As a 'right winger' (right and left aren't really satisfactory categorisations to me), I think left wingers are deeply misguided on the solutions to societies ills - often (to me) bizarrely pig-headedly so, in the face of manifold evidence. However, I don't think that being left wing is the result of a moral deficiency. That's the difference. Left wingers to a man insist that right wingers must be callous and malevolent and enjoy causing suffering. We are not - we want to achieve broadly the same rather banal and innoffensive things that most left wingers want - peace, plenty, etc., but have different beliefs about how to get them.
" Left wingers to a man insist that right wingers must be callous and malevolent and enjoy causing suffering."
LOL. You really need to get out more.
Yes, to quote the old paradox: generalisations are always wrong!
I've written very much the same comment as your last sentence in various blogs for left-wingers and others. Very few people of any persuasion are consciously malevolent - the worst I'd say is that a failure of imagination about the problems facing people in other situations is more common on the right (the "I was successful, why can't they be?" syndrome), and a failure of realism about how people actually behave is more common on the left (the "everyone wants to work together and wealth isn't that important to them" syndrome).
Is there anymore annoying phrase than "virtue signalling" - I have never heard a normal person utter it, yet read it often on here. Please, please, stop it.
It annoyies lefties? Good, I shall use it more then.
Yes I'd sssumed that that was the childish reason it was used. Thanks for confirming!
Personally I think sanctimonious does the job perfectly well.
Indeed. Quite so. Why use nerdy internet garbage-speak when we have a perfectly good word in English?
Because it doesn't mean the same thing?
Virtue Signalling: Saying you love or hate something to show off what a virtuous person you are, instead of actually trying to fix the problem. (Urban Dictionary)
Sanctimonious: Holier-than-thou: Making an exaggerated show of holiness or moral superiority. ibid.
Virtue signalling doesn't meant ANYTHING to most normal people. It exists only as a weird internet phrase.
You don't think that's a mildly ironic thing to say on a blog comment thread?
LA times poll has Trump with +2.4, and with 5.2% of the black vote.
Definite swing toward Hillary being picked up there.
Polling moving back towards Hillary. Even Fox had her -2 in NC, which she does not need...
But Trump seems to be holding up in the Swing states (And I make it Trump +5 in NC, Ohio and +3 in Nevada by Fox). This latest black rioting and Trump suggesting Stop & Search as a means of reducing crime may cost him votes in Florida, though.
Is there anymore annoying phrase than "virtue signalling" - I have never heard a normal person utter it, yet read it often on here. Please, please, stop it.
On the tube the other day, I saw an ad for the new Coltrane series on Channel 4. At the bottom it said something like, "Owned and funded by you, the public" or some such.
As a 'right winger' (right and left aren't really satisfactory categorisations to me), I think left wingers are deeply misguided on the solutions to societies ills - often (to me) bizarrely pig-headedly so, in the face of manifold evidence. However, I don't think that being left wing is the result of a moral deficiency. That's the difference. Left wingers to a man insist that right wingers must be callous and malevolent and enjoy causing suffering. We are not - we want to achieve broadly the same rather banal and innoffensive things that most left wingers want - peace, plenty, etc., but have different beliefs about how to get them.
The better-off right wing votes to preserve its assets and reduce its tax burden, with any other benefits being strictly collateral to the main aim.
And the left wing votes to pay itself more via the public purse. So far both are equal in self-interest. So the debate goes back to which solutions actually work.
There's stiff competition for the greatest political miscalculation of this century (UK division) 1. Cameron's decision to hold a referendum on Brexit. 2. A few Labour MPs decision to lend their support to Jeremy Corbyn so that a no hoper left winger could be in the leadership election.
I would suggest it is the balance between concern about misdeeds and concern about misfortune.
If someone has committed a misdemeanour, they should be punished. If someone has misfortune, let them be aided.
Of course, but the point is that some people are more concerned about one than the other. And, in the same vein, more eager to diagnose problems as being the cause of one or the other. Therein lies your political spectrum.
As a 'right winger' (right and left aren't really satisfactory categorisations to me), I think left wingers are deeply misguided on the solutions to societies ills - often (to me) bizarrely pig-headedly so, in the face of manifold evidence. However, I don't think that being left wing is the result of a moral deficiency. That's the difference. Left wingers to a man insist that right wingers must be callous and malevolent and enjoy causing suffering. We are not - we want to achieve broadly the same rather banal and innoffensive things that most left wingers want - peace, plenty, etc., but have different beliefs about how to get them.
" Left wingers to a man insist that right wingers must be callous and malevolent and enjoy causing suffering."
LOL. You really need to get out more.
a failure of imagination about the problems facing people in other situations is more common on the right (the "I was successful, why can't they be?" syndrome), and a failure of realism about how people actually behave is more common on the left (the "everyone wants to work together and wealth isn't that important to them" syndrome).
I think that's fair.
I'd agree, for example, that Thatcher had a failure of imagination of the impact of her (I'd argue, largely necessary for the 'greater good') policies on those who lost their jobs - 'get on your bike' and look for work is a lot easier said than done, and whole communities face huge challenges....
Of course to many on the left she remains evil incarnate (though Blair may have robbed her of some of that...)
Mr. Jessop, oh, aye, there are some headbanging nutcases in the blue corner.
I'd argue that the problem vis-a-vis right and left is that the right is happier to see the all the guilty condemned if that means some innocents being caught, and the left is happier to see all the innocent untroubled if that means some guilty chaps getting a free ride.
[I use guilt/innocence broadly, of course].
We see it with Corbyn, taken to a fine degree. Those who have a differing view aren't merely of a varying opinion, by virtue of not agreeing with the most left of perspectives, they're inherently wicked. Not merely wrong, but bad.
I think that's a fairy good summation. However your last paragraph also applies to the right-wing, who (as an example) are happy to lambast anyone who might try to put in a good word for immigration and/or multiculturism. Anyone doing so is mad, wrong and bad, however good their point is.
We also see it about the EU: some will hear no bad about it, and some no good. As such, the debate gets polarised by ridiculous claims where the truth often lies in the middle ground.
In some ways, Corbyn's ascendance might be a direct reaction to UKIP: as some have turned to the middle- and far-right, so some on the left have moved far to the left. As such, British politics' see-saw remains, as ever, well-balanced.
As a 'right winger' (right and left aren't really satisfactory categorisations to me), I think left wingers are deeply misguided on the solutions to societies ills - often (to me) bizarrely pig-headedly so, in the face of manifold evidence. However, I don't think that being left wing is the result of a moral deficiency. That's the difference. Left wingers to a man insist that right wingers must be callous and malevolent and enjoy causing suffering. We are not - we want to achieve broadly the same rather banal and innoffensive things that most left wingers want - peace, plenty, etc., but have different beliefs about how to get them.
I would suggest it is the balance between concern about misdeeds and concern about misfortune.
Well as far as I'm concerned, you're wrong. I'm very concerned about misfortune; very concerned about hardship. But I see left wing solutions not as actual solutions but as keeping the patient in a sort of invalid dependency where they'll always need the left for handouts. The left loves poverty.
Is there anymore annoying phrase than "virtue signalling" - I have never heard a normal person utter it, yet read it often on here. Please, please, stop it.
As a 'right winger' (right and left aren't really satisfactory categorisations to me), I think left wingers are deeply misguided on the solutions to societies ills - often (to me) bizarrely pig-headedly so, in the face of manifold evidence. However, I don't think that being left wing is the result of a moral deficiency. That's the difference. Left wingers to a man insist that right wingers must be callous and malevolent and enjoy causing suffering. We are not - we want to achieve broadly the same rather banal and innoffensive things that most left wingers want - peace, plenty, etc., but have different beliefs about how to get them.
" Left wingers to a man insist that right wingers must be callous and malevolent and enjoy causing suffering."
LOL. You really need to get out more.
Yes, to quote the old paradox: generalisations are always wrong!
I've written very much the same comment as your last sentence in various blogs for left-wingers and others. Very few people of any persuasion are consciously malevolent - the worst I'd say is that a failure of imagination about the problems facing people in other situations is more common on the right (the "I was successful, why can't they be?" syndrome), and a failure of realism about how people actually behave is more common on the left (the "everyone wants to work together and wealth isn't that important to them" syndrome).
"But there is an arrogance at the heart of our politics that is going to make it difficult to really understand why we lost. It is an arrogance that says that we alone own morality and that we alone want the best for people. It says that our instincts and our motives alone are pure. It’s an arrogance that belittles others’ fears and concerns as “isms” whilst raising ours as righteous. We then mistakenly define ourselves as being distinctive from our opponents because we are morally superior rather than because we have different diagnoses and solutions. It is lazy, wrong and politically dangerous.
If you think that I am being harsh, just think about what we say about our opponents. We assume that they are all in it for themselves, that they are indifferent to the suffering of others. In fact, that they are quite happy to induce more suffering if it suits their malign ends. What we don’t think is that they may want the same things as us, but just have a different approach. Instead, we cast high-minded aspersions on their morality and humanity."
On the tube the other day, I saw an ad for the new Coltrane series on Channel 4. At the bottom it said something like, "Owned and funded by you, the public" or some such.
Mr. Bob, sanctimonious is quite a nice word, must be said.
Mr. Jessop, I feel that's an unfair view. Church abuse tends to be white on white. The Rotherham abuse (incidentally, a third of victims were boys) was almost exclusively Pakistani men on whites, some of whom were taunted as 'kaffirs'. The racial aspect only applies in one instance.
When a Polish man was recently murdered there was an outcry about racism, before it emerged the gang that apparently did it is of mixed race. The outcry over Rotherham took decades of ignored pleas for help. The former was mistaken, it seems, the latter was not.
"as almost exclusively Pakistani men on whites,"
It's been a while since I read it, but I thought the Rotherham report said it was nowhere near as simple as that?
I don't particularly see the colour of the perpetrator and victim as being that important: the abuse is the important thing. There was no way I would have told my friend that the abuse he suffered at the hands of a priest that it was somehow 'better' because the priest was white.
People will always abuse, and sadly there will always be abuse. As such, the important thing is to have an environment where the abused can come forward in safety as early as possible, and that the accused can get a fair hearing. The cover-ups that occur are an evil that allows further abuse to occur, and IMO should be taken as seriously as the abuse itself.
In the case of church abuse, the abusers were aided by the action of the church authorities. In the case of Rotherham et al, the abusers were aided by the actions (or inactions) of police and social services.
As an aside, the churches have escaped relatively unscathed from this. The historic reaction to abuse is to my mind one of the best reasons *not* to have faith schools.
As for your second paragraph; it makes the mistake that racism can only be done by whites on minorities. This is one area where the hard left can be criticised IMO: it ignores the reality that a heck of a lot of racism occurs between minorities.
There's stiff competition for the greatest political miscalculation of this century (UK division) 1. Cameron's decision to hold a referendum on Brexit. 2. A few Labour MPs decision to lend their support to Jeremy Corbyn so that a no hoper left winger could be in the leadership election.
When people pick the option they weren't supposed to go for, is that a failure of democracy or a triumph?
Is there anymore annoying phrase than "virtue signalling" - I have never heard a normal person utter it, yet read it often on here. Please, please, stop it.
LA times poll has Trump with +2.4, and with 5.2% of the black vote.
Definite swing toward Hillary being picked up there.
Polling moving back towards Hillary. Even Fox had her -2 in NC, which she does not need...
But Trump seems to be holding up in the Swing states (And I make it Trump +5 in NC, Ohio and +3 in Nevada by Fox). This latest black rioting and Trump suggesting Stop & Search as a means of reducing crime may cost him votes in Florida, though.
Means the opposite: he is polling badly in part because most people ( WSJ yesterday had it at 69%) had concern's about his comments about immigrants, and around 55% thinks he is a racist. His 'nationwide stop and search on all minorities pitch' won't help. Any of his comments on the rioting in his usual style won't help.
There's stiff competition for the greatest political miscalculation of this century (UK division) 1. Cameron's decision to hold a referendum on Brexit. 2. A few Labour MPs decision to lend their support to Jeremy Corbyn so that a no hoper left winger could be in the leadership election.
When people pick the option they weren't supposed to go for, is that a failure of democracy or a triumph?
So, you think that Cameron calculated that he would lose the referendum and his job?
LA times poll has Trump with +2.4, and with 5.2% of the black vote.
Definite swing toward Hillary being picked up there.
Polling moving back towards Hillary. Even Fox had her -2 in NC, which she does not need...
But Trump seems to be holding up in the Swing states (And I make it Trump +5 in NC, Ohio and +3 in Nevada by Fox). This latest black rioting and Trump suggesting Stop & Search as a means of reducing crime may cost him votes in Florida, though.
Means the opposite: he is polling badly in part because most people ( WSJ yesterday had it at 69%) had concern's about his comments about immigrants, and around 55% thinks he is a racist. His 'nationwide stop and search on all minorities pitch' won't help. Any of his comments on the rioting in his usual style won't help.
Sorry, I re-read that: I agree, it will hurt him in Floria I think!
Sorry if already posted, but this is very well put by David Miliband in the New Statesman:
There is one other element that is not only undesirable, but disastrous. It is the critique that everyone who disagrees with Jeremy Corbyn is in fact a closet Tory – or “Tory lite”. The US Republicans have a similar problem, with anyone to the left of the hard right called “Rino”, meaning “Republican In Name Only”.
The “Tory lite” allegation starts with a fact: government involves compromise. It then fashions an explanation: that the compromise is based on bad motives. It then develops a theory: that the trajectory of our country has been unchanged by Labour government since the Thatcher years. It then creates a new version of history: there is no difference between Labour and Tory governments. This is the sectarianism that leads to the dead end of permanent opposition.
Hillary Clinton's campaign is telling reporters it is concerned debate moderators will go easy on GOP nominee Donald Trump, and her team is crafting a narrative portraying the Democratic nominee as fighting an uphill battle against media.
Hillary Clinton's campaign is telling reporters it is concerned debate moderators will go easy on GOP nominee Donald Trump, and her team is crafting a narrative portraying the Democratic nominee as fighting an uphill battle against media.
Mr. Jessop, a few points. The lack of investigation (and the threatening into silence of at least one woman who was going to do one but who had a knock at the door and threat of her address being given to rape gangs if she did anything) was due to 'cultural sensitivities'.
The white working class, or underclass, is the most easily ignored section of society. Poor white boys do worst in education, and people don't care. The focus is on women/girls and minorities.
The white girls who complained [victims were also male but not heard of any cases they went to the police] were often ignored, sometimes taken back to their abusers and, in at least one case, had the copious evidence they presented lost by the police.
The racial angle, from both sides, and a fear of being seen to be persecuting a minority by enforcing the law [incidentally, something which also led police chiefs in London to be utterly pathetic in their response to the first couple of days of the 2011 looting] was why nothing happened for so long.
Sorry if already posted, but this is very well put by David Miliband in the New Statesman:
There is one other element that is not only undesirable, but disastrous. It is the critique that everyone who disagrees with Jeremy Corbyn is in fact a closet Tory – or “Tory lite”. The US Republicans have a similar problem, with anyone to the left of the hard right called “Rino”, meaning “Republican In Name Only”.
The “Tory lite” allegation starts with a fact: government involves compromise. It then fashions an explanation: that the compromise is based on bad motives. It then develops a theory: that the trajectory of our country has been unchanged by Labour government since the Thatcher years. It then creates a new version of history: there is no difference between Labour and Tory governments. This is the sectarianism that leads to the dead end of permanent opposition.
Sorry if already posted, but this is very well put by David Miliband in the New Statesman:
There is one other element that is not only undesirable, but disastrous. It is the critique that everyone who disagrees with Jeremy Corbyn is in fact a closet Tory – or “Tory lite”. The US Republicans have a similar problem, with anyone to the left of the hard right called “Rino”, meaning “Republican In Name Only”.
The “Tory lite” allegation starts with a fact: government involves compromise. It then fashions an explanation: that the compromise is based on bad motives. It then develops a theory: that the trajectory of our country has been unchanged by Labour government since the Thatcher years. It then creates a new version of history: there is no difference between Labour and Tory governments. This is the sectarianism that leads to the dead end of permanent opposition.
Hillary Clinton's campaign is telling reporters it is concerned debate moderators will go easy on GOP nominee Donald Trump, and her team is crafting a narrative portraying the Democratic nominee as fighting an uphill battle against media.
Hillary Clinton's campaign is telling reporters it is concerned debate moderators will go easy on GOP nominee Donald Trump, and her team is crafting a narrative portraying the Democratic nominee as fighting an uphill battle against media.
Sorry if already posted, but this is very well put by David Miliband in the New Statesman:
There is one other element that is not only undesirable, but disastrous. It is the critique that everyone who disagrees with Jeremy Corbyn is in fact a closet Tory – or “Tory lite”. The US Republicans have a similar problem, with anyone to the left of the hard right called “Rino”, meaning “Republican In Name Only”.
The “Tory lite” allegation starts with a fact: government involves compromise. It then fashions an explanation: that the compromise is based on bad motives. It then develops a theory: that the trajectory of our country has been unchanged by Labour government since the Thatcher years. It then creates a new version of history: there is no difference between Labour and Tory governments. This is the sectarianism that leads to the dead end of permanent opposition.
PS is anyone else finding Google's newish AMP snippets on mobile search results highly obnoxious?
Echoes of Neil Kinnock's Militant speech?
I thought the same. Perhaps he could have cited the 'grotesque chaos' of the Brown administration to convince people that it does make a difference which party is in power.
Hillary Clinton's campaign is telling reporters it is concerned debate moderators will go easy on GOP nominee Donald Trump, and her team is crafting a narrative portraying the Democratic nominee as fighting an uphill battle against media.
@jessicaelgot: Inside Channel4: "But what does Bake Off mean now?" "Bake Off means Bake Off." "But what will Bake Off look like?" "Bake Off means Bake Off"
Hillary Clinton's campaign is telling reporters it is concerned debate moderators will go easy on GOP nominee Donald Trump, and her team is crafting a narrative portraying the Democratic nominee as fighting an uphill battle against media.
The Rotherham report stated that the victims (predominantly white girls) were ignored because of their class and because of the fear of being thought racist. Both were in play.
I agree that all races are racist. Only the hard left refuse to believe the obvious. Incidentally, the policeman who shot black victim in Charlotte was also black. Is that racism or police brutality? Or just an excuse for a good 'ol riot?
Westminster Abbey George III was crowned #OTD 1761. The procession and ceremony were so long that he was not crowned until 3.30pm. https://t.co/sco7ywiwXS
Does anyone know if the candidates have been asked the question, why do you want to be president?
Simple question that can flummox even a seasoned campaigner. With Trump the answer is simple, "Make America Great Again!", not sure what Clinton's answer would be, other than to not let Trump win.
Hillary Clinton's campaign is telling reporters it is concerned debate moderators will go easy on GOP nominee Donald Trump, and her team is crafting a narrative portraying the Democratic nominee as fighting an uphill battle against media.
Just the opposite. Given the almost universal condemnation of Matt Lauer's failure to challenge Trump last time, it will certainly convince a great many. No doubt one of Hillary's motivations here is to encourage the moderators to rein in her opponent. It's not just expectation management.
Mr. Jessop, a few points. The lack of investigation (and the threatening into silence of at least one woman who was going to do one but who had a knock at the door and threat of her address being given to rape gangs if she did anything) was due to 'cultural sensitivities'.
The white working class, or underclass, is the most easily ignored section of society. Poor white boys do worst in education, and people don't care. The focus is on women/girls and minorities.
The white girls who complained [victims were also male but not heard of any cases they went to the police] were often ignored, sometimes taken back to their abusers and, in at least one case, had the copious evidence they presented lost by the police.
The racial angle, from both sides, and a fear of being seen to be persecuting a minority by enforcing the law [incidentally, something which also led police chiefs in London to be utterly pathetic in their response to the first couple of days of the 2011 looting] was why nothing happened for so long.
The same roughly applies to abuse by churches. Just replace 'racial' with 'religious'. I fail to see why one is more egregious than the other. I would suggest you read up on the scale of the abuse within churches and what happened, both historic and recent, and perhaps even talk to a victim or two.
Agree about white working class boys requiring more help; annoyingly the recent grammar school 'policy' would do nothing for them.
Does anyone know if the candidates have been asked the question, why do you want to be president?
Simple question that can flummox even a seasoned campaigner. With Trump the answer is simple, "Make America Great Again!", not sure what Clinton's answer would be, other than to not let Trump win.
Clinton has spent years in public service. She wants to help America and it's people, and can point at her record of doing so rather than use an empty slogan
"Terrible things happened in Rotherham and on a significant scale. Children were sexually exploited by men who came largely from the Pakistani Heritage Community. Not enough was done to acknowledge this, to stop it happening, to protect children, to support victims and to apprehend perpetrators.
Upon arriving in Rotherham, these I thought were the uncontested facts. My job was to conduct an inspection and decide whether the Council was now fit for purpose.
However this was not the situation I encountered when I reached Rotherham. Instead, I found a Council in denial. They denied that there had been a problem, or if there had been, that it was as big as was said. If there was a problem they certainly were not told – it was someone else’s job. They were no worse than anyone else. They had won awards. The media were out to get them."
the second sentence is the crux, one that Rotherham council had no intention of facing. They didn't bring in the whataboutery unless you include the "They were no worse than anyone else." excuse.
There's stiff competition for the greatest political miscalculation of this century (UK division) 1. Cameron's decision to hold a referendum on Brexit. 2. A few Labour MPs decision to lend their support to Jeremy Corbyn so that a no hoper left winger could be in the leadership election.
1. Leads to the demise of his political career. 2. Leads to the demise of a party. This is a bigger miscalculation, because Brexit is good.
Does anyone know if the candidates have been asked the question, why do you want to be president?
Simple question that can flummox even a seasoned campaigner. With Trump the answer is simple, "Make America Great Again!", not sure what Clinton's answer would be, other than to not let Trump win.
She'd probably reprise her tearful 'I just don't want to see us fall backwards' from the campaign against Obama.
"Terrible things happened in Rotherham and on a significant scale. Children were sexually exploited by men who came largely from the Pakistani Heritage Community. Not enough was done to acknowledge this, to stop it happening, to protect children, to support victims and to apprehend perpetrators.
Upon arriving in Rotherham, these I thought were the uncontested facts. My job was to conduct an inspection and decide whether the Council was now fit for purpose.
However this was not the situation I encountered when I reached Rotherham. Instead, I found a Council in denial. They denied that there had been a problem, or if there had been, that it was as big as was said. If there was a problem they certainly were not told – it was someone else’s job. They were no worse than anyone else. They had won awards. The media were out to get them."
the second sentence is the crux, one that Rotherham council had no intention of facing. They didn't bring in the whataboutery unless you include the "They were no worse than anyone else." excuse.
@DVATW: Theresa May is trusted more than Jeremy Corbyn to look after the NHS in new poll. Labour have become irrelevant. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3…
Is there anymore annoying phrase than "virtue signalling" - I have never heard a normal person utter it, yet read it often on here. Please, please, stop it.
It annoyies lefties? Good, I shall use it more then.
Yes I'd sssumed that that was the childish reason it was used. Thanks for confirming!
Personally I think sanctimonious does the job perfectly well.
Indeed. Quite so. Why use nerdy internet garbage-speak when we have a perfectly good word in English?
Because it doesn't mean the same thing?
Virtue Signalling: Saying you love or hate something to show off what a virtuous person you are, instead of actually trying to fix the problem. (Urban Dictionary)
Sanctimonious: Holier-than-thou: Making an exaggerated show of holiness or moral superiority. ibid.
Virtue signalling doesn't meant ANYTHING to most normal people. It exists only as a weird internet phrase.
Voting REMAIN in the referendum was the ultimate virtue signalling in this virtue signalling world of ours!
"Just replace 'racial' with 'religious'. I fail to see why one is more egregious than the other."
Hopefully, the Church have learned their lesson. No one says it's all right because "just look at Rotherham Council, they were just as bad." My point is that whataboutery is an attempt to deflect blame.
Do you believe that the hard left councils have learned their lessons? Do you believe that they have even admitted their faults? That's the essential starting point.
Does anyone know if the candidates have been asked the question, why do you want to be president?
Simple question that can flummox even a seasoned campaigner. With Trump the answer is simple, "Make America Great Again!", not sure what Clinton's answer would be, other than to not let Trump win.
Clinton has spent years in public service. She wants to help America and it's people, and can point at her record of doing so rather than use an empty slogan
Clinton's ALREADY spent 8 years* in the White House! Let's give somebody else a chance!
Also plays into trying to close down 'wrong speech' and having such stupid finickity terms that Benedict Cumberbatch, not renowned for being a raging right winger, apologised profusely after saying 'coloured person' rather than 'person of colour'.
Mr. Jessop, jein. An issue with immigration/multi-culturalism is that sensitivity over it has led in the recent past to multiple claims [eventually proven correct] of sexual molestation of children simply not being investigated, and those against large scale migration being attacked as racist. So, right wingers being strident over such things have an understandable reaction to that. (Snip)
Left-wingers reaction to things are equally understandable, e.g. to racism and homophobia.
Some of the reaction to the awful cases in Rotherham, Oxford et al has been racist, especially when people extend what happened to broad groups. Not all of it, of course, but there has been a heavy undercurrent of racism. Oddly, we do not see such reactions when it is the churches, or white people performing abuses. Or even when it is Muslim girls being abused - it is only the white girls that matter (tm).
I could be wrong, but as far as I can tell, the Roman Catholic Church has received a huge amount of criticism over child abuse.
What took place in Rotherham seems to me to be one of the worst scandals in local government/child protection that I can recall.
As a 'right winger' (right and left aren't really satisfactory categorisations to me), I think left wingers are deeply misguided on the solutions to societies ills - often (to me) bizarrely pig-headedly so, in the face of manifold evidence. However, I don't think that being left wing is the result of a moral deficiency. That's the difference. Left wingers to a man insist that right wingers must be callous and malevolent and enjoy causing suffering. We are not - we want to achieve broadly the same rather banal and innoffensive things that most left wingers want - peace, plenty, etc., but have different beliefs about how to get them.
" Left wingers to a man insist that right wingers must be callous and malevolent and enjoy causing suffering."
LOL. You really need to get out more.
a failure of imagination about the problems facing people in other situations is more common on the right (the "I was successful, why can't they be?" syndrome), and a failure of realism about how people actually behave is more common on the left (the "everyone wants to work together and wealth isn't that important to them" syndrome).
I think that's fair.
I'd agree, for example, that Thatcher had a failure of imagination of the impact of her (I'd argue, largely necessary for the 'greater good') policies on those who lost their jobs - 'get on your bike' and look for work is a lot easier said than done, and whole communities face huge challenges....
Of course to many on the left she remains evil incarnate (though Blair may have robbed her of some of that...)
Morning. Isn't it amazing that the most hated person in Britain by the modern Labour Party, is the man who led them to three election victories and was prime ministerless than a decade ago.
Is there anymore annoying phrase than "virtue signalling" - I have never heard a normal person utter it, yet read it often on here. Please, please, stop it.
It annoyies lefties? Good, I shall use it more then.
Yes I'd sssumed that that was the childish reason it was used. Thanks for confirming!
Personally I think sanctimonious does the job perfectly well.
Indeed. Quite so. Why use nerdy internet garbage-speak when we have a perfectly good word in English?
Because it doesn't mean the same thing?
Virtue Signalling: Saying you love or hate something to show off what a virtuous person you are, instead of actually trying to fix the problem. (Urban Dictionary)
Sanctimonious: Holier-than-thou: Making an exaggerated show of holiness or moral superiority. ibid.
Virtue signalling doesn't meant ANYTHING to most normal people. It exists only as a weird internet phrase.
Voting REMAIN in the referendum was the ultimate virtue signalling in this virtue signalling world of ours!
Sometimes it's not Virtue Signalling, it's just virtuous ;-)
As a 'right winger' (right and left aren't really satisfactory categorisations to me), I think left wingers are deeply misguided on the solutions to societies ills - often (to me) bizarrely pig-headedly so, in the face of manifold evidence. However, I don't think that being left wing is the result of a moral deficiency. That's the difference. Left wingers to a man insist that right wingers must be callous and malevolent and enjoy causing suffering. We are not - we want to achieve broadly the same rather banal and innoffensive things that most left wingers want - peace, plenty, etc., but have different beliefs about how to get them.
" Left wingers to a man insist that right wingers must be callous and malevolent and enjoy causing suffering."
LOL. You really need to get out more.
a failure of imagination about the problems facing people in other situations is more common on the right (the "I was successful, why can't they be?" syndrome), and a failure of realism about how people actually behave is more common on the left (the "everyone wants to work together and wealth isn't that important to them" syndrome).
I think that's fair.
I'd agree, for example, that Thatcher had a failure of imagination of the impact of her (I'd argue, largely necessary for the 'greater good') policies on those who lost their jobs - 'get on your bike' and look for work is a lot easier said than done, and whole communities face huge challenges....
Of course to many on the left she remains evil incarnate (though Blair may have robbed her of some of that...)
Morning. Isn't it amazing that the most hated person in Britain by the modern Labour Party, is the man who led them to three election victories and was prime ministerless than a decade ago.
As a 'right winger' (right and left aren't really satisfactory categorisations to me), I think left wingers are deeply misguided on the solutions to societies ills - often (to me) bizarrely pig-headedly so, in the face of manifold evidence. However, I don't think that being left wing is the result of a moral deficiency. That's the difference. Left wingers to a man insist that right wingers must be callous and malevolent and enjoy causing suffering. We are not - we want to achieve broadly the same rather banal and innoffensive things that most left wingers want - peace, plenty, etc., but have different beliefs about how to get them.
" Left wingers to a man insist that right wingers must be callous and malevolent and enjoy causing suffering."
LOL. You really need to get out more.
Yes, to quote the old paradox: generalisations are always wrong!
((I've written very much the same comment as your last sentence in various blogs for left-wingers and others.)) Very few people of any persuasion are consciously malevolent - the worst I'd say is that a failure of imagination about the problems facing people in other situations is more common on the right (the "I was successful, why can't they be?" syndrome), and a failure of realism about how people actually behave is more common on the left (the "everyone wants to work together and wealth isn't that important to them" syndrome).
The fact that you have to write the bracketed however, surely speaks volumes.
Is there anymore annoying phrase than "virtue signalling" - I have never heard a normal person utter it, yet read it often on here. Please, please, stop it.
It annoyies lefties? Good, I shall use it more then.
Yes I'd sssumed that that was the childish reason it was used. Thanks for confirming!
Personally I think sanctimonious does the job perfectly well.
Indeed. Quite so. Why use nerdy internet garbage-speak when we have a perfectly good word in English?
Because it doesn't mean the same thing?
Virtue Signalling: Saying you love or hate something to show off what a virtuous person you are, instead of actually trying to fix the problem. (Urban Dictionary)
Sanctimonious: Holier-than-thou: Making an exaggerated show of holiness or moral superiority. ibid.
Virtue signalling doesn't meant ANYTHING to most normal people. It exists only as a weird internet phrase.
Voting REMAIN in the referendum was the ultimate virtue signalling in this virtue signalling world of ours!
Sometimes it's not Virtue Signalling, it's just virtuous ;-)
Note: the subject logical_song continues to indulge in his virtue signalling!
"Speaking on a visit to Portugal, Benedict XVI said that “sins inside the Church” must be blamed, rather than “outside enemies”. He added that “forgiveness is no substitute for justice” and that the Church had to “relearn prayer and penance”.
As head of the Church, he admitted blame, and Pope Francis has said it more strongly.
Who in the left of the Labour has ever admitted blame for Rotherham at al?
Apologies if I appear to be blaming you at all. I'm not. You are a reasonable person and I know we agree on virtually all of this.
Also plays into trying to close down 'wrong speech' and having such stupid finickity terms that Benedict Cumberbatch, not renowned for being a raging right winger, apologised profusely after saying 'coloured person' rather than 'person of colour'.
Mr. Jessop, jein. An issue with immigration/multi-culturalism is that sensitivity over it has led in the recent past to multiple claims [eventually proven correct] of sexual molestation of children simply not being investigated, and those against large scale migration being attacked as racist. So, right wingers being strident over such things have an understandable reaction to that. (Snip)
Left-wingers reaction to things are equally understandable, e.g. to racism and homophobia.
Some of the reaction to the awful cases in Rotherham, Oxford et al has been racist, especially when people extend what happened to broad groups. Not all of it, of course, but there has been a heavy undercurrent of racism. Oddly, we do not see such reactions when it is the churches, or white people performing abuses. Or even when it is Muslim girls being abused - it is only the white girls that matter (tm).
I could be wrong, but as far as I can tell, the Roman Catholic Church has received a huge amount of criticism over child abuse.
What took place in Rotherham seems to me to be one of the worst scandals in local government/child protection that I can recall.
Criticism yes, but it still continues merrily on its way, as does the CofE, which also had problems (although admittedly on a smaller scale). And it seems to be widely ignored even as the victims continue to suffer.
As for your last paragraph: an ex-colleague of mine was caught up (in a minor way) in the Orkney scandal. It's hard to equate scales of such injustices, but Orkney was organisationally worse as it was actively caused by malice within the authorities.
There's stiff competition for the greatest political miscalculation of this century (UK division) 1. Cameron's decision to hold a referendum on Brexit. 2. A few Labour MPs decision to lend their support to Jeremy Corbyn so that a no hoper left winger could be in the leadership election.
1. Leads to the demise of his political career. 2. Leads to the demise of a party. This is a bigger miscalculation, because Brexit is good.
Unless of course Brexit turns out to be bad, we'll have to wait until it happens. In that case the demise of a country is of course far worse than the demise of a party.
However that wasn't the question, imagine that you are David Cameron about to decide on whether to hold a referendum, now imagine that you're Margaret Beckett wondering whether to nominate Jeremy Corbyn for the Labour Leadership. Which is the biggest miscalculation from Cameron or Beckett's perspective? Both are huge miscalculations.
Matthew Goodwin Presidential debates approaching. Do they make a difference? This from @LarrySabato brilliant e-mail bulletin https://t.co/hI1RbIODfX
From that table, it's notable that the typical magnitude of shift is easily enough either to switch the battleground states into a clear Trump victory, or if it goes in the other direction, to a Clinton landslide.
Also plays into trying to close down 'wrong speech' and having such stupid finickity terms that Benedict Cumberbatch, not renowned for being a raging right winger, apologised profusely after saying 'coloured person' rather than 'person of colour'.
Mr. Jessop, jein. An issue with immigration/multi-culturalism is that sensitivity over it has led in the recent past to multiple claims [eventually proven correct] of sexual molestation of children simply not being investigated, and those against large scale migration being attacked as racist. So, right wingers being strident over such things have an understandable reaction to that. (Snip)
Left-wingers reaction to things are equally understandable, e.g. to racism and homophobia.
Some of the reaction to the awful cases in Rotherham, Oxford et al has been racist, especially when people extend what happened to broad groups. Not all of it, of course, but there has been a heavy undercurrent of racism. Oddly, we do not see such reactions when it is the churches, or white people performing abuses. Or even when it is Muslim girls being abused - it is only the white girls that matter (tm).
I could be wrong, but as far as I can tell, the Roman Catholic Church has received a huge amount of criticism over child abuse.
What took place in Rotherham seems to me to be one of the worst scandals in local government/child protection that I can recall.
Absolutely. The situation was totally hushed up/underreported for years - only peoeple like the BNP would touch it. Set against that, Catholic (any Christian actually) abuses have been splashed across the media, and widely, not to say gleefully, reported and dramatised/fictionalised in books, television, film etc. JJ's description is a rather shocking inversion of the truth.
"Pope Francis has revealed that around one in every 50 Catholic priests is a paedophile. Condemning the issue as a ‘leprosy’ which infects the Church, the Pontiff was yesterday reported as claiming that even bishops and cardinals are among the ‘2 per cent’ carrying out child abuse.
He also said that many more in the Church are guilty of covering it up, adding: ‘This state of affairs is intolerable.’
A reasonable Mea Culpa and at least a beginning. Rotherham ... compare and contrast.
As a 'right winger' (right and left aren't really satisfactory categorisations to me), I think left wingers are deeply misguided on the solutions to societies ills - often (to me) bizarrely pig-headedly so, in the face of manifold evidence. However, I don't think that being left wing is the result of a moral deficiency. That's the difference. Left wingers to a man insist that right wingers must be callous and malevolent and enjoy causing suffering. We are not - we want to achieve broadly the same rather banal and innoffensive things that most left wingers want - peace, plenty, etc., but have different beliefs about how to get them.
" Left wingers to a man insist that right wingers must be callous and malevolent and enjoy causing suffering."
LOL. You really need to get out more.
a failure of imagination about the problems facing people in other situations is more common on the right (the "I was successful, why can't they be?" syndrome), and a failure of realism about how people actually behave is more common on the left (the "everyone wants to work together and wealth isn't that important to them" syndrome).
I think that's fair.
I'd agree, for example, that Thatcher had a failure of imagination of the impact of her (I'd argue, largely necessary for the 'greater good') policies on those who lost their jobs - 'get on your bike' and look for work is a lot easier said than done, and whole communities face huge challenges....
Of course to many on the left she remains evil incarnate (though Blair may have robbed her of some of that...)
Morning. Isn't it amazing that the most hated person in Britain by the modern Labour Party, is the man who led them to three election victories and was prime ministerless than a decade ago.
I'm not surprised that Labour people now bitterly regret their Faustian bargain. But they must their dues.
Is there anymore annoying phrase than "virtue signalling" - I have never heard a normal person utter it, yet read it often on here. Please, please, stop it.
It annoyies lefties? Good, I shall use it more then.
Yes I'd sssumed that that was the childish reason it was used. Thanks for confirming!
Personally I think sanctimonious does the job perfectly well.
Indeed. Quite so. Why use nerdy internet garbage-speak when we have a perfectly good word in English?
Because it doesn't mean the same thing?
Virtue Signalling: Saying you love or hate something to show off what a virtuous person you are, instead of actually trying to fix the problem. (Urban Dictionary)
Sanctimonious: Holier-than-thou: Making an exaggerated show of holiness or moral superiority. ibid.
Virtue signalling doesn't meant ANYTHING to most normal people. It exists only as a weird internet phrase.
Voting REMAIN in the referendum was the ultimate virtue signalling in this virtue signalling world of ours!
Sometimes it's not Virtue Signalling, it's just virtuous ;-)
Note: the subject logical_song continues to indulge in his virtue signalling!
Also plays into trying to close down 'wrong speech' and having such stupid finickity terms that Benedict Cumberbatch, not renowned for being a raging right winger, apologised profusely after saying 'coloured person' rather than 'person of colour'.
Mr. Jessop, jein. An issue with immigration/multi-culturalism is that sensitivity over it has led in the recent past to multiple claims [eventually proven correct] of sexual molestation of children simply not being investigated, and those against large scale migration being attacked as racist. So, right wingers being strident over such things have an understandable reaction to that. (Snip)
Left-wingers reaction to things are equally understandable, e.g. to racism and homophobia.
Some of the reaction to the awful cases in Rotherham, Oxford et al has been racist, especially when people extend what happened to broad groups. Not all of it, of course, but there has been a heavy undercurrent of racism. Oddly, we do not see such reactions when it is the churches, or white people performing abuses. Or even when it is Muslim girls being abused - it is only the white girls that matter (tm).
I could be wrong, but as far as I can tell, the Roman Catholic Church has received a huge amount of criticism over child abuse.
What took place in Rotherham seems to me to be one of the worst scandals in local government/child protection that I can recall.
Absolutely. The situation was totally hushed up/underreported for years - only peoeple like the BNP would touch it. Set against that, Catholic (any Christian actually) abuses have been splashed across the media, and widely, not to say gleefully, reported and dramatised/fictionalised in books, television, film etc. JJ's description is a rather shocking inversion of the truth.
Some people are doubtless motivated by hatred of Catholics to criticise the Church over child abuse, rather than any real concern for the victims. It doesn't alter the fact that there's much to criticise.
Is there anymore annoying phrase than "virtue signalling" - I have never heard a normal person utter it, yet read it often on here. Please, please, stop it.
"Speaking on a visit to Portugal, Benedict XVI said that “sins inside the Church” must be blamed, rather than “outside enemies”. He added that “forgiveness is no substitute for justice” and that the Church had to “relearn prayer and penance”.
As head of the Church, he admitted blame, and Pope Francis has said it more strongly.
Who in the left of the Labour has ever admitted blame for Rotherham at al?
Apologies if I appear to be blaming you at all. I'm not. You are a reasonable person and I know we agree on virtually all of this.
Don't worry, I'm not finding the conversation disagreeable (though the topic naturally is).
I'm not sure it's a 'Labour' thing: it occurred in Oxfordshire, where child services were/are a Conservative area of concern (ISTR the local area was Labour, but the Childrens' services were Toy). I think it's more he fact that it happens more in poor areas which tend to be more Labour. The problem, I think, is culture within social services. Those in 'richer' Conservative areas just have less of the problems to deal with.
For context: as regular readers will know, a dear friend of ours committed suicide a couple of years ago, decades after being abused at a church school (not in the UK). Abuse by priests is therefore somewhat personal, perhaps too much so.
Also plays into trying to close down 'wrong speech' and having such stupid finickity terms that Benedict Cumberbatch, not renowned for being a raging right winger, apologised profusely after saying 'coloured person' rather than 'person of colour'.
Mr. Jessop, jein. An issue with immigration/multi-culturalism is that sensitivity over it has led in the recent past to multiple claims [eventually proven correct] of sexual molestation of children simply not being investigated, and those against large scale migration being attacked as racist. So, right wingers being strident over such things have an understandable reaction to that. (Snip)
Left-wingers reaction to things are equally understandable, e.g. to racism and homophobia.
Some of the reaction to the awful cases in Rotherham, Oxford et al has been racist, especially when people extend what happened to broad groups. Not all of it, of course, but there has been a heavy undercurrent of racism. Oddly, we do not see such reactions when it is the churches, or white people performing abuses. Or even when it is Muslim girls being abused - it is only the white girls that matter (tm).
I could be wrong, but as far as I can tell, the Roman Catholic Church has received a huge amount of criticism over child abuse.
What took place in Rotherham seems to me to be one of the worst scandals in local government/child protection that I can recall.
Absolutely. The situation was totally hushed up/underreported for years - only peoeple like the BNP would touch it. Set against that, Catholic (any Christian actually) abuses have been splashed across the media, and widely, not to say gleefully, reported and dramatised/fictionalised in books, television, film etc. JJ's description is a rather shocking inversion of the truth.
Some people are doubtless motivated by hatred of Catholics to criticise the Church over child abuse, rather than any real concern for the victims. It doesn't alter the fact that there's much to criticise.
Also plays into trying to close down 'wrong speech' and having such stupid finickity terms that Benedict Cumberbatch, not renowned for being a raging right winger, apologised profusely after saying 'coloured person' rather than 'person of colour'.
Mr. Jessop, jein. An issue with immigration/multi-culturalism is that sensitivity over it has led in the recent past to multiple claims [eventually proven correct] of sexual molestation of children simply not being investigated, and those against large scale migration being attacked as racist. So, right wingers being strident over such things have an understandable reaction to that. (Snip)
Left-wingers reaction to things are equally understandable, e.g. to racism and homophobia.
Some of the reaction to the awful cases in Rotherham, Oxford et al has been racist, especially when people extend what happened to broad groups. Not all of it, of course, but there has been a heavy undercurrent of racism. Oddly, we do not see such reactions when it is the churches, or white people performing abuses. Or even when it is Muslim girls being abused - it is only the white girls that matter (tm).
I could be wrong, but as far as I can tell, the Roman Catholic Church has received a huge amount of criticism over child abuse.
What took place in Rotherham seems to me to be one of the worst scandals in local government/child protection that I can recall.
Absolutely. The situation was totally hushed up/underreported for years - only peoeple like the BNP would touch it. Set against that, Catholic (any Christian actually) abuses have been splashed across the media, and widely, not to say gleefully, reported and dramatised/fictionalised in books, television, film etc. JJ's description is a rather shocking inversion of the truth.
Some people are doubtless motivated by hatred of Catholics to criticise the Church over child abuse, rather than any real concern for the victims. It doesn't alter the fact that there's much to criticise.
That construction could of course be applied to Rotherham.
Also plays into trying to close down 'wrong speech' and having such stupid finickity terms that Benedict Cumberbatch, not renowned for being a raging right winger, apologised profusely after saying 'coloured person' rather than 'person of colour'.
Mr. Jessop, jein. An issue with immigration/multi-culturalism is that sensitivity over it has led in the recent past to multiple claims [eventually proven correct] of sexual molestation of children simply not being investigated, and those against large scale migration being attacked as racist. So, right wingers being strident over such things have an understandable reaction to that. (Snip)
Left-wingers reaction to things are equally understandable, e.g. to racism and homophobia.
Some of the reaction to the awful cases in Rotherham, Oxford et al has been racist, especially when people extend what happened to broad groups. Not all of it, of course, but there has been a heavy undercurrent of racism. Oddly, we do not see such reactions when it is the churches, or white people performing abuses. Or even when it is Muslim girls being abused - it is only the white girls that matter (tm).
I could be wrong, but as far as I can tell, the Roman Catholic Church has received a huge amount of criticism over child abuse.
What took place in Rotherham seems to me to be one of the worst scandals in local government/child protection that I can recall.
Yes the Catholic Church has had a lot of well deserved critisim, and has worked hard to get on top of the issue under the new Pope, the previous incumbent choosing to retire early as the scale of what had occurred dawned on him.
Unfortunately I don't see the same level of responsibility taken by those who actively covered up these things for decades in some cases. Where are the prosecutions of police and social service directors for aiding and abetting the abuse in Rotherham and other places?
Wooozers....Although, he got axed from the show due to serious accusations before which I believe got dropped and claimed the BBC threw him under the bus.
Also plays into trying to close down 'wrong speech' and having such stupid finickity terms that Benedict Cumberbatch, not renowned for being a raging right winger, apologised profusely after saying 'coloured person' rather than 'person of colour'.
Mr. Jessop, jein. An issue with immigration/multi-culturalism is that sensitivity over it has led in the recent past to multiple claims [eventually proven correct] of sexual molestation of children simply not being investigated, and those against large scale migration being attacked as racist. So, right wingers being strident over such things have an understandable reaction to that. (Snip)
Left-wingers reaction to things are equally understandable, e.g. to racism and homophobia.
Some of the reaction to the awful cases in Rotherham, Oxford et al has been racist, especially when people extend what happened to broad groups. Not all of it, of course, but there has been a heavy undercurrent of racism. Oddly, we do not see such reactions when it is the churches, or white people performing abuses. Or even when it is Muslim girls being abused - it is only the white girls that matter (tm).
I could be wrong, but as far as I can tell, the Roman Catholic Church has received a huge amount of criticism over child abuse.
What took place in Rotherham seems to me to be one of the worst scandals in local government/child protection that I can recall.
Yes the Catholic Church has had a lot of well deserved critisim, and has worked hard to get on top of the issue under the new Pope, the previous incumbent choosing to retire early as the scale of what had occurred dawned on him.
Unfortunately I don't see the same level of responsibility taken by those who actively covered up these things for decades in some cases. Where are the prosecutions of police and social service directors for aiding and abetting the abuse in Rotherham and other places?
It's somewhat similar to the scandals involving Islington Childrens' Homes, where, for political reasons, people who were in charge of child protection looked the other way as children were abused.
Also plays into trying to close down 'wrong speech' and having such stupid finickity terms that Benedict Cumberbatch, not renowned for being a raging right winger, apologised profusely after saying 'coloured person' rather than 'person of colour'.
Mr. Jessop, jein. An issue with immigration/multi-culturalism is that sensitivity over it has led in the recent past to multiple claims [eventually proven correct] of sexual molestation of children simply not being investigated, and those against large scale migration being attacked as racist. So, right wingers being strident over such things have an understandable reaction to that. (Snip)
Left-wingers reaction to things are equally understandable, e.g. to racism and homophobia.
Some of the reaction to the awful cases in Rotherham, Oxford et al has been racist, especially when people extend what happened to broad groups. Not all of it, of course, but there has been a heavy undercurrent of racism. Oddly, we do not see such reactions when it is the churches, or white people performing abuses. Or even when it is Muslim girls being abused - it is only the white girls that matter (tm).
I could be wrong, but as far as I can tell, the Roman Catholic Church has received a huge amount of criticism over child abuse.
What took place in Rotherham seems to me to be one of the worst scandals in local government/child protection that I can recall.
Absolutely. The situation was totally hushed up/underreported for years - only peoeple like the BNP would touch it. Set against that, Catholic (any Christian actually) abuses have been splashed across the media, and widely, not to say gleefully, reported and dramatised/fictionalised in books, television, film etc. JJ's description is a rather shocking inversion of the truth.
Some people are doubtless motivated by hatred of Catholics to criticise the Church over child abuse, rather than any real concern for the victims. It doesn't alter the fact that there's much to criticise.
That construction could of course be applied to Rotherham.
Yesterday he was asking what is wrong with slavery after another poster quoted a survey where 20% of Trump suporters said they thought the abolition of slavery was bad.
Sometimes I can smell the hypocrisy through the computer screen.
Clinton leads against Trump with Latino voters nationwide by 71-18
Romney had 27%
AFAICS Trump is losing the white college workers, the white non-college workers, the blacks, the Latinos/ Hispanics people earning over $75,000, people earning under $75,000 and every group under the sun.
Yet he is polling within 2 points of HRC and within touching distance of the EC!
There's stiff competition for the greatest political miscalculation of this century (UK division) 1. Cameron's decision to hold a referendum on Brexit. 2. A few Labour MPs decision to lend their support to Jeremy Corbyn so that a no hoper left winger could be in the leadership election.
1. Leads to the demise of his political career. 2. Leads to the demise of a party. This is a bigger miscalculation, because Brexit is good.
Unless of course Brexit turns out to be bad, we'll have to wait until it happens. In that case the demise of a country is of course far worse than the demise of a party.
However that wasn't the question, imagine that you are David Cameron about to decide on whether to hold a referendum, now imagine that you're Margaret Beckett wondering whether to nominate Jeremy Corbyn for the Labour Leadership. Which is the biggest miscalculation from Cameron or Beckett's perspective? Both are huge miscalculations.
Although I suppose it's worth noting that Mrs Beckett's miscalculation can be said to have contributed both to the impending demise of the Party *and* the unexpected referendum result, given the role JC played in the referendum campaign. I think that tips it in her direction, frankly.
You might be right. Is it political correctness (that sounds very Daily Mail), or fear of alienating a minority? It's not exclusive to the Labour Party but they 'own it' or used to.
A fear of alienating Bankers, for example, is prevalent but less dangerous for the victims. Oh, and I know many Muslims are just as sickened by the behaviour, both of the perpetrators and the cover-up.
Also plays into trying to close down 'wrong speech' and having such stupid finickity terms that Benedict Cumberbatch, not renowned for being a raging right winger, apologised profusely after saying 'coloured person' rather than 'person of colour'.
Mr. Jessop, jein. An issue with immigration/multi-culturalism is that sensitivity over it has led in the recent past to multiple claims [eventually proven correct] of sexual molestation of children simply not being investigated, and those against large scale migration being attacked as racist. So, right wingers being strident over such things have an understandable reaction to that. (Snip)
Left-wingers reaction to things are equally understandable, e.g. to racism and homophobia.
Some of the reaction to the awful cases in Rotherham, Oxford et al has been racist, especially when people extend what happened to broad groups. Not all of it, of course, but there has been a heavy undercurrent of racism. Oddly, we do not see such reactions when it is the churches, or white people performing abuses. Or even when it is Muslim girls being abused - it is only the white girls that matter (tm).
I could be wrong, but as far as I can tell, the Roman Catholic Church has received a huge amount of criticism over child abuse.
What took place in Rotherham seems to me to be one of the worst scandals in local government/child protection that I can recall.
Absolutely. The situation was totally hushed up/underreported for years - only peoeple like the BNP would touch it. Set against that, Catholic (any Christian actually) abuses have been splashed across the media, and widely, not to say gleefully, reported and dramatised/fictionalised in books, television, film etc. JJ's description is a rather shocking inversion of the truth.
Some people are doubtless motivated by hatred of Catholics to criticise the Church over child abuse, rather than any real concern for the victims. It doesn't alter the fact that there's much to criticise.
That construction could of course be applied to Rotherham.
Yesterday he was asking what is wrong with slavery after another poster quoted a survey where 20% of Trump suporters said they thought the abolition of slavery was bad.
Sometimes I can smell the hypocrisy through the computer screen.
New report out today by Centre for Cities shows that most UK cities are below the European average in terms of productivity. You can also see this in standard of living stats.
In other words, outside London and it's hinterland the country is approx at East German or West Polish levels of development.
We are in effect a below average country with a world city attached to it.
Clinton leads against Trump with Latino voters nationwide by 71-18
Romney had 27%
AFAICS Trump is losing the white college workers, the white non-college workers, the blacks, the Latinos/ Hispanics people earning over $75,000, people earning under $75,000 and every group under the sun.
Yet he is polling within 2 points of HRC and within touching distance of the EC!
Perhaps asking people demographic questions should be considered a form of push polling when identity politics is a live topic. It would explain a lot of the discrepancies.
Also plays into trying to close down 'wrong speech' and having such stupid finickity terms that Benedict Cumberbatch, not renowned for being a raging right winger, apologised profusely after saying 'coloured person' rather than 'person of colour'.
Mr. Jessop, jein. An issue with immigration/multi-culturalism is that sensitivity over it has led in the recent past to multiple claims [eventually proven correct] of sexual molestation of children simply not being investigated, and those against large scale migration being attacked as racist. So, right wingers being strident over such things have an understandable reaction to that. (Snip)
Left-wingers reaction to things are equally understandable, e.g. to racism and homophobia.
Some of the reaction to the awful cases in Rotherham, Oxford et al has been racist, especially when people extend what happened to broad groups. Not all of it, of course, but there has been a heavy undercurrent of racism. Oddly, we do not see such reactions when it is the churches, or white people performing abuses. Or even when it is Muslim girls being abused - it is only the white girls that matter (tm).
I could be wrong, but as far as I can tell, the Roman Catholic Church has received a huge amount of criticism over child abuse.
What took place in Rotherham seems to me to be one of the worst scandals in local government/child protection that I can recall.
Absolutely. The situation was totally hushed up/underreported for years - only peoeple like the BNP would touch it. Set against that, Catholic (any Christian actually) abuses have been splashed across the media, and widely, not to say gleefully, reported and dramatised/fictionalised in books, television, film etc. JJ's description is a rather shocking inversion of the truth.
Some people are doubtless motivated by hatred of Catholics to criticise the Church over child abuse, rather than any real concern for the victims. It doesn't alter the fact that there's much to criticise.
That construction could of course be applied to Rotherham.
Yesterday he was asking what is wrong with slavery after another poster quoted a survey where 20% of Trump suporters said they thought the abolition of slavery was bad.
Sometimes I can smell the hypocrisy through the computer screen.
Pretending to be extremely right wing when he's only very right wing is Sean F's party piece. I think. Probably.
Comments
I've written very much the same comment as your last sentence in various blogs for left-wingers and others. Very few people of any persuasion are consciously malevolent - the worst I'd say is that a failure of imagination about the problems facing people in other situations is more common on the right (the "I was successful, why can't they be?" syndrome), and a failure of realism about how people actually behave is more common on the left (the "everyone wants to work together and wealth isn't that important to them" syndrome).
Mary Berry has just quit Bake Off.
A bit inappropriate I thought.
1. Cameron's decision to hold a referendum on Brexit.
2. A few Labour MPs decision to lend their support to Jeremy Corbyn so that a no hoper left winger could be in the leadership election.
I'd agree, for example, that Thatcher had a failure of imagination of the impact of her (I'd argue, largely necessary for the 'greater good') policies on those who lost their jobs - 'get on your bike' and look for work is a lot easier said than done, and whole communities face huge challenges....
Of course to many on the left she remains evil incarnate (though Blair may have robbed her of some of that...)
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/05/10/6080/
"But there is an arrogance at the heart of our politics that is going to make it difficult to really understand why we lost. It is an arrogance that says that we alone own morality and that we alone want the best for people. It says that our instincts and our motives alone are pure. It’s an arrogance that belittles others’ fears and concerns as “isms” whilst raising ours as righteous. We then mistakenly define ourselves as being distinctive from our opponents because we are morally superior rather than because we have different diagnoses and solutions. It is lazy, wrong and politically dangerous.
If you think that I am being harsh, just think about what we say about our opponents. We assume that they are all in it for themselves, that they are indifferent to the suffering of others. In fact, that they are quite happy to induce more suffering if it suits their malign ends. What we don’t think is that they may want the same things as us, but just have a different approach. Instead, we cast high-minded aspersions on their morality and humanity."
It's been a while since I read it, but I thought the Rotherham report said it was nowhere near as simple as that?
I don't particularly see the colour of the perpetrator and victim as being that important: the abuse is the important thing. There was no way I would have told my friend that the abuse he suffered at the hands of a priest that it was somehow 'better' because the priest was white.
People will always abuse, and sadly there will always be abuse. As such, the important thing is to have an environment where the abused can come forward in safety as early as possible, and that the accused can get a fair hearing. The cover-ups that occur are an evil that allows further abuse to occur, and IMO should be taken as seriously as the abuse itself.
In the case of church abuse, the abusers were aided by the action of the church authorities. In the case of Rotherham et al, the abusers were aided by the actions (or inactions) of police and social services.
As an aside, the churches have escaped relatively unscathed from this. The historic reaction to abuse is to my mind one of the best reasons *not* to have faith schools.
As for your second paragraph; it makes the mistake that racism can only be done by whites on minorities. This is one area where the hard left can be criticised IMO: it ignores the reality that a heck of a lot of racism occurs between minorities.
There is one other element that is not only undesirable, but disastrous. It is the critique that everyone who disagrees with Jeremy Corbyn is in fact a closet Tory – or “Tory lite”. The US Republicans have a similar problem, with anyone to the left of the hard right called “Rino”, meaning “Republican In Name Only”.
The “Tory lite” allegation starts with a fact: government involves compromise. It then fashions an explanation: that the compromise is based on bad motives. It then develops a theory: that the trajectory of our country has been unchanged by Labour government since the Thatcher years. It then creates a new version of history: there is no difference between Labour and Tory governments. This is the sectarianism that leads to the dead end of permanent opposition.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/09/new-times-david-miliband-why-left-needs-move-forward-not-back
PS is anyone else finding Google's newish AMP snippets on mobile search results highly obnoxious?
Hillary Clinton's campaign is telling reporters it is concerned debate moderators will go easy on GOP nominee Donald Trump, and her team is crafting a narrative portraying the Democratic nominee as fighting an uphill battle against media.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2602461/
The white working class, or underclass, is the most easily ignored section of society. Poor white boys do worst in education, and people don't care. The focus is on women/girls and minorities.
The white girls who complained [victims were also male but not heard of any cases they went to the police] were often ignored, sometimes taken back to their abusers and, in at least one case, had the copious evidence they presented lost by the police.
The racial angle, from both sides, and a fear of being seen to be persecuting a minority by enforcing the law [incidentally, something which also led police chiefs in London to be utterly pathetic in their response to the first couple of days of the 2011 looting] was why nothing happened for so long.
(I've no truck with those who claim summer ended in August).
"Bake Off means Bake Off."
"But what will Bake Off look like?"
"Bake Off means Bake Off"
Hillary caught on an open mic would be something to behold.
The Rotherham report stated that the victims (predominantly white girls) were ignored because of their class and because of the fear of being thought racist. Both were in play.
I agree that all races are racist. Only the hard left refuse to believe the obvious. Incidentally, the policeman who shot black victim in Charlotte was also black. Is that racism or police brutality? Or just an excuse for a good 'ol riot?
George III was crowned #OTD 1761. The procession and ceremony were so long that he was not crowned until 3.30pm. https://t.co/sco7ywiwXS
Simple question that can flummox even a seasoned campaigner. With Trump the answer is simple, "Make America Great Again!", not sure what Clinton's answer would be, other than to not let Trump win.
@MichaelLCrick:
Left at Tuesday's Labour NEC dropped move to exclude Keith Vaz as thought he'd vote with them. I hear Vaz spoke pro Corbyn but voted against
Agree about white working class boys requiring more help; annoyingly the recent grammar school 'policy' would do nothing for them.
From the foreword of the Rotherham report ...
"Terrible things happened in Rotherham and on a significant scale. Children were sexually exploited by men who came largely from the Pakistani Heritage Community. Not enough was done to acknowledge this, to stop it happening, to protect children, to support victims and to apprehend perpetrators.
Upon arriving in Rotherham, these I thought were the uncontested facts. My job was to conduct an inspection and decide whether the Council was now fit for purpose.
However this was not the situation I encountered when I reached Rotherham. Instead, I found a Council in denial. They denied that there had been a problem, or if there had been, that it was as big as was said. If there was a problem they certainly were not told – it was someone else’s job. They were no worse than anyone else. They had won awards. The media were out to get them."
the second sentence is the crux, one that Rotherham council had no intention of facing. They didn't bring in the whataboutery unless you include the "They were no worse than anyone else." excuse.
A common excuse when hoping to deflect blame.
2. Leads to the demise of a party. This is a bigger miscalculation, because Brexit is good.
Clinton leads against Trump with Latino voters nationwide by 71-18
Romney had 27%
"Just replace 'racial' with 'religious'. I fail to see why one is more egregious than the other."
Hopefully, the Church have learned their lesson. No one says it's all right because "just look at Rotherham Council, they were just as bad." My point is that whataboutery is an attempt to deflect blame.
Do you believe that the hard left councils have learned their lessons? Do you believe that they have even admitted their faults? That's the essential starting point.
http://tinyurl.com/jzvxyeo
(* Jan 1993 to Jan 2001, of course)
What took place in Rotherham seems to me to be one of the worst scandals in local government/child protection that I can recall.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3801526/Karen-Gillan-speaks-fans-attack-skimpy-attire-Jumanji-reboot.html
Presidential debates approaching. Do they make a difference? This from @LarrySabato brilliant e-mail bulletin https://t.co/hI1RbIODfX
But also Good Friday.
Bless, clearly they are using laughable criteria for these rankings.
The only thing that is intersting from this is that there's only one French university in the top100, and then only down in 66.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/20/ten-times-in-two-years-terrorists-slipped-immigration-process/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
From 2010,
"Speaking on a visit to Portugal, Benedict XVI said that “sins inside the Church” must be blamed, rather than “outside enemies”. He added that “forgiveness is no substitute for justice” and that the Church had to “relearn prayer and penance”.
As head of the Church, he admitted blame, and Pope Francis has said it more strongly.
Who in the left of the Labour has ever admitted blame for Rotherham at al?
Apologies if I appear to be blaming you at all. I'm not. You are a reasonable person and I know we agree on virtually all of this.
As for your last paragraph: an ex-colleague of mine was caught up (in a minor way) in the Orkney scandal. It's hard to equate scales of such injustices, but Orkney was organisationally worse as it was actively caused by malice within the authorities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orkney_child_abuse_scandal
ISTR there was a similar case about Epping Forest and satanists?
I have a *very* low opinion of all child protection services, where all too often ideology seems more important than actual welfare.
I’ll fetch my own coat, thanks.
However that wasn't the question, imagine that you are David Cameron about to decide on whether to hold a referendum, now imagine that you're Margaret Beckett wondering whether to nominate Jeremy Corbyn for the Labour Leadership. Which is the biggest miscalculation from Cameron or Beckett's perspective? Both are huge miscalculations.
'CJ de Mooi: Former Eggheads star arrested on suspicion of murder'
http://tinyurl.com/jgkh4bk
"Pope Francis has revealed that around one in every 50 Catholic priests is a paedophile.
Condemning the issue as a ‘leprosy’ which infects the Church, the Pontiff was yesterday reported as claiming that even bishops and cardinals are among the ‘2 per cent’ carrying out child abuse.
He also said that many more in the Church are guilty of covering it up, adding: ‘This state of affairs is intolerable.’
A reasonable Mea Culpa and at least a beginning. Rotherham ... compare and contrast.
PPP
ILLINOIS Senate
@TammyforIL 41%
@MarkKirk 39%
Someone Else 11%
Unsure 9%
Full results in the AM
I'm not sure it's a 'Labour' thing: it occurred in Oxfordshire, where child services were/are a Conservative area of concern (ISTR the local area was Labour, but the Childrens' services were Toy). I think it's more he fact that it happens more in poor areas which tend to be more Labour. The problem, I think, is culture within social services. Those in 'richer' Conservative areas just have less of the problems to deal with.
For context: as regular readers will know, a dear friend of ours committed suicide a couple of years ago, decades after being abused at a church school (not in the UK). Abuse by priests is therefore somewhat personal, perhaps too much so.
Unfortunately I don't see the same level of responsibility taken by those who actively covered up these things for decades in some cases. Where are the prosecutions of police and social service directors for aiding and abetting the abuse in Rotherham and other places?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/22/watch-why-social-media-is-donald-trumps-most-powerful-weapon/
Sometimes I can smell the hypocrisy through the computer screen.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-37430324
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrK_HVGOnUo
Yet he is polling within 2 points of HRC and within touching distance of the EC!
"I'm not sure it's a 'Labour' thing."
You might be right. Is it political correctness (that sounds very Daily Mail), or fear of alienating a minority? It's not exclusive to the Labour Party but they 'own it' or used to.
A fear of alienating Bankers, for example, is prevalent but less dangerous for the victims. Oh, and I know many Muslims are just as sickened by the behaviour, both of the perpetrators and the cover-up.
In other words, outside London and it's hinterland the country is approx at East German or West Polish levels of development.
We are in effect a below average country with a world city attached to it.
Very obvious on this chart:
I think.
Probably.