's almost as if Leavers are not of one mind.
They certainly act as if they are sharing one brain between them
How generous. Most say we don't have a braincell to share between us, let alone an entire brain.
Of course I can dismiss those who believe in inequality with marriage as wrong. Just as I can dismiss anyone who thinks interracial marriage should be illegal is wrong. The fact people held bad views in the past doesn't make them better now - though I'm not going to judge people from the past by today's standards I will more than happily judge anyone still clinging to such views TODAY.
As a married atheist I'm also prepared to dismiss anyone who brings religion into a debate on marriage as wrong too. Marriage is a civil institution that is not religious. Keep your religion in your Church and not the law.
Sorry Philip, I disagree. Nothing good can come of being dismissive or disrespectful of those who hold different values to you; you can certainly point out you very strongly disagree, but respectively.
For what it's worth, my wife and I got married in a CoE church; that was very special and important to us. We both feel (and felt) that getting married in a registry office is more a spectated legal transaction than a real marriage, but we'd never be so disrespectful as to tell our friends who chose that path that.
Some values deserve respect. Some don't.
If your values are extreme and despicable in my eyes - if you believe women should be men's chattel, if you don't believe people should be treated equally before the law etc, etc, etc then I'm not going to pretend to respect that. I don't.
Of course, there's a limit. I wouldn't respect the Nazis values, or those of ISIS,for example.
But, I'd still think the best way of steering most people away from those would be to engage with them and argue with respect to change their minds.
Deradicalisation adopts this approach all the time.
Indeed, simply calling them all "deplorables" is extremely counter productive.
Hillary Clinton still thinks her 2016 defeat was a mathematical aberration and nothing to do with her.
She's a real smart political operator, that one.
For someone who is clearly very clever, she's a proper moron.
There were reports she chose deliberately not to spend as much advertising in some states she narrowly lost because she didn't want the campaign to appear close.
Of course I can dismiss those who believe in inequality with marriage as wrong. Just as I can dismiss anyone who thinks interracial marriage should be illegal is wrong. The fact people held bad views in the past doesn't make them better now - though I'm not going to judge people from the past by today's standards I will more than happily judge anyone still clinging to such views TODAY.
As a married atheist I'm also prepared to dismiss anyone who brings religion into a debate on marriage as wrong too. Marriage is a civil institution that is not religious. Keep your religion in your Church and not the law.
Sorry Philip, I disagree. Nothing good can come of being dismissive or disrespectful of those who hold different values to you; you can certainly point out you very strongly disagree, but respectively.
For what it's worth, my wife and I got married in a CoE church; that was very special and important to us. We both feel (and felt) that getting married in a registry office is more a spectated legal transaction than a real marriage, but we'd never be so disrespectful as to tell our friends who chose that path that.
Some values deserve respect. Some don't.
If your values are extreme and despicable in my eyes - if you believe women should be men's chattel, if you don't believe people should be treated equally before the law etc, etc, etc then I'm not going to pretend to respect that. I don't.
Of course, there's a limit. I wouldn't respect the Nazis values, or those of ISIS,for example.
But, I'd still think the best way of steering most people away from those would be to engage with them and argue with respect to change their minds.
Deradicalisation adopts this approach all the time.
Indeed, simply calling them all "deplorables" is extremely counter productive.
Hillary Clinton still thinks her 2016 defeat was a mathematical aberration and nothing to do with her.
She's a real smart political operator, that one.
For someone who is clearly very clever, she's a proper moron.
To be fair, it’s a bit of both. Clinton was a bad candidate but Trump’s win was something of a statistical fluke - getting tiny wins in the the three places that mattered. Equivalent of getting Heads three times in a row.
The comments are interesting, and sort of bear out the findings of the poll. If you are certain you are right, why should you respect the views of those who disagree with you?
I think the big difference lies in the distribution of the Leave/Remain vote. The Remain vote is more heavily concentrated than the Leave vote, which is more evenly distributed. Leavers are more likely to encounter people who disagree with them.
Likewise the Labour vote.
I've speculated before that if you're renting a room in Walthamstow and many thousands in debt a resentment might arise plus a desperate desire to believe you are morally and/or intellectually superior to 'people like them'.
I think that a lot of people around Corbyn took the view that the voters needed to regain the confidence of the Labour Party, rather than the other way around.
Corbynism really was a strange mixture.
Amidst all the dreadfulness it did raise important issues such as student debt and bus services which the mainstream wants to ignore.
Yes, terrible, that. Although in his case it was the DEFENCE witnesses who did the no-show. I enjoyed the BBC programme. Interesting to see it portrayed through the eyes of the girls. Usually they are deemed subsidiary fluff to the vastly more important motives and actions of the 'hommes serieux'.
Mainly the defence, yes, but the prosecution was also hamstrung by not being able to use any of the Establishment figures who'd been enjoying Ward's services, so relied on a dodgy court and enormous police pressure on witnesses to perjure themselves. Really it is hard to see how Ward was convicted at all, though the Court of Appeal did its bit. Did you see the documentary afterwards which added to the interesting trivia pile that former Labour MP Stephen Pound, who stood down last year, had collected the drugs that killed Ward. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Pound
The Guildford 4 were probably wondering the same thing a decade later.
The onkly thing which matches the intolerance of the 'educated' against those with different views is the massive arrogance of those who assume that today we have reached the pinnacle of moral rectitude and that all which went before is evil incarnate. I am comforted by the knowledge that people 20, 30 50 years hence will look back upon their ignorance and immorality with a similar degree of mercy.
Oh and all this talk of the immutability of 'facts' to the sands of time.....
Objectively, the old people won and the young people lost. If we're trying to work out what's going on in politics, it won't help to pretend this didn't happen.
That's the wider problem with our political system, that older people have been winning for some time now. Just look at how even richer pensioners are protected. Brexit simply pushes the government to orient a bit more attention toward a different cohort of pensioners.
It isn't healthy, and risks something breaking if it carries on.
Objectively, the old people won and the young people lost. If we're trying to work out what's going on in politics, it won't help to pretend this didn't happen.
That's the wider problem with our political system, that older people have been winning for some time now. Just look at how even richer pensioners are protected. Brexit simply pushes the government to orient a bit more attention toward a different cohort of pensioners.
It isn't healthy, and risks something breaking if it carries on.
Of course I can dismiss those who believe in inequality with marriage as wrong. Just as I can dismiss anyone who thinks interracial marriage should be illegal is wrong. The fact people held bad views in the past doesn't make them better now - though I'm not going to judge people from the past by today's standards I will more than happily judge anyone still clinging to such views TODAY.
As a married atheist I'm also prepared to dismiss anyone who brings religion into a debate on marriage as wrong too. Marriage is a civil institution that is not religious. Keep your religion in your Church and not the law.
Sorry Philip, I disagree. Nothing good can come of being dismissive or disrespectful of those who hold different values to you; you can certainly point out you very strongly disagree, but respectively.
For what it's worth, my wife and I got married in a CoE church; that was very special and important to us. We both feel (and felt) that getting married in a registry office is more a spectated legal transaction than a real marriage, but we'd never be so disrespectful as to tell our friends who chose that path that.
Some values deserve respect. Some don't.
If your values are extreme and despicable in my eyes - if you believe women should be men's chattel, if you don't believe people should be treated equally before the law etc, etc, etc then I'm not going to pretend to respect that. I don't.
Of course, there's a limit. I wouldn't respect the Nazis values, or those of ISIS,for example.
But, I'd still think the best way of steering most people away from those would be to engage with them and argue with respect to change their minds.
Deradicalisation adopts this approach all the time.
Indeed, simply calling them all "deplorables" is extremely counter productive.
Hillary Clinton still thinks her 2016 defeat was a mathematical aberration and nothing to do with her.
She's a real smart political operator, that one.
For someone who is clearly very clever, she's a proper moron.
The comments are interesting, and sort of bear out the findings of the poll. If you are certain you are right, why should you respect the views of those who disagree with you?
I think the big difference lies in the distribution of the Leave/Remain vote. The Remain vote is more heavily concentrated than the Leave vote, which is more evenly distributed. Leavers are more likely to encounter people who disagree with them.
Likewise the Labour vote.
I've speculated before that if you're renting a room in Walthamstow and many thousands in debt a resentment might arise plus a desperate desire to believe you are morally and/or intellectually superior to 'people like them'.
I think that a lot of people around Corbyn took the view that the voters needed to regain the confidence of the Labour Party, rather than the other way around.
Confronting the deficiencies in their own ideology and prejudices might simply be too much hard work.
If things aren't that bad overall maybe it's just easier to rail against things at the fringes online and at protests?
Absolutely no ability, or even an attempt, to understand why people might have voted Leave (beyond stupid, racist, deluded, the daily mail, etc).
If brexit has done one invaluable thing, it has revealed that our nation’s intelligentsia are anything but. I wonder if this is true for other countries. I suspect it is.
It's the Guardian and isn't the Booker for fiction?
Absolutely no ability, or even an attempt, to understand why people might have voted Leave (beyond stupid, racist, deluded, the daily mail, etc).
If brexit has done one invaluable thing, it has revealed that our nation’s intelligentsia are anything but. I wonder if this is true for other countries. I suspect it is.
I'm getting a whiff of a multiple personality disorder here, with the novel twist of all the personalities being identical.
Of course I can dismiss those who believe in inequality with marriage as wrong. Just as I can dismiss anyone who thinks interracial marriage should be illegal is wrong. The fact people held bad views in the past doesn't make them better now - though I'm not going to judge people from the past by today's standards I will more than happily judge anyone still clinging to such views TODAY.
As a married atheist I'm also prepared to dismiss anyone who brings religion into a debate on marriage as wrong too. Marriage is a civil institution that is not religious. Keep your religion in your Church and not the law.
Sorry Philip, I disagree. Nothing good can come of being dismissive or disrespectful of those who hold different values to you; you can certainly point out you very strongly disagree, but respectively.
For what it's worth, my wife and I got married in a CoE church; that was very special and important to us. We both feel (and felt) that getting married in a registry office is more a spectated legal transaction than a real marriage, but we'd never be so disrespectful as to tell our friends who chose that path that.
Some values deserve respect. Some don't.
If your values are extreme and despicable in my eyes - if you believe women should be men's chattel, if you don't believe people should be treated equally before the law etc, etc, etc then I'm not going to pretend to respect that. I don't.
Of course, there's a limit. I wouldn't respect the Nazis values, or those of ISIS,for example.
But, I'd still think the best way of steering most people away from those would be to engage with them and argue with respect to change their minds.
Deradicalisation adopts this approach all the time.
Indeed, simply calling them all "deplorables" is extremely counter productive.
Hillary Clinton still thinks her 2016 defeat was a mathematical aberration and nothing to do with her.
She's a real smart political operator, that one.
For someone who is clearly very clever, she's a proper moron.
Of course I can dismiss those who believe in inequality with marriage as wrong. Just as I can dismiss anyone who thinks interracial marriage should be illegal is wrong. The fact people held bad views in the past doesn't make them better now - though I'm not going to judge people from the past by today's standards I will more than happily judge anyone still clinging to such views TODAY.
As a married atheist I'm also prepared to dismiss anyone who brings religion into a debate on marriage as wrong too. Marriage is a civil institution that is not religious. Keep your religion in your Church and not the law.
Sorry Philip, I disagree. Nothing good can come of being dismissive or disrespectful of those who hold different values to you; you can certainly point out you very strongly disagree, but respectively.
For what it's worth, my wife and I got married in a CoE church; that was very special and important to us. We both feel (and felt) that getting married in a registry office is more a spectated legal transaction than a real marriage, but we'd never be so disrespectful as to tell our friends who chose that path that.
Some values deserve respect. Some don't.
If your values are extreme and despicable in my eyes - if you believe women should be men's chattel, if you don't believe people should be treated equally before the law etc, etc, etc then I'm not going to pretend to respect that. I don't.
Of course, there's a limit. I wouldn't respect the Nazis values, or those of ISIS,for example.
But, I'd still think the best way of steering most people away from those would be to engage with them and argue with respect to change their minds.
Deradicalisation adopts this approach all the time.
Indeed, simply calling them all "deplorables" is extremely counter productive.
Hillary Clinton still thinks her 2016 defeat was a mathematical aberration and nothing to do with her.
She's a real smart political operator, that one.
For someone who is clearly very clever, she's a proper moron.
To be fair, it’s a bit of both. Clinton was a bad candidate but Trump’s win was something of a statistical fluke - getting tiny wins in the the three places that mattered. Equivalent of getting Heads three times in a row.
Not that much of a fluke. He campaigned in those narrow states more than she did.
Ignoring "flyover" states then being surprised when they switch against you is not unlucky.
Wee Leo running circles round Brexiteers stung so much that they're now chuffed that the political arm of the IRA is doing well. That's some world of hurt.
Absolutely no ability, or even an attempt, to understand why people might have voted Leave (beyond stupid, racist, deluded, the daily mail, etc).
If brexit has done one invaluable thing, it has revealed that our nation’s intelligentsia are anything but. I wonder if this is true for other countries. I suspect it is.
Absolutely no ability, or even an attempt, to understand why people might have voted Leave (beyond stupid, racist, deluded, the daily mail, etc).
If brexit has done one invaluable thing, it has revealed that our nation’s intelligentsia are anything but. I wonder if this is true for other countries. I suspect it is.
I'm getting a whiff of a multiple personality disorder here, with the novel twist of all the personalities being identical.
Is it normal on this site to accuse someone of being mentally disabled because of their second ever comment?
Absolutely no ability, or even an attempt, to understand why people might have voted Leave (beyond stupid, racist, deluded, the daily mail, etc).
If brexit has done one invaluable thing, it has revealed that our nation’s intelligentsia are anything but. I wonder if this is true for other countries. I suspect it is.
I'm getting a whiff of a multiple personality disorder here, with the novel twist of all the personalities being identical.
Is it normal on this site to accuse someone of being mentally disabled because of their second ever comment?
The comments are interesting, and sort of bear out the findings of the poll. If you are certain you are right, why should you respect the views of those who disagree with you?
I think the big difference lies in the distribution of the Leave/Remain vote. The Remain vote is more heavily concentrated than the Leave vote, which is more evenly distributed. Leavers are more likely to encounter people who disagree with them.
Likewise the Labour vote.
I've speculated before that if you're renting a room in Walthamstow and many thousands in debt a resentment might arise plus a desperate desire to believe you are morally and/or intellectually superior to 'people like them'.
I think that a lot of people around Corbyn took the view that the voters needed to regain the confidence of the Labour Party, rather than the other way around.
Corbynism really was a strange mixture.
Amidst all the dreadfulness it did raise important issues such as student debt and bus services which the mainstream wants to ignore.
I remember reflecting the same. And also that despite his solutiona being wrong, they weren't actually much worse than the current solution. But when your position is that EVERYTHING is wrong with Britain, you're bound to be right sometimes, if only by accident.
I think the new 'rules of engagement' would probably have gone down better as a personal pledge from the author not to do those things, regardless of how others behave.
I'll get on board if they become generally accepted site rules. But if not, why should I miss out on all the fun they are having?
I think the new 'rules of engagement' would probably have gone down better as a personal pledge from the author not to do those things, regardless of how others behave.
I'll get on board if they become generally accepted site rules. But if not, why should I miss out on all the fun they are having?
If they became site rules this would become a pretty boring site.
"The same is true this year. But there are new wrinkles that might confuse things a bit on Monday night.
Instead of the usual one result, the Democratic Party will report three sets of results: a projection of delegate totals (state delegate equivalents, often called S.D.E.s), the raw vote totals at the beginning of the caucuses (the first alignment), and the final totals after nonviable candidates, or those who did not receive 15 percent support at a precinct, have been eliminated and their supporters have chosen another candidate or decided to sit it out (the final alignment)"
The comments are interesting, and sort of bear out the findings of the poll. If you are certain you are right, why should you respect the views of those who disagree with you?
I think the big difference lies in the distribution of the Leave/Remain vote. The Remain vote is more heavily concentrated than the Leave vote, which is more evenly distributed. Leavers are more likely to encounter people who disagree with them.
Likewise the Labour vote.
I've speculated before that if you're renting a room in Walthamstow and many thousands in debt a resentment might arise plus a desperate desire to believe you are morally and/or intellectually superior to 'people like them'.
I think that a lot of people around Corbyn took the view that the voters needed to regain the confidence of the Labour Party, rather than the other way around.
Corbynism really was a strange mixture.
Amidst all the dreadfulness it did raise important issues such as student debt and bus services which the mainstream wants to ignore.
I remember reflecting the same. And also that despite his solutiona being wrong, they weren't actually much worse than the current solution. But when your position is that EVERYTHING is wrong with Britain, you're bound to be right sometimes, if only by accident.
The problem was that they seemed to think that simply identifying and talking about genuine problems entitled them to the power to implement their proposed solutions.
Absolutely no ability, or even an attempt, to understand why people might have voted Leave (beyond stupid, racist, deluded, the daily mail, etc).
If brexit has done one invaluable thing, it has revealed that our nation’s intelligentsia are anything but. I wonder if this is true for other countries. I suspect it is.
We must have read different versions, as I can't recall him saying these things (other than right wing media issue).
Objectively, the old people won and the young people lost. If we're trying to work out what's going on in politics, it won't help to pretend this didn't happen.
That's the wider problem with our political system, that older people have been winning for some time now. Just look at how even richer pensioners are protected. Brexit simply pushes the government to orient a bit more attention toward a different cohort of pensioners.
It isn't healthy, and risks something breaking if it carries on.
Isn't that simply because they vote?
The estimated electoral crossover age (at which support for the Conservatives passes that for Labour) is now only 39. Fortysomethings may no longer be in the first flush of youth but in no reasonable estimation are we "old." The left's support is simply slipping away amongst everyone who has accumulated significant assets, and holds up well largely amongst those groups (principally the very young and working age people who are largely or entirely dependent on benefits) who don't, and therefore want those assets forcibly redistributed to them by the state, together with public sector employees who might stand to benefit similarly through large pay hikes.
Moreover, not only has the crossover age fallen but the median age of the population as a whole is continuing to rise. This situation is developing not necessarily to Labour's advantage.
The Conservatives now need to avoid totally crashing the economy and to create an environment conducive to the building of large numbers of new houses, so that the frustrated renter class doesn't keep expanding. If they can manage those two things then they could be in power for a very long time. As I believe was pointed out in a PB thread a few weeks ago, there is no absolute barrier to one party rule in a democratic system: the Japanese LDP, for example, has been in power for 60 of the last 65 years.
The basic point is that the idea that you can beat conservative incumbents by ignoring the centre and exciting left-wing non-voters doesn't ever seem to work when it's tried. It didn't work in the mid-terms, where the Dem moderates made loads of gains and the left totally bombed, and it obviously didn't work with Corbyn. The only case I can think of is Tsipras killing the traditional left and beating the centre-right, but they were quite extreme circumstances.
Of course I can dismiss those who believe in inequality with marriage as wrong. Just as I can dismiss anyone who thinks interracial marriage should be illegal is wrong. The fact people held bad views in the past doesn't make them better now - though I'm not going to judge people from the past by today's standards I will more than happily judge anyone still clinging to such views TODAY.
As a married atheist I'm also prepared to dismiss anyone who brings religion into a debate on marriage as wrong too. Marriage is a civil institution that is not religious. Keep your religion in your Church and not the law.
You can certainly dismiss them as wrong, but you need to understand that in the future, your own views will be dismissed as wrong. And not just because views have moved further along a traditional to 'woke' continuum, but potentially because they have gone into reverse gear, or shifted completely in ways we cannot contemplate currently. To a large extent, we are merely responding to the social mores of our time. Much of what we believe now will one day seen to be as much a vulgar extreme of the early 21st century as the perriwigs or witch burnings of previous eras.
Indeed. We look back at the past and wonder "how could they have been so stupid"? And in the future they will think that of us, and - as you say - not in a predictable direction.
Objectively, the old people won and the young people lost. If we're trying to work out what's going on in politics, it won't help to pretend this didn't happen.
A few years ago I was rather taken with the idea that Richard Branson and Peter Gabriel had of "The Elders" - wise old heads from around the world that should be listened to. Made sense to me that opinions of people who have lived through turbulent times should be listened to. Now it seems they should be discarded.
Here's the site, haven't read it in years, it probably says Brexit is a disaster!
Better to study history than to listen to old gits. We are currently reliving 1649. Cromwell brandishes Charles' severed head and cries "let bygones be bygones". Unrepentant royalists mutter quietly "I'm not so sure about that". On the other flank, Levellers agitate for redistribution of the spoils and are beginning to suspect betrayal. The 1650s were a disastrous decade of continued skirmishes, hoarded wealth and a crashed economy.
Here in the 21st century the nation is as divided today as it was yesterday, and will be again tomorrow. The Brexit Project is totally reliant on the goodwill of the vanquished putting their shoulders to the wheel. Not much evidence that this is about to happen.
Is this true? I’m not a professional historian but there is plentiful evidence that England eventually prospered under Cromwell. He made the country a great European power, he rebuilt the navy, he sent the barbary slavers packing, he encouraged trade and took a more sensible if slightly hard nosed attitude to Ireland.
I hold a different opinion, but we can both agree that his regime did not long survive his death, and the population were so unimpressed the monarchy was restored and the laws promulgated by the interregnum Parliaments were overriden/nullified.
Plus they were the first ones to make all betting winnings void...
Objectively, the old people won and the young people lost. If we're trying to work out what's going on in politics, it won't help to pretend this didn't happen.
A few years ago I was rather taken with the idea that Richard Branson and Peter Gabriel had of "The Elders" - wise old heads from around the world that should be listened to. Made sense to me that opinions of people who have lived through turbulent times should be listened to. Now it seems they should be discarded.
Here's the site, haven't read it in years, it probably says Brexit is a disaster!
Better to study history than to listen to old gits. We are currently reliving 1649. Cromwell brandishes Charles' severed head and cries "let bygones be bygones". Unrepentant royalists mutter quietly "I'm not so sure about that". On the other flank, Levellers agitate for redistribution of the spoils and are beginning to suspect betrayal. The 1650s were a disastrous decade of continued skirmishes, hoarded wealth and a crashed economy.
Here in the 21st century the nation is as divided today as it was yesterday, and will be again tomorrow. The Brexit Project is totally reliant on the goodwill of the vanquished putting their shoulders to the wheel. Not much evidence that this is about to happen.
I am afraid you lose all credibility when you equate armed violent struggle - literally a war - with a peaceful democratic process.
I'm not exactly equating them. I'm predicting the next decade based on the fact that the democratic process hasn't resolved anything. Just look around you.
I do. I clearly see a different world to you. I would suggest perhaps we are both indulging in at least a little bit of wishful thinking?
Absolutely no ability, or even an attempt, to understand why people might have voted Leave (beyond stupid, racist, deluded, the daily mail, etc).
If brexit has done one invaluable thing, it has revealed that our nation’s intelligentsia are anything but. I wonder if this is true for other countries. I suspect it is.
We must have read different versions, as I can't recall him saying these things (other than right wing media issue).
Just read it - a superb polemic. Every sentence is thought provoking and pointed. There's no doubt that the forces that brought us Brexit, equipped with the same toolkit, will now turn to even darker schemes. At least we're now fully warned.
a factor there, but those numbers are still lower than I thought.
On same sex marriage I very much believe there is a right and wrong answer and I would definitely say I don't respect those with the other opinion.
Either you believe in treating people equally or you don't. If you don't, I don't respect that.
I disagree. I have no objection to same-sex marriage, but views on this (even in this country) were very different only 15 years ago, and you can certainly construct arguments on different types of marriage and the purpose of marriage, as well as religious ones, that you can't just dismiss as 'wrong', even though I would respectfully disagree with them.
And, of course, we can't be certain of how views on social issues like this will evolve in future. It relates to human dynamics around sex, gender, relationships and communities, which tend to move from one strong consensus to another.
Of course I can dismiss those who believe in inequality with marriage as wrong. Just as I can dismiss anyone who thinks interracial marriage should be illegal is wrong. The fact people held bad views in the past doesn't make them better now - though I'm not going to judge people from the past by today's standards I will more than happily judge anyone still clinging to such views TODAY.
As a married atheist I'm also prepared to dismiss anyone who brings religion into a debate on marriage as wrong too. Marriage is a civil institution that is not religious. Keep your religion in your Church and not the law.
It is funny how your view of someone changes when we move onto different topics.
That should be a sage lesson to not label people in general, shouldn't it?
No-one falls into a simple category of labels. And there is probably something to admire and like in almost everyone.
I have liked your comment as I agree. However I didn't label Philip in any particular way in my mind as although I disagree with him on some topics he does argue them logically. However it was interesting that the I was with him down to the very finer points on these two topics yet completely opposite on others.
I also badly worded my comment as I hadn't formed a view on him anyway. I tend not to on anyone except when people argue illogically and that does get me. I guess just pleasantly surprised, when I shouldn't have been.
Objectively, the old people won and the young people lost. If we're trying to work out what's going on in politics, it won't help to pretend this didn't happen.
That's the wider problem with our political system, that older people have been winning for some time now. Just look at how even richer pensioners are protected. Brexit simply pushes the government to orient a bit more attention toward a different cohort of pensioners.
It isn't healthy, and risks something breaking if it carries on.
Whats the problem with deferring to older people?
Well, there is that whole wiping-their-bottom thing, and nodding interestedly when they point out you used to be so small and yes, I have grown Aunty Ellen, thank you for asking.
"Boris Johnson intends to impose full customs checks on all goods coming into the UK from the EU, in a break with previous government policy, according to reports.
“We are planning full checks on all EU imports – export declarations, security declarations, animal health checks and all supermarket goods to pass through border inspection posts,” the Daily Telegraph reported a senior Whitehall source as saying. “This will double the practical challenge at the border in January 2021.”
The paper reports that businesses will be informed of the policy on 10 February."
Maybe I being thick after last night's wine, but how does this work with no border in Ireland/NI?
Starmer is on 11 of 13 CLPs so far today, after yesterday winning 21 of 36. He's looking back on the 2/3rds of all CLPs rate he had to begin with. Might just be random variation, but his rivals need a big shift for him to lose this race and if anything he is tightening his grip on it.
"Boris Johnson intends to impose full customs checks on all goods coming into the UK from the EU, in a break with previous government policy, according to reports.
“We are planning full checks on all EU imports – export declarations, security declarations, animal health checks and all supermarket goods to pass through border inspection posts,” the Daily Telegraph reported a senior Whitehall source as saying. “This will double the practical challenge at the border in January 2021.”
The paper reports that businesses will be informed of the policy on 10 February."
Maybe I being thick after last night's wine, but how does this work with no border in Ireland/NI?
Starmer is on 11 of 13 CLPs so far today, after yesterday winning 21 of 36. He's looking back on the 2/3rds of all CLPs rate he had to begin with. Might just be random variation, but his rivals need a big shift for him to lose this race and if anything he is tightening his grip on it.
Also worth noting that the members who turn up for the nomination meetings are not necessarily representative of the wider membership.
Plus of course new members can't attend the nomination meeting.
All pointing to a Starmer win, potentially on first preferences.
Starmer is on 11 of 13 CLPs so far today, after yesterday winning 21 of 36. He's looking back on the 2/3rds of all CLPs rate he had to begin with. Might just be random variation, but his rivals need a big shift for him to lose this race and if anything he is tightening his grip on it.
To be honest in terms of his impact and to maintain your musical analogy, he is looking more like the Chuck Berry of politics at the moment. He has changed everything.
"Boris Johnson intends to impose full customs checks on all goods coming into the UK from the EU, in a break with previous government policy, according to reports.
“We are planning full checks on all EU imports – export declarations, security declarations, animal health checks and all supermarket goods to pass through border inspection posts,” the Daily Telegraph reported a senior Whitehall source as saying. “This will double the practical challenge at the border in January 2021.”
The paper reports that businesses will be informed of the policy on 10 February."
Maybe I being thick after last night's wine, but how does this work with no border in Ireland/NI?
You are not being thick. It doesn't.
For all the talk of another Scottish Independence vote I would not be surprised to see the next referendum on political status being a unification poll in NI.
I am afraid you lose all credibility when you equate armed violent struggle - literally a war - with a peaceful democratic process.
I'm not exactly equating them. I'm predicting the next decade based on the fact that the democratic process hasn't resolved anything. Just look around you.
Really? Its not resolved anything? I think you protest too much.
The democratic process has resolved a lot over the last century and has continued to over the last decade too. Off the top of my head in the last decade the democratic process has resolved:
1: To peacefully leave the European Union and forge a new path. 2: The legalisation of equal marriage. 3: A recovery from the budget deficit that we finished the previous decade with, without going bankrupt. 4: To value and protect our countries Jewish community. 5: To reject [for now at least] a Corbyn style transformation in our nation.
I could go on but that's a good start. The next decade we're just starting will no doubt resolve more - probably including some things we're not even thinking about debating right now!
To be honest in terms of his impact and to maintain your musical analogy, he is looking more like the Chuck Berry of politics at the moment. He has changed everything.
In that case they'd better check for hidden cameras in no 10's lavvies.
"Boris Johnson intends to impose full customs checks on all goods coming into the UK from the EU, in a break with previous government policy, according to reports.
“We are planning full checks on all EU imports – export declarations, security declarations, animal health checks and all supermarket goods to pass through border inspection posts,” the Daily Telegraph reported a senior Whitehall source as saying. “This will double the practical challenge at the border in January 2021.”
The paper reports that businesses will be informed of the policy on 10 February."
Maybe I being thick after last night's wine, but how does this work with no border in Ireland/NI?
Absolutely no ability, or even an attempt, to understand why people might have voted Leave (beyond stupid, racist, deluded, the daily mail, etc).
If brexit has done one invaluable thing, it has revealed that our nation’s intelligentsia are anything but. I wonder if this is true for other countries. I suspect it is.
We must have read different versions, as I can't recall him saying these things (other than right wing media issue).
Just read it - a superb polemic. Every sentence is thought provoking and pointed. There's no doubt that the forces that brought us Brexit, equipped with the same toolkit, will now turn to even darker schemes. At least we're now fully warned.
Lol. It’s just mad. The fact you agree with it just shows you share the same mad cow disease. McEwan literally thinks we will now have to rip up all our hedges to be like Iowa. He’s a nutter.
For balance, this is a much smarter, sometimes brilliant analysis of Brexit, also in today’s guardian. It shows why a 2nd vote was always dangerously mad, and also underlines the perils now facing Boris. I am less pessimistic than the writer, but this is a genuinely good piece (unlike the McEwan vomitus)
So you think our farming ('flowering grasses, and fields shadowing Domesday lines') can compete quite happily with the vast agricultural output of the Great Plains? Keep drinking the moonshine.
To be honest in terms of his impact and to maintain your musical analogy, he is looking more like the Chuck Berry of politics at the moment. He has changed everything.
In that case they'd better check for hidden cameras in no 10's lavvies.
Not getting the connection on that one. Was Chuck a bad boy?
"Boris Johnson intends to impose full customs checks on all goods coming into the UK from the EU, in a break with previous government policy, according to reports.
“We are planning full checks on all EU imports – export declarations, security declarations, animal health checks and all supermarket goods to pass through border inspection posts,” the Daily Telegraph reported a senior Whitehall source as saying. “This will double the practical challenge at the border in January 2021.”
The paper reports that businesses will be informed of the policy on 10 February."
Maybe I being thick after last night's wine, but how does this work with no border in Ireland/NI?
You are not being thick. It doesn't.
For all the talk of another Scottish Independence vote I would not be surprised to see the next referendum on political status being a unification poll in NI.
Presumably it works perfectly well with a customs border in the Irish Sea? And I somehow doubt that the Government would care much about Northern Ireland going. On the contrary, it would obviously make the Irish border problem disappear overnight and would transfer the entire cost of looking after the province from London to Dublin (releasing lots of extra money to spend in places that vote Tory rather than ones that never will.) I mean, from their point of view, what's not to like?
"Boris Johnson intends to impose full customs checks on all goods coming into the UK from the EU, in a break with previous government policy, according to reports.
“We are planning full checks on all EU imports – export declarations, security declarations, animal health checks and all supermarket goods to pass through border inspection posts,” the Daily Telegraph reported a senior Whitehall source as saying. “This will double the practical challenge at the border in January 2021.”
The paper reports that businesses will be informed of the policy on 10 February."
Maybe I being thick after last night's wine, but how does this work with no border in Ireland/NI?
It's more an analogy than a diagnosis. Somebody once made a coherent (although not one I found conclusive ) argument that right-wing people had tapeworms - it explained why so many of the points were visceral. You could make an argument that levels of lead or drug use have influenced politics. We tend to think that politics is a rational process, but to be honest, it's tribal and emotive.
"Boris Johnson intends to impose full customs checks on all goods coming into the UK from the EU, in a break with previous government policy, according to reports.
“We are planning full checks on all EU imports – export declarations, security declarations, animal health checks and all supermarket goods to pass through border inspection posts,” the Daily Telegraph reported a senior Whitehall source as saying. “This will double the practical challenge at the border in January 2021.”
The paper reports that businesses will be informed of the policy on 10 February."
Maybe I being thick after last night's wine, but how does this work with no border in Ireland/NI?
This is the first thing the government has said that actually makes any kind of sense on trade policy. It definitely means the EU will need to think about their objectives as well given that it looks like the UK isn't interested in any kind of relationship that goes beyond trade. I wouldn't be surprised if the UK removes security co-operation from the EU and shifts that to a more bilateral or multilateral relationship with specific countries that can be trusted to have our back rather than the EU which can't.
To be honest in terms of his impact and to maintain your musical analogy, he is looking more like the Chuck Berry of politics at the moment. He has changed everything.
In that case they'd better check for hidden cameras in no 10's lavvies.
Not getting the connection on that one. Was Chuck a bad boy?
Yep.
'In 1990, he was sued by several women who claimed that he had installed a video camera in the bathroom. Berry claimed that he had had the camera installed to catch a worker who was suspected of stealing from the restaurant. Although his guilt was never proven in court, Berry opted for a class action settlement. One of his biographers, Bruce Pegg, estimated that with 59 women it cost Berry over $1.2 million plus legal fees'
"Boris Johnson intends to impose full customs checks on all goods coming into the UK from the EU, in a break with previous government policy, according to reports.
“We are planning full checks on all EU imports – export declarations, security declarations, animal health checks and all supermarket goods to pass through border inspection posts,” the Daily Telegraph reported a senior Whitehall source as saying. “This will double the practical challenge at the border in January 2021.”
The paper reports that businesses will be informed of the policy on 10 February."
Maybe I being thick after last night's wine, but how does this work with no border in Ireland/NI?
You are not being thick. It doesn't.
For all the talk of another Scottish Independence vote I would not be surprised to see the next referendum on political status being a unification poll in NI.
Presumably it works perfectly well with a customs border in the Irish Sea? And I somehow doubt that the Government would care much about Northern Ireland going. On the contrary, it would obviously make the Irish border problem disappear overnight and would transfer the entire cost of looking after the province from London to Dublin (releasing lots of extra money to spend in places that vote Tory rather than ones that never will.) I mean, from their point of view, what's not to like?
I 100% agree. Dublin taking Belfast off our hands would be something I would definitely cheer.
Then again I'd cheer Scottish independence too so I'm not a normal Conservative on these matters.
Comments
Here in the 21st century the nation is as divided today as it was yesterday, and will be again tomorrow. The Brexit Project is totally reliant on the goodwill of the vanquished putting their shoulders to the wheel. Not much evidence that this is about to happen.
I suspect that objective truths are tautologies.
The world of words is fuzzy. Is it true that a six foot high man is very tall? What if he is a Norwegian? What if he comes from Papua New Guinea? There is always a context to "truths" except tautological truths. It is objectively true that a triangle has three sides. Scientific "laws" are not objectively true in spite of overwhelming evidence to support them.
But, I'd still think the best way of steering most people away from those would be to engage with them and argue with respect to change their minds.
Deradicalisation adopts this approach all the time.
If someone wants to treat a woman as chattel do you respect that? It used to be believed that it wasn't possible to rape your wife - if a woman says no to her husband and a man thinks its OK to rape her is that a belief you can respect? I'd certainly hope not.
Hurting others, in the law or outside it is not right in my eyes. Denying others basic liberties is not right.
She's a real smart political operator, that one.
Comedy gold....
No-one falls into a simple category of labels. And there is probably something to admire and like in almost everyone.
Oh wait, its not comedic, its stupid, and willfully so. Nice touch by combining points from different comments made at different times as though they were made together and thus more hypocritical. Kudos.
It isn't healthy, and risks something breaking if it carries on.
Amidst all the dreadfulness it did raise important issues such as student debt and bus services which the mainstream wants to ignore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Pound
The Guildford 4 were probably wondering the same thing a decade later.
Oh and all this talk of the immutability of 'facts' to the sands of time.....
If things aren't that bad overall maybe it's just easier to rail against things at the fringes online and at protests?
https://twitter.com/clpnominations/status/1223573631541895168?s=21
https://twitter.com/clpnominations/status/1223388319305945089?s=21
Ignoring "flyover" states then being surprised when they switch against you is not unlucky.
But when your position is that EVERYTHING is wrong with Britain, you're bound to be right sometimes, if only by accident.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/01/is-bernie-sanders-the-next-george-mcgovern-or-the-next-donald-trump/
Why is she still plugging away? If she had any self-awareness at all, she would notice she is toxic in Red Wall country.
"The same is true this year. But there are new wrinkles that might confuse things a bit on Monday night.
Instead of the usual one result, the Democratic Party will report three sets of results: a projection of delegate totals (state delegate equivalents, often called S.D.E.s), the raw vote totals at the beginning of the caucuses (the first alignment), and the final totals after nonviable candidates, or those who did not receive 15 percent support at a precinct, have been eliminated and their supporters have chosen another candidate or decided to sit it out (the final alignment)"
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/01/us/politics/iowa-caucus-delegates-winner.html
Moreover, not only has the crossover age fallen but the median age of the population as a whole is continuing to rise. This situation is developing not necessarily to Labour's advantage.
The Conservatives now need to avoid totally crashing the economy and to create an environment conducive to the building of large numbers of new houses, so that the frustrated renter class doesn't keep expanding. If they can manage those two things then they could be in power for a very long time. As I believe was pointed out in a PB thread a few weeks ago, there is no absolute barrier to one party rule in a democratic system: the Japanese LDP, for example, has been in power for 60 of the last 65 years.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/01/bernie-sanders-electable-trump-2020-nomination-popular-socialism.html
The basic point is that the idea that you can beat conservative incumbents by ignoring the centre and exciting left-wing non-voters doesn't ever seem to work when it's tried. It didn't work in the mid-terms, where the Dem moderates made loads of gains and the left totally bombed, and it obviously didn't work with Corbyn. The only case I can think of is Tsipras killing the traditional left and beating the centre-right, but they were quite extreme circumstances.
https://twitter.com/shady_inf0/status/1223540513195905024?s=20
Plus they were the first ones to make all betting winnings void...
I also badly worded my comment as I hadn't formed a view on him anyway. I tend not to on anyone except when people argue illogically and that does get me. I guess just pleasantly surprised, when I shouldn't have been.
"Boris Johnson intends to impose full customs checks on all goods coming into the UK from the EU, in a break with previous government policy, according to reports.
“We are planning full checks on all EU imports – export declarations, security declarations, animal health checks and all supermarket goods to pass through border inspection posts,” the Daily Telegraph reported a senior Whitehall source as saying. “This will double the practical challenge at the border in January 2021.”
The paper reports that businesses will be informed of the policy on 10 February."
Maybe I being thick after last night's wine, but how does this work with no border in Ireland/NI?
Plus of course new members can't attend the nomination meeting.
All pointing to a Starmer win, potentially on first preferences.
For all the talk of another Scottish Independence vote I would not be surprised to see the next referendum on political status being a unification poll in NI.
The democratic process has resolved a lot over the last century and has continued to over the last decade too. Off the top of my head in the last decade the democratic process has resolved:
1: To peacefully leave the European Union and forge a new path.
2: The legalisation of equal marriage.
3: A recovery from the budget deficit that we finished the previous decade with, without going bankrupt.
4: To value and protect our countries Jewish community.
5: To reject [for now at least] a Corbyn style transformation in our nation.
I could go on but that's a good start. The next decade we're just starting will no doubt resolve more - probably including some things we're not even thinking about debating right now!
In 2014 almost half of Scots voted to leave the U.K. and the EU
I think it’s very generous of the English to give them half of what they voted for even though they were in the minority
Admittedly that's part of the job, and he shouldn't bite, but I don't think you can say he's angry at having won.
https://twitter.com/BBCandrewkerr/status/1223594592999804928?s=20
'In 1990, he was sued by several women who claimed that he had installed a video camera in the bathroom. Berry claimed that he had had the camera installed to catch a worker who was suspected of stealing from the restaurant. Although his guilt was never proven in court, Berry opted for a class action settlement. One of his biographers, Bruce Pegg, estimated that with 59 women it cost Berry over $1.2 million plus legal fees'
Then again I'd cheer Scottish independence too so I'm not a normal Conservative on these matters.