Closing the "Cradle of Democracy"

[JohnD]

Roger,

Not to get into into semantics, but a figurehead was originally the emblematic carving on the prow of a ship, 

 

Nowadays, the word is used for a nominal but powerless head of an organisation, its leaderin name only, which also defines the status of our Ruler.    The Queen is an excellent example of a "figurehead leader"!

And as such, Alan, she represents the State, but has had all the powers previously in the hands of the Ruler seized by Parliamnet, that merely seeks the formal permission of the Ruler for anything it wishes to do.    This is the model that many Western states follow, either through a Royal family, in the Nordic countries and the Netherlands, or in most other European countries, from Ireland to Greece, through an elected President.       The USA is not unique, but by far the most powerful of the states where the President directly holds the powers of a Ruler, and is always a dyed -in-the-wool politician.

I say this to point it out  as NOT the pattern that the UK could follow.   To be sure, a representative UK President would probably be a poltician, but to use my previous examples, both the standing Presidents of Ireland and Greece are academics, both have held professorial chairs, in parallel with political careers.    The role doesn't go to previous PMs, precisely because it is nominal and powerless, a role that people who have striven for power will reject and for which they are palpably unsuited.     Of our serving politicians, I would see the likes of Frank Field or Margeret Hodge being President of the UK.

No one knows what the Queen has said to the fourteen PMs that have served "under" her.     As their weekly meetings are entirely secret we cannot.    Some suggest that her enormous - unique? - experience of national politics is a valuable resource to the PM, but I regret that it has never been as trenchant as

[PeterC]

All the leaders of the 27 have had their teeth pulled, along with their parliaments. Power now lies in the hands of Brussels and a drunken Luxmburger with a shady past and a German Chancellor who holds the EU pursestrings. OK, so both are soon to move off-stage but replaced with polticians who are utterly beyond UK electorates ability to influence. The EU Parliament cannot itself initiate any of its business, Brussels does that, so our MEPs are effectively silenced.  Give me Boris and our self-interested MPs any day rather than the Brussels clique.

Peter

 

[GT6MK3]

Peter your utter bullshit is awesome.   

Please keep it up.

[Bob Horner]

Please lets keep this civil.  Peter is not an idiot.  He has a view and its no more or less valid than any pro remain view.  I see some quite strident posts that are pro remain and questionanle but I wouldnt describe them as bullshit.  No wonder we are where we are. 

When it gets this tribal people tend to believe what suits there world view. 

 

Bob 

[Nick Jones]

Peter may believe what he writes, but he is quite wrong.  Just because such stuff has been written by the right wing press for decades, not least by the odious and ever-mendacious Johnson, does not make it true.

The levels of delusion in the Brexit camp are reaching new heights.  How anyone can possibly believe that Johnson, serial liar (proven many times), philanderer without conscience (proven may times), utterly corrupt (new revelations daily it seems) is a fit leader for our country is completely beyond me.  As for his "adviser" and cabinet, they are surely the nastiest collection of hypocritical, self-interested incompetents ever assembled for the purpose of leading this country.  (I understand from a senior civil servant that this is the considered opinion of the civil service - and boy have they seen a few in recent years!)

The destruction of the UK's international image and credibility wrought by this whole sorry saga never mind the division and economic damage already done surely proves that the "brexit project" is the greatest stupidity ever inflicted on this country.

Yes, it's got tribal, but the common sense seems to be all on one side......... and the noisy nastiness on the other.

Worth noting that some of those responsible for your strident "pro-remain" comments are from overseas, which ought to tell you something.......

[AB|W]

Nick,

You post above points out the alleged character of Boris and that to be honest is what I don't like at the moment with politics; it's not about the policy its about the personality. I believe that each of us has things in their past that with hindsight we would have preferred not to have done, made even more complicated by the rapidly changing current views on such things as sexuality, colour whatever; but should it really not be about the policy and not the presenter? 

I always try and base my actions on the facts that are available at the time but I feel with Brexit / Remain it is all about the hype and nothing about the substance.

Incidentally  the more someone tries to shout down another's views without the ability to make a counter argument or even express their own opinion then the more I support those views. Peter C is OK by my reckoning, denigration or abuse is not acceptable comment.

 

Alan 

 

 

[JohnD]

A politician's private life is just that.    But when it influences, or may influence their public office it becomes of great importance to us all.     Johnson IS a liar, in public office.    His guilt of abuse of office, of corruption, has yet to be proven, but it's clear in the minds of some of his own constituents:

PS.  The above video is headlined the Guardian, but the vox pop interviewing that produced it was by Sky News.

Edited October 7, 2019 by JohnD

[Bob Horner]

2 hours ago, AB|W said:

I always try and base my actions on the facts that are available at the time but I feel with Brexit / Remain it is all about the hype and nothing about the substance.

Incidentally  the more someone tries to shout down another's views without the ability to make a counter argument or even express their own opinion then the more I support those views. Peter C is OK by my reckoning, denigration or abuse is not acceptable comment.

 

Alan 

 

 

Agreed.  I've watched this thread and others over Brexit and generally resisted posting as at some points it had got too personal and I don't really relish a slanging match. Robust argument fine but I'm sorry to say that a lot of Nick's comments go unopposed because he seems pretty horrible to those who suggest that he may not entirely correct in his opinions  - either of people or the EU.  He has strong views and believes he is right.

Opening this to the wider world, there is a certain amount of comment re Brexit that borders on the obsessive which comes mainly from remainers because, understandably, they feel the vote went against them and can't in anyway understand how or why the British public could be so moronic and they feel powerless to oppose it. All I can say, from my limited experience, that up here in the North, the views of remainers are far more nuanced.  There are a great many who voted remain who are also appalled at the fact we have not left.   What I think many people who are certain of their support for the EU do not grasp is that an awful lot of people who voted remain have no great liking for the EU-  indeed some detested it but, on balance, decided to vote for the status quo because they feared what may happen to their mortgages, jobs etc.  They did not do it out a conviction that the EU was overall a force for good.  These people are now changing their view because of the actions of MPs, some remain enthusiasts and a belief in loser consent.  Shouting ever more loudly at them because you feel they are moronic just makes the bloody minded "plucky Brit" less keen to bow down under the EU boot.   My last sentence deliberately uses colourful language because these are the images that are being employed.

I think you see this on Question Time now most weeks.  There is a frustration with the remain supporting MPs (and the establishment as they see it) that the democratic will of the people has not been enacted.  The labour position is met with open laughter and MPs saying what an odious crook Boris is are met with anger for playing the man not the issue.   "Right thinking" people can go on all they like about Boris, the constitutional effect of a referendum vs representative democracy and call those who voted leave anything from a pig to a dog but, to the general public,  it sort of sounds like they are merely obfuscating bad losers who just cannot accept they can't get what they want.

Bob

[GT6MK3]

Right wing politicians have had a masterclass in how to manipulate over the last few years.  One politician has shown it’s ok to lie, cheat, insult, and ignore civil discussion and politics,   with the norms that the end must justify the means completely thrown out.

The UK’s new leader has learned the lessons well.  He was already a proven liar, a serial adulterer,  a callous insulter, and a man of questionable historic leadership.  But he upped his game, closing parliament under a what turned out to be a liars pretext, which is what this thread was started to discuss.

It quickly descended into the usual brexit vs remain argument, rather than being a discussion of lofty ideas, and parties on both sides are to blame for that.

It’s also been used as a basis for dog whistling, brazenly unsubstantiated nationalistic claims, completely one-eyed research on theories offered as proof, and a disappointing level of unresearched opinion.

Watching from afar, Brexit is a farce, and the world at large is laughing at the antics going on.  I'm neither remainer nor brexiter, I'm just a neutral observer who has opinions.

One of the side effects of the slide of politics into gutter sniping and farce is that it’s now ok to name call and insult politicians and opponants on the opposite side.  This casual low level dog whistling is used at will, and reinforces the ability for leaders to do the same, which is a self repeating cycle.

When it’s called out or matched, the reaction is immediate self-righteousness, and a demand for higher standards.  

If I see someone  post claptrap like “a drunken Luxmburger with a shady past and a German Chancellor who holds the EU pursestrings.“, I’ll happily call it out, using the language of the day.  If you don’t like it, feel free start a thread about how the bloke who volunteers his time, effort and money to run this site is a rude bugger who must be stopped.  But don’t be shocked if I call you on bullshit. 

[JohnD]

I fear that Australians should be cautious in criticising the behaviour of the Westminster Parliament, and implying a comparison with that in Canberra!     After ten years when not one, as we have had, but FOUR Australian Prime Ministers have been defenestrated by their own party, and we have seen the Gillard vs.Abbot exchanges, they are disturbingly alike.

And, Bob, "comment on Brexit that borders on the obsessive which comes mainly from remainers"  is an extraordinary statement!      Few have been as obsessive in their pursuit of exit at any cost than the ERG's acolytes, and Johnson.       Their populist appeal won the day in The Referendum, by the narrowest of margins so that the constant claims by Brexitists that the "will of the people" is being frustrated is another - I will not say lie - but 'exaggeration for effect'.        The zeal with which some MPs have suppported them approaches obsession if one, as one must, discounts any vile suspicion of preferral, those of the DUP in particular whose constituents voted strongly to Remain.    They have more to fear from a new border with the Irish Republic tahn any other UK citizens.

Much frustration in the House comes, I believe, from the Members who are, in large, informed and knowledgable people being aware of the enormous risks to the UK of leaving the EU, moderated as far as she was able by PM May's 'deal' that was shot down entirely by the obsessives on the ERG.   Who would not be frustrated, when years of work are scotched by zealots  whose unwillingness to compromise and belief in unworldly solutions can only be described as 'obsessive'?

JOhn

 

 

[Bob Horner]

John

I have some sympathy in what you say, but unfortunately what is leads to is an intelligentsia who believe their views and opinions hold sway over universal suffrage. I'm afraid the logical conclusion is we are back to the good old days of only those with a "stake in society" deciding the good of the nation.  I find that abhorrent and intolerant. The thing is, many "right thinking" people in their day did things believing they were right based on the mores or intellectual understaning of the time.  Whether they were correct in hindsight is another matter.  Your own profession (as you admitted yourself) did not cover itself in glory when the NHS was founded and were at odds with the majority of the populace. A more well educated bunch of idiots would be hard to find (I speak historically of course)!!

And for the record, in my experience, I see more vitriol from the remain side than I do from the leave side.  I don't think that's controversial at all and it is a consequence of being faced with a situation in which you have lost the popular argument.  I am not surprised, given they way it was conducted.

However, there we are.  As someone once said with humility, resignation and a sense of loser consent  "Well the people have spoken - the bastards"!!

Bob

PS I don't think right wing politicians/newspapers have a monopoly on manipulating the media (although I grant you Tony Blair is possibly to the right of Johnson)!

 

 

 

[AB|W]

I agree with Bob above.

Other peoples opinions cannot be "wrong" or not worth considering, or bullshit or whatever, those are their opinions and are as valid as anyone else's. The facts they quote may be wrong or misinterpreted, those who disagree with you have as much right to their opinion as you do.  Nor do they deserve to be insulted or pilloried for their views,

It is a very short path to something very nasty once you start to believe that others opinions are wrong and therefore they do not count, I believe that's how the Nazi party started followed by other totalitarian states.

Voltaire wrote something along the lines of the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" if any other tenet prevails then the title of the post "Closing the Cradle of Democracy" will have some to pass.

Alan

 

  

[PaulAA]

14 minutes ago, AB|W said:

Voltaire wrote something along the lines of the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" if any other tenet prevails then the title of the post "Closing the Cradle of Democracy" will have some to pass.

 

Alan 

Alan

Voltaire smacks of the Telegraph's most hated clique, the elite.  I would therefore offer the version from Life of Brian:

" Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies"

Paul

[PeterC]

To paraphrase my comment that caused contention here:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/01/jean-claude-juncker-blocked-eu-curbs-on-tax-avoidance-cables-show

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/jean-claude-drunker/

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/about-parliament/en/powers-and-procedures/legislative-powers

Seems reasonable to me.

Peter

[JohnD]

You invoked Godwin's Law, Alan, and at eight pages that's fairly soon.    It can be argued both ways, as I'm sure that you will agree that those who voted for the Nazis were, by and large, misled.      Most on the Remain side would say that about The Referendum.    So that argument gets us nowhere.

And Voltaire never said, or wrote that, even in French.     The sentiment may be Voltairean, but the nearest that can be found in his actual work is “Think for yourselves, and allow others the privilege to do so, too”, (Traité sur la tolérance, à l'occasion de la mort de Jean Calas) which does divorce the great philosopher from the tendency for right wingers to use him in violent defence of unprogressive policies.

John

[PaulAA]

John

The confusion is undoubtedly that it comes from The Friends of Voltaire by Evelyn Hall.

Paul

[JohnD]

Who paraphrased Voltaire, instead of the translating his alleged statement, "Monsieur l’abbé, je déteste ce que vous écrivez, mais je donnerai ma vie pour que vous puissiez continuer à écrire.".   But even this isn't in the papetsy known to.be his.

John

[Chris W]

3 hours ago, JohnD said:

 Much frustration in the House comes, I believe, from the Members who are, in large, informed and knowledgable people being aware of the enormous risks to the UK of leaving the EU, moderated as far as she was able by PM May's 'deal' that was shot down entirely by the obsessives on the ERG.   Who would not be frustrated, when years of work are scotched by zealots  whose unwillingness to compromise and belief in unworldly solutions can only be described as 'obsessive'?

I'm constantly fascinated by this view that the ERG are to blame for May's deal not passing.  In none of the three votes did the ERG make a difference to the outcome.  In the final and closest vote when Johnson and Mogg both voted for the deal, there were 25 Tories who voted against.  6 of them were 'remainers' such as Grieve so that's 19 ERG.  The vote was lost by 58.

So far as I can make out, leavers who were prepared to accept May's compromise, mostly blame Labour for playing 'party politics' when May's deal was pretty close to what they said they wanted.

[AB|W]

John,

I always find polemics interesting.

I however will always believe in free speech,  the right to free thought and tolerance but then I'm not a Remain advocate.

 

Alan

[GT6MK3]

13 hours ago, AB|W said:

Nazi party

Congratulations, on winning the race to Godwin's law.  Interesting to note that DeMyer's 2nd law bobbed up shortly there after (in a post that showed that confirmation bias is alive and well).

There's a large difference between censure and censor, but it seems some are too quick to offence to notice it.  Again, straight to the feighned heigh drama of offence, classic current right wing commentary tactics, as was the last unclean hands post. 

Well played!

 

[GT6MK3]

14 hours ago, JohnD said:

I fear that Australians should be cautious in ...

I'll give you that our pollies have been better at backstabbing than governing, but that's a classic tu quoque logical fallacy John, and in no way germane to the intended discussion at hand, in which your PM was found to have illegally shut down Parliament in order to stifle debate.  

-And for those reading along who have trouble mixing up words, "germane" has nothing to do with a certain facist organisation founded by Klara's son. ;-)

 

[JohnD]

Yes, Craig, but we are, as it were, in the bar, having a bar discussion, and they veer all over the place.   And I don't know about "tu quoque" (literally, never heard of it before!) but calling pot and kettle never improves discussion.   I take your point.

And, UK Parliament having fought its way back into the Palace of Westminster, it seems to have sat schumm and done nothing, relying on the Benn Act being watertight, so that Sulk has to ask for an extension if he can't get "a deal".       I hope not wishful thinking, especially as the EU seems to have taken his proposal apart and shown that it is far from watertight, indeed, full of holes.  But we don't know!    Only a short summary has been released to the public and Parliament, and to date, de Waffle refuses to release the full document.      His defence is the same as it has always been, that to reveal one's hand in negotiation is a fool's hand.    That the cards are all on the table in front of his 'opponents', just in a locked room to which no sppectators are allowed, makes the argument ridiculous.

John

[RogerH]

A fence sitters view -

Boris's action of proroguing parliament was found to be unlawful not illegal.

And that is why the Supreme court had to get involved.

I find this thread very sad in many ways. People from both sides (and some fence sitters) tend to say loving things about the side they support and are truly hateful of the other side.

Remove your rose tinted specs and look at the facts (I'm sure there are some).

The politicians are actually worse than anything in this thread regarding hypocrisy and twisting the info in front them.

Over the weeks through September Corbyn's main chant has been that the PM was not elected. But!!!! what was he putting forward later in the month - for everybody to vote him in 'temporarily' (dream on)   Had he succeeded then he also would not have been voted in - so that is all right then.

And before you say I am biased the PM's lot are equally as stupid.  There is an answer, I know it, others know it but annoyingly those that matter do not.

They all need to grow up and act for the nation. 

Roger

 

[JohnD]

Thank you also for DeMyer's laws, of which the Second is “Anyone who posts an argument on the internet which is largely quotations can be very safely ignored, and is deemed to have lost the argument before it has begun.”

This is not good sense, unless taken to a ridiculous level.      Any argument requires evidence.    That may be data, or previous opinion.    In an academic text, the 'quotation' of opinion is by a formal  reference (Bryson, 2012) but that is inappropriate in a message board thread.      It may be by quoting the words of others, sometimes the protagonist, which is necessary and useful, unless quoted to excess     Which I suppose takes use to "Tu quoque"!

John

References

Bryson, D, 2012,  Using Research Papers: Citations, Referencing and Plagiarism, Journal of Visual Communication in Medicine, Vol 35, 2012 Issue 2, 82-84

PS Roger you got in while I was writing. Quote (!!!), "They all need to grow up and act for the nation."   Yes!   to both sides, who seem to politick more than follow your advice. 

 

Edited October 8, 2019 by JohnD

[Bob Horner]

These so called internet "laws" seem a complete load of bollocks!  They are simply short hand for shutting down a debate by automatically rubbishing your opponent by quoting a "law" that someone made up .  Isn't it trite and a bit shitty?  Quoting the laws should then of itself become a "law" as to when internet debate is cut short by some smart arse who quotes a "law".    It reminds me of the way kids make up "laws" in the playground - eg "he who smelt it dealt it"!!

Ooh dear, looks I've come over all bad boy with my use of anglo saxon type phrasing.  There should be a law that predicts at what point in a thread a middle aged Yorkshireman starts using foul language.....