Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Public standards mean nothing if the public won’t own them

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited February 2020 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Public standards mean nothing if the public won’t own them

Why is Mike Pence not now the President of the United States? The immediate answer is, of course, that there weren’t 67 members of the Senate willing to vote to convict him of the charges brought by the House. But to get to the deeper answers we have to ask: why not?

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    First.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    edited February 2020
    The reason why the impeachment didn't happen was because the American people didn't get het up by what he'd done. They probably think there was something fishy around Biden/Biden's son/Ukraine. And they assume that if it were Hillary in the White House, she would have done exactly the same if it wrecked Trump's chances of beating her.

    In short, using the office of the President of the United States to browbeat foreign leaders to help you get re-elected is expected behaviour.

    The Democrats fought the wrong battle.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    "In democracies, we cannot rely on elected politicians or impartial bodies to hold those in power to a decent standard if the voters themselves are not willing to do the same."

    We only have to look back to December to see the same phenomenon here.
  • The reason why the impeachment didn't happen was because the American people didn't get het up by what he'd done. They probably think there was something fishy around Biden/Biden's son/Ukraine. And they assume that if it were Hillary in the White House, she would have done exactly the same if it wrecked Trump's chances of beating her.

    In short, using the office of the President of the United States to browbeat foreign leaders to help you get re-elected is expected behaviour.

    The Democrats fought the wrong battle.

    It was a very odd bridge to fight on. People expect corruption to be investigated, so complaining that the POTUS was abusing his position to get alleged corruption to be investigated is . . . strange.

    Trump is a vile, terrible POTUS who should be out - but not because of anything he's done or not done with Biden's son.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069

    Foxy said:

    "In democracies, we cannot rely on elected politicians or impartial bodies to hold those in power to a decent standard if the voters themselves are not willing to do the same."

    We only have to look back to December to see the same phenomenon here.

    The voters held the elected politicians to account last December. The elected politicians had been given a job to do, they refused to do it, so the voters changed their votes to ensure this time they'd be listened to.

    Seats that for decades had only ever voted red suddenly went blue because the reds weren't doing what the voters wanted.

    You're just irritable because it wasn't your standard the voters wanted.
    Voters had to choose, and a plurality (not majority) voted for a proven adulterous liar who had illegally suspended Parliament and deceived the Queen and evaded interview. Certainly the other option had major defects too, but it does demonstrate that voters are quite willing to go along with low standards in public life here as much as they do across the pond.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    Trump should never have been impeached. Nothing like the Nixon Watergate scandal and a lot of pointless petty politicking by loser Democrats.

    Trump wins.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718

    The reason why the impeachment didn't happen was because the American people didn't get het up by what he'd done. They probably think there was something fishy around Biden/Biden's son/Ukraine. And they assume that if it were Hillary in the White House, she would have done exactly the same if it wrecked Trump's chances of beating her.

    In short, using the office of the President of the United States to browbeat foreign leaders to help you get re-elected is expected behaviour.

    The Democrats fought the wrong battle.

    It was a very odd bridge to fight on. People expect corruption to be investigated, so complaining that the POTUS was abusing his position to get alleged corruption to be investigated is . . . strange.

    Trump is a vile, terrible POTUS who should be out - but not because of anything he's done or not done with Biden's son.
    Agree. Mr Dancer will be here ere long to quote some ancient military sage on choosing your battle ground. It really isn't sensible to fight on ground where you might not win, or at a time when it's unlikely that you'll do so.
    Here in Essex we have a fine example of the error in doing so in the 991 Battle of Maldon, which could easily have been a disaster for the Vikings, but which resulted in the first payment of Danegeld.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Bit of an amusing mistake on your first paragraph...
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Trump should never have been impeached. Nothing like the Nixon Watergate scandal and a lot of pointless petty politicking by loser Democrats.

    Trump wins.

    Agreed - it was a very weird case from the get go. I asked right at the beginning why they Democrats were fighting on *this* and *now*

    The cynic in me thought it was an attempt to weaken Biden

    It was pure partisan malarkey and they got called out
  • King Cole, the fifth of the five skills of generals that Zhuge Liang wrote was knowing the features of terrain ;)

    Although personally I'd cite Horatio defending the Janiculum bridge as the ultimate example of a great place to make a stand, and Flaminius at Trasimene as the example of where one ought not go.

    Good morning, everyone.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    "In democracies, we cannot rely on elected politicians or impartial bodies to hold those in power to a decent standard if the voters themselves are not willing to do the same."

    We only have to look back to December to see the same phenomenon here.

    The voters held the elected politicians to account last December. The elected politicians had been given a job to do, they refused to do it, so the voters changed their votes to ensure this time they'd be listened to.

    Seats that for decades had only ever voted red suddenly went blue because the reds weren't doing what the voters wanted.

    You're just irritable because it wasn't your standard the voters wanted.
    Voters had to choose, and a plurality (not majority) voted for a proven adulterous liar who had illegally suspended Parliament and deceived the Queen and evaded interview. Certainly the other option had major defects too, but it does demonstrate that voters are quite willing to go along with low standards in public life here as much as they do across the pond.
    Boris "a proven adulterous liar who had illegally suspended Parliament and deceived the Queen and evaded interview."

    When you put it like that - imagine how shite the other leaders must have been for the voters to give Boris an 80 seat majority.

    You keep trotting out these lines like one day they are going to have a different effect. Truth is, there's a vast army of adulterers out there. They chose not to cast the first stone. Boris's suspension of Parliament was initially upheld by the Queen's Bench. It only became "illegal" when a politically-motivated Supreme Court "did their bit" to try and nail Brexit Boris.

    You fall into the exact trap as the Democrats just did. Thinking the voters give a shiny shit about the things you are getting puce in the face about on their behalf.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    "In democracies, we cannot rely on elected politicians or impartial bodies to hold those in power to a decent standard if the voters themselves are not willing to do the same."

    We only have to look back to December to see the same phenomenon here.

    The voters held the elected politicians to account last December. The elected politicians had been given a job to do, they refused to do it, so the voters changed their votes to ensure this time they'd be listened to.

    Seats that for decades had only ever voted red suddenly went blue because the reds weren't doing what the voters wanted.

    You're just irritable because it wasn't your standard the voters wanted.
    Voters had to choose, and a plurality (not majority) voted for a proven adulterous liar who had illegally suspended Parliament and deceived the Queen and evaded interview. Certainly the other option had major defects too, but it does demonstrate that voters are quite willing to go along with low standards in public life here as much as they do across the pond.
    Boris "a proven adulterous liar who had illegally suspended Parliament and deceived the Queen and evaded interview."

    When you put it like that - imagine how shite the other leaders must have been for the voters to give Boris an 80 seat majority.

    You keep trotting out these lines like one day they are going to have a different effect. Truth is, there's a vast army of adulterers out there. They chose not to cast the first stone. Boris's suspension of Parliament was initially upheld by the Queen's Bench. It only became "illegal" when a politically-motivated Supreme Court "did their bit" to try and nail Brexit Boris.

    You fall into the exact trap as the Democrats just did. Thinking the voters give a shiny shit about the things you are getting puce in the face about on their behalf.

    No, just making the point that politics trumps morality here as much as America, other places too, of course. Indeed didn't DH himself vote Conservative in Dec?

  • Boris's suspension of Parliament was initially upheld by the Queen's Bench. It only became "illegal" when a politically-motivated Supreme Court "did their bit" to try and nail Brexit Boris.

    That is paranoid derangement. Give your head a good shake.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    "In democracies, we cannot rely on elected politicians or impartial bodies to hold those in power to a decent standard if the voters themselves are not willing to do the same."

    We only have to look back to December to see the same phenomenon here.

    The voters held the elected politicians to account last December. The elected politicians had been given a job to do, they refused to do it, so the voters changed their votes to ensure this time they'd be listened to.

    Seats that for decades had only ever voted red suddenly went blue because the reds weren't doing what the voters wanted.

    You're just irritable because it wasn't your standard the voters wanted.
    Voters had to choose, and a plurality (not majority) voted for a proven adulterous liar who had illegally suspended Parliament and deceived the Queen and evaded interview. Certainly the other option had major defects too
    In fact, all of those except the third. And that’s only because he’s never been in power. He has in the past shown utter contempt for democracy and the democratic system, and his letter saying he would ‘never prorogue Parliament’ (which would if carried out to the strict letter in effect have abolished elections) was the stuff of a not over-bright ten year old bragging to his mates.

    Johnson was unfit for office (and still is). He won because Corbyn had all his faults and none of his talent.

    I was thinking last night in fact that the Trump administration is a pretty good indication of what a Corbyn government would have looked like - deeply corrupt, hopelessly incompetent, with a complete disregard for the rules and naked populism based on huge borrowing, coupled with a foreign policy based on personal like and dislike and an extraordinary cultish devotion from the true believers of somebody unfit to run a bath.

    Again, Johnson is hardly better but at least he will be swiftly removed if he looks like a liability.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    I agree with the consensus on here. This trial was doomed from the start because the charge really didn't come close to high crimes and misdemeanors. It is therefore a poor example for David's thesis but I do think that he is right about standards in public life seemingly being unimportant to the public.

    The exception is sex that the public does not find normal as Derek Mackay found out to his cost this week. What he did does not appear to be criminal in any sense but it was morally wrong in a way that there is still a consensus about. In contrast no one cares that Boris left his wife for Carrie or that they are living together unmarried in No 10. Of course this is nothing new, Lloyd George's philandering never seems to have done him any harm either.

    What I regret is the lack of a consensus on other standards of behaviour. Failed policies and wasted public money used to to involve an element of contrition marked by a resignation, even if it was only temporary. The lack of that creates cynicism and disengagement amongst the public but is very much driven by the extreme partisanship that seems the norm these days.
  • On topic, what we are seeing is a descent into tribalism. Standards of governance decline sharply when the tribe is seen as more important than the standard.

    As others have said, Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important. One or two shed a few crocodile tears but if they actually cared about governance standards they wouldn’t have voted for him.

    Interestingly, enough Remainers have not yet made that descent, refusing to give Jeremy Corbyn support to block Brexit. Those who submitted to the judgment of Solomon have found themselves ignored and derided since. Virtue has not been rewarded.

    The lesson they will learn is that tribalism pays. The country will suffer more accordingly.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    Sobering piece, reinforced by the willingness of several respected posters here to indicate that they wouldn't have voted to impeach either.

    Interesting and messy Democratic debate last night in NH, with lots of open attacks on each other. One poll now shows Buttigeg 1 point ahead (though it's Suffolk, which has been consistently showing him stronger than other polls), another shows him several points behind (though that's Emersen, of which the reverse is true). He seems to have the momentum, which makes his 3.2 price on Betfair for the primary look tempting. DYOR though!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    The Democrats chose the wrong subject on which to try and impeach Trump, and from the outside it looked to many people as if they were looking for any excuse to do so. It was easy for Trump to say he was on the side of those looking to expose political corruption, rather than being guilty of it.

    They were lucky that the Republicans didn't turn it into a trial of Joe and Hunter Biden in the Senate, although the early primaries aren't looking too good for JB now anyway.

    (Oh, and some sub-editing required on that first paragraph, it definitely reads as though Pence was impeached).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    DavidL said:

    I agree with the consensus on here. This trial was doomed from the start because the charge really didn't come close to high crimes and misdemeanors. It is therefore a poor example for David's thesis but I do think that he is right about standards in public life seemingly being unimportant to the public.

    The exception is sex that the public does not find normal as Derek Mackay found out to his cost this week. What he did does not appear to be criminal in any sense but it was morally wrong in a way that there is still a consensus about. In contrast no one cares that Boris left his wife for Carrie or that they are living together unmarried in No 10. Of course this is nothing new, Lloyd George's philandering never seems to have done him any harm either.

    What I regret is the lack of a consensus on other standards of behaviour. Failed policies and wasted public money used to to involve an element of contrition marked by a resignation, even if it was only temporary. The lack of that creates cynicism and disengagement amongst the public but is very much driven by the extreme partisanship that seems the norm these days.

    In 1865, a very excited young aide told Disraeli that eighty year old Palmerston had a mistress.

    Disraeli’s immortal reply was, ‘Silence fool! If that news is known, he will sweep the country.’
  • On the descent into tribalism, this time on the other flank of American politics:

    https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1225873750647803910?s=21
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758

    On the descent into tribalism, this time on the other flank of American politics:

    https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1225873750647803910?s=21

    Wrong thinking that. All human life extinguished, the Tea Party would be free to vote in Trump for eternity.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    edited February 2020

    On topic, what we are seeing is a descent into tribalism. Standards of governance decline sharply when the tribe is seen as more important than the standard.

    As others have said, Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important. One or two shed a few crocodile tears but if they actually cared about governance standards they wouldn’t have voted for him.

    Interestingly, enough Remainers have not yet made that descent, refusing to give Jeremy Corbyn support to block Brexit. Those who submitted to the judgment of Solomon have found themselves ignored and derided since. Virtue has not been rewarded.

    The lesson they will learn is that tribalism pays. The country will suffer more accordingly.

    "Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important."

    The voters have decided that Boris Johnson was manifestly suitable to give an 80 seat majority. You are the one out of line.
  • On topic, what we are seeing is a descent into tribalism. Standards of governance decline sharply when the tribe is seen as more important than the standard.

    As others have said, Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important. One or two shed a few crocodile tears but if they actually cared about governance standards they wouldn’t have voted for him.

    Interestingly, enough Remainers have not yet made that descent, refusing to give Jeremy Corbyn support to block Brexit. Those who submitted to the judgment of Solomon have found themselves ignored and derided since. Virtue has not been rewarded.

    The lesson they will learn is that tribalism pays. The country will suffer more accordingly.

    "Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important."

    The voters have decided that Boris Johnson was manifestly suitable to give a 80 seat majority. You are the one out of line.
    Your last utterance was to confidently assert an unfounded allegation of extreme political bias against a unanimous Supreme Court. Your latest is to prove your inability to read. You’re on a roll this morning.
  • FPT - Government's seem to be unable to resist constantly attacking pension tax relief.

    It ends with people not saving enough into their pensions and becoming a burden on the State.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,343
    All true. But there isn't another way of assessing public opinion and public morality about the political process except by asking all of them to be involved in the process. Democracy is what it is, for all its flaws. The basic issue is not whether it will come to flawed outcomes - from any individual point of view of course it will. The basic issue is whether there is some better way of knowing what the people want and actually involving them in the process.

    To say the people are right or wrong objectively is of course to set something above democracy as a decision making standard. In Iran it is theocrats. In China it is a tiny elite controlling the system. PBers are singularly and rightly reluctant to spell out what, in the USA or UK, that higher power might be. I can't speak for the USA but in the UK to elect Boris and not elect Jezza as our PM seems to many people an entirely rational choice when looking not at non-existing ideal outcomes but at the real choice.
  • Mr. Royale, aye, that's been overdone a lot already.

    And isn't that sort of thing one of the causes of difficulty retaining experienced doctors?
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,226
    It would be quite good if after departing the Evening Стандарт, Lord Osborne was appointed Secretary of State for National Infrastructure, with a brief of getting HS2/3 done and under budget.

    Perhaps Mr Screaming can help persuade him.
  • On the descent into tribalism, this time on the other flank of American politics:

    https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1225873750647803910?s=21

    I reckon they might be being a tad hyperbolic.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959

    On topic, what we are seeing is a descent into tribalism. Standards of governance decline sharply when the tribe is seen as more important than the standard.

    As others have said, Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important. One or two shed a few crocodile tears but if they actually cared about governance standards they wouldn’t have voted for him.

    Interestingly, enough Remainers have not yet made that descent, refusing to give Jeremy Corbyn support to block Brexit. Those who submitted to the judgment of Solomon have found themselves ignored and derided since. Virtue has not been rewarded.

    The lesson they will learn is that tribalism pays. The country will suffer more accordingly.

    "Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important."

    The voters have decided that Boris Johnson was manifestly suitable to give a 80 seat majority. You are the one out of line.
    Your last utterance was to confidently assert an unfounded allegation of extreme political bias against a unanimous Supreme Court. Your latest is to prove your inability to read. You’re on a roll this morning.
    I confidently asserted the view of the voters. I have an 80 seat majority and PM Boris to back up that confident assertion.

    You have your own bile.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    edited February 2020

    On topic, what we are seeing is a descent into tribalism. Standards of governance decline sharply when the tribe is seen as more important than the standard.

    As others have said, Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important. One or two shed a few crocodile tears but if they actually cared about governance standards they wouldn’t have voted for him.

    Interestingly, enough Remainers have not yet made that descent, refusing to give Jeremy Corbyn support to block Brexit. Those who submitted to the judgment of Solomon have found themselves ignored and derided since. Virtue has not been rewarded.

    The lesson they will learn is that tribalism pays. The country will suffer more accordingly.

    "Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important."

    The voters have decided that Boris Johnson was manifestly suitable to give a 80 seat majority. You are the one out of line.
    Your last utterance was to confidently assert an unfounded allegation of extreme political bias against a unanimous Supreme Court. Your latest is to prove your inability to read. You’re on a roll this morning.
    I confidently asserted the view of the voters. I have an 80 seat majority and PM Boris to back up that confident assertion.

    You have your own bile.
    I hadn’t realised the voters had voted on the Supreme Court decision. Perhaps that election took place in the deranged imaginations inside your head?
  • Sobering piece, reinforced by the willingness of several respected posters here to indicate that they wouldn't have voted to impeach either.

    Interesting and messy Democratic debate last night in NH, with lots of open attacks on each other. One poll now shows Buttigeg 1 point ahead (though it's Suffolk, which has been consistently showing him stronger than other polls), another shows him several points behind (though that's Emersen, of which the reverse is true). He seems to have the momentum, which makes his 3.2 price on Betfair for the primary look tempting. DYOR though!

    Agree with that. Buttigeg is the value NH bet at above 3. I have him at 4.8 using all the cashed profit from Iowa.

    The big question is where the Biden vote will go
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,343
    edited February 2020

    On topic, what we are seeing is a descent into tribalism. Standards of governance decline sharply when the tribe is seen as more important than the standard.

    As others have said, Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important. One or two shed a few crocodile tears but if they actually cared about governance standards they wouldn’t have voted for him.

    Interestingly, enough Remainers have not yet made that descent, refusing to give Jeremy Corbyn support to block Brexit. Those who submitted to the judgment of Solomon have found themselves ignored and derided since. Virtue has not been rewarded.

    The lesson they will learn is that tribalism pays. The country will suffer more accordingly.

    I think you are attributing to Remainers as a body the 'Wisdom of Crowds' - collectively not giving Corbyn the keys to No 10 but collectively acting so as to enable someone else to have them. Only Corbyn or Boris was going there, once Remain had failed to rally around the SNP in Scotland and the LDs in E and W. Failing to act as a body, they have failed to achieve their perfectly legitimate outcome. Remainers are a large part of the totality of effort which placed Boris where he now is.

    Virtue, you say, has not been rewarded. Democracy rewards strategy, campaigns, tactics but above all votes. There isn't a virtue about votes to be rewarded. Or at best you can, unless there is a higher power who knows more, only discern what Virtue is by looking at the result.

    It may be a flaw in democracy, but at least I can see whose wisdom of which crowd can address it.

  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,226

    FPT - Government's seem to be unable to resist constantly attacking pension tax relief.

    It ends with people not saving enough into their pensions and becoming a burden on the State.

    If they’re gonna faff around like this, I wish they’d go radical. Put £3k in a SIPP for each child for say the first 5 years of their life, regardless of who their parents are.

    That’s most likely enough to stop an old age spent eating catfood in the dark. The rest is personal responsibility. And at the same time announce the old age pension is hereby abolished for everyone born after 2020.

    If they’re gonna (correctly) borrow at negative real rates to plug the infrastructure deficit, they really need to attack the future inversion of the population pyramid and old age costs while they’re at it. Upon successful implementation, you could roll it up the age groups as desired.
  • On topic, what we are seeing is a descent into tribalism. Standards of governance decline sharply when the tribe is seen as more important than the standard.

    As others have said, Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important. One or two shed a few crocodile tears but if they actually cared about governance standards they wouldn’t have voted for him.

    Interestingly, enough Remainers have not yet made that descent, refusing to give Jeremy Corbyn support to block Brexit. Those who submitted to the judgment of Solomon have found themselves ignored and derided since. Virtue has not been rewarded.

    The lesson they will learn is that tribalism pays. The country will suffer more accordingly.

    So Remainers just better people then? Yes, I see the light now. We Leavers all better just shut up, know our place, and defer to our betters. Would you like us to bow or is doffing our caps sufficient?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    On the descent into tribalism, this time on the other flank of American politics:

    https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1225873750647803910?s=21

    Excellent. A genuine LOL
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052

    On topic, what we are seeing is a descent into tribalism. Standards of governance decline sharply when the tribe is seen as more important than the standard.

    As others have said, Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important. One or two shed a few crocodile tears but if they actually cared about governance standards they wouldn’t have voted for him.

    Interestingly, enough Remainers have not yet made that descent, refusing to give Jeremy Corbyn support to block Brexit. Those who submitted to the judgment of Solomon have found themselves ignored and derided since. Virtue has not been rewarded.

    The lesson they will learn is that tribalism pays. The country will suffer more accordingly.

    So Remainers just better people then? Yes, I see the light now. We Leavers all better just shut up, know our place, and defer to our betters. Would you like us to bow or is doffing our caps sufficient?
    I think Mr Meeks is referring to Scotland - well I’m sure subliminally he is.

    https://twitter.com/murdo_fraser/status/1226065294327734272?s=21
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    On topic, what we are seeing is a descent into tribalism. Standards of governance decline sharply when the tribe is seen as more important than the standard.

    As others have said, Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important. One or two shed a few crocodile tears but if they actually cared about governance standards they wouldn’t have voted for him.

    Interestingly, enough Remainers have not yet made that descent, refusing to give Jeremy Corbyn support to block Brexit. Those who submitted to the judgment of Solomon have found themselves ignored and derided since. Virtue has not been rewarded.

    The lesson they will learn is that tribalism pays. The country will suffer more accordingly.

    "Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important."

    The voters have decided that Boris Johnson was manifestly suitable to give a 80 seat majority. You are the one out of line.
    Your last utterance was to confidently assert an unfounded allegation of extreme political bias against a unanimous Supreme Court. Your latest is to prove your inability to read. You’re on a roll this morning.
    I confidently asserted the view of the voters. I have an 80 seat majority and PM Boris to back up that confident assertion.

    You have your own bile.
    I hadn’t realised the voters had voted on the Supreme Court decision. Perhaps that election took place in the deranged imaginations inside your head?
    I think they did. The election was very shortly after the Supreme Court had declared that the PM had acted illegally (and probably misled the Queen). And people said, whatever, politics as usual. Its a good example of David's thesis, way better than the impeachment.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    On topic, what we are seeing is a descent into tribalism. Standards of governance decline sharply when the tribe is seen as more important than the standard.

    As others have said, Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important. One or two shed a few crocodile tears but if they actually cared about governance standards they wouldn’t have voted for him.

    Interestingly, enough Remainers have not yet made that descent, refusing to give Jeremy Corbyn support to block Brexit. Those who submitted to the judgment of Solomon have found themselves ignored and derided since. Virtue has not been rewarded.

    The lesson they will learn is that tribalism pays. The country will suffer more accordingly.

    "Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important."

    The voters have decided that Boris Johnson was manifestly suitable to give a 80 seat majority. You are the one out of line.
    Your last utterance was to confidently assert an unfounded allegation of extreme political bias against a unanimous Supreme Court. Your latest is to prove your inability to read. You’re on a roll this morning.
    I confidently asserted the view of the voters. I have an 80 seat majority and PM Boris to back up that confident assertion.

    You have your own bile.
    I hadn’t realised the voters had voted on the Supreme Court decision. Perhaps that election took place in the deranged imaginations inside your head?
    I think they did. The election was very shortly after the Supreme Court had declared that the PM had acted illegally (and probably misled the Queen). And people said, whatever, politics as usual. Its a good example of David's thesis, way better than the impeachment.
  • On the descent into tribalism, this time on the other flank of American politics:

    https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1225873750647803910?s=21

    I reckon they might be being a tad hyperbolic.

    On the descent into tribalism, this time on the other flank of American politics:

    https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1225873750647803910?s=21

    I reckon they might be being a tad hyperbolic.
    Indeed. Hypothetical polls are just nonsense, I'd have answered Meteor Strike too. Only lesson to be learnt here is polls are nonsense.
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    edited February 2020
    “He’s unsuitable for ...”

    Is asking the wrong question for a politician. The impression of Effective government is what is winning hence Boris > May, Corbyn or Trump over Dem losers.

    Effectiveness covers focussing on what most voters care about a eg jobs, security over Twitter slights or intersectional language.

    Who will be the first person on the soft left to get it ?

    Tim Farron has - but he’s yesterday’s man.
  • On topic, what we are seeing is a descent into tribalism. Standards of governance decline sharply when the tribe is seen as more important than the standard.

    As others have said, Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important. One or two shed a few crocodile tears but if they actually cared about governance standards they wouldn’t have voted for him.

    Interestingly, enough Remainers have not yet made that descent, refusing to give Jeremy Corbyn support to block Brexit. Those who submitted to the judgment of Solomon have found themselves ignored and derided since. Virtue has not been rewarded.

    The lesson they will learn is that tribalism pays. The country will suffer more accordingly.

    So Remainers just better people then? Yes, I see the light now. We Leavers all better just shut up, know our place, and defer to our betters. Would you like us to bow or is doffing our caps sufficient?
    Leavers lined up to a man behind a candidate who was manifestly unsuitable from his track record. Enough Remainers did not do the same to hand victory to the Conservatives.

    You might argue that Jeremy Corbyn was even more unsuitable than Boris Johnson (I’d regard it as being a dead heat). But I don’t think you can argue that happened.

    As for morality, Leavers will just have to decide for themselves whether handing untrammelled power to someone who has already tried to suspend democracy once was wise. The rest of us have to live with their tribal choice.
  • On topic, what we are seeing is a descent into tribalism. Standards of governance decline sharply when the tribe is seen as more important than the standard.

    As others have said, Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important. One or two shed a few crocodile tears but if they actually cared about governance standards they wouldn’t have voted for him.

    Interestingly, enough Remainers have not yet made that descent, refusing to give Jeremy Corbyn support to block Brexit. Those who submitted to the judgment of Solomon have found themselves ignored and derided since. Virtue has not been rewarded.

    The lesson they will learn is that tribalism pays. The country will suffer more accordingly.

    So Remainers just better people then? Yes, I see the light now. We Leavers all better just shut up, know our place, and defer to our betters. Would you like us to bow or is doffing our caps sufficient?
    Leavers lined up to a man behind a candidate who was manifestly unsuitable from his track record. Enough Remainers did not do the same to hand victory to the Conservatives.

    You might argue that Jeremy Corbyn was even more unsuitable than Boris Johnson (I’d regard it as being a dead heat). But I don’t think you can argue that happened.

    As for morality, Leavers will just have to decide for themselves whether handing untrammelled power to someone who has already tried to suspend democracy once was wise. The rest of us have to live with their tribal choice.
    His track record suggested he was going to get the job done, after the previous lot failed in their duties.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    TGOHF666 said:

    On topic, what we are seeing is a descent into tribalism. Standards of governance decline sharply when the tribe is seen as more important than the standard.

    As others have said, Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important. One or two shed a few crocodile tears but if they actually cared about governance standards they wouldn’t have voted for him.

    Interestingly, enough Remainers have not yet made that descent, refusing to give Jeremy Corbyn support to block Brexit. Those who submitted to the judgment of Solomon have found themselves ignored and derided since. Virtue has not been rewarded.

    The lesson they will learn is that tribalism pays. The country will suffer more accordingly.

    So Remainers just better people then? Yes, I see the light now. We Leavers all better just shut up, know our place, and defer to our betters. Would you like us to bow or is doffing our caps sufficient?
    I think Mr Meeks is referring to Scotland - well I’m sure subliminally he is.

    https://twitter.com/murdo_fraser/status/1226065294327734272?s=21
    Fuck me. A 16 year old is being groomed and some how it's trans people's fault.

    And the attempt to link being a predator with trans issues is disgusting.

    Transphobes are utterly, utterly obsessed. There is no issue that cannot be fixed by discriminating against trans people in their mind. The only thing holding back a tidal wave of support for Independence is support for GRA reform.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    So Remainers just better people then? Yes, I see the light now. We Leavers all better just shut up, know our place, and defer to our betters. Would you like us to bow or is doffing our caps sufficient?

    It would be both ludicrous and offensive to say baldly that "Remainers are better people than Leavers" with no context or qualification. There are large numbers of Leavers who are better people than large numbers of Remainers. There is no doubt about that. However, is the median quality of Remainers (as people) materially higher than that of Leavers? That would be an undeniable yes. The evidence for it is overwhelming.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    algarkirk said:

    On topic, what we are seeing is a descent into tribalism. Standards of governance decline sharply when the tribe is seen as more important than the standard.

    As others have said, Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important. One or two shed a few crocodile tears but if they actually cared about governance standards they wouldn’t have voted for him.

    Interestingly, enough Remainers have not yet made that descent, refusing to give Jeremy Corbyn support to block Brexit. Those who submitted to the judgment of Solomon have found themselves ignored and derided since. Virtue has not been rewarded.

    The lesson they will learn is that tribalism pays. The country will suffer more accordingly.

    I think you are attributing to Remainers as a body the 'Wisdom of Crowds' - collectively not giving Corbyn the keys to No 10 but collectively acting so as to enable someone else to have them. Only Corbyn or Boris was going there, once Remain had failed to rally around the SNP in Scotland and the LDs in E and W. Failing to act as a body, they have failed to achieve their perfectly legitimate outcome. Remainers are a large part of the totality of effort which placed Boris where he now is.

    ....

    What remainers achieved was to solidify behind a position of - "Frustrate Brexit at all costs, without voting against it". The *perception* was that they *initiated* a use of all the mechanisms of government to prevent something they hadn't the stomach (or votes) to do themselves. The further *perception* that there was nothing - including getting Corbyn as PM - that they wouldn't accept to achieve their goal.

    Gina Miller as an asset to Boris Johnson?

    On Topic - the problem is that the Democrats spent the last 4 years shoving our old friend the Overton Window around.

    The narrative they created was this : after tons of investigations, trials or aides etc they achieved nothing in their quest to remove Trump from office. So they resorted to impeachment, but only when the traditional get-your-children-strangely-high-paid-jobs bandwagon was threatened.

    A classic example of the stupidity was this - using the Emoluments Clause to try and prosecute him on the basis that every time someone from a foreign government stays in a Trump hotel, it is a bribe. That failed. So now there is little to do, when Trump orders the whole travelling circus of the Executive Branch to stay at his hotels at huge rates - which is manifestly corrupt.
  • Mr. Royale, aye, that's been overdone a lot already.

    And isn't that sort of thing one of the causes of difficulty retaining experienced doctors?

    It is, and tax can very easily be overdone. I'm far less interested in working harder to get promoted - and increase my salary - now I'm approaching £100k per year earnings because of all the tax implications. So I'd rather spend my time at home with my wife and daughter instead.

    Stamp duty has suffocated the property market in London. And it's stopped many people from downsizing/upsizing elsewhere. North sea oil surcharges sunk that too.

    I think current pension tax reliefs are something like a max of £40k per year and a lifetime limit of just over £1m.

    That's sensible (and even a bit low, I'd keep the lifetime limit the same and up the annual relief to £50k) because you have some years in your career when you do very well and save enough, and other more parsimonious years. That applies in particular to the self-employed.

    The Tories should not be attacking individual responsibility and saving.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    62% of Democrats would rather see the end of life on earth than Trump re-elected? -

    Now that's what I call an "energized base" !!
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    Alistair said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    On topic, what we are seeing is a descent into tribalism. Standards of governance decline sharply when the tribe is seen as more important than the standard.

    As others have said, Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important. One or two shed a few crocodile tears but if they actually cared about governance standards they wouldn’t have voted for him.

    Interestingly, enough Remainers have not yet made that descent, refusing to give Jeremy Corbyn support to block Brexit. Those who submitted to the judgment of Solomon have found themselves ignored and derided since. Virtue has not been rewarded.

    The lesson they will learn is that tribalism pays. The country will suffer more accordingly.

    So Remainers just better people then? Yes, I see the light now. We Leavers all better just shut up, know our place, and defer to our betters. Would you like us to bow or is doffing our caps sufficient?
    I think Mr Meeks is referring to Scotland - well I’m sure subliminally he is.

    https://twitter.com/murdo_fraser/status/1226065294327734272?s=21
    Fuck me. A 16 year old is being groomed and some how it's trans people's fault.

    And the attempt to link being a predator with trans issues is disgusting.

    Transphobes are utterly, utterly obsessed. There is no issue that cannot be fixed by discriminating against trans people in their mind. The only thing holding back a tidal wave of support for Independence is support for GRA reform.
    Where do you think trans issues rank on the voters concerns in Scotland and factoring that in why do you think there is such appetite for radical new legislation in Scotland ?

    The lobby is effective.
  • kinabalu said:

    So Remainers just better people then? Yes, I see the light now. We Leavers all better just shut up, know our place, and defer to our betters. Would you like us to bow or is doffing our caps sufficient?

    It would be both ludicrous and offensive to say baldly that "Remainers are better people than Leavers" with no context or qualification. There are large numbers of Leavers who are better people than large numbers of Remainers. There is no doubt about that. However, is the median quality of Remainers (as people) materially higher than that of Leavers? That would be an undeniable yes. The evidence for it is overwhelming.
    I don't think that's true either.

    You're making a values judgement, which reeks of confirmation bias.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    FTPT
    rcs1000 said:

    Here in left wing Los Angeles Democrat circles, there is a clear preference for Sanders or Warren.

    But do you know how many people actively dislike Buttigieg?

    None.

    How many actively dislike Bloomberg?

    Quite a lot. They remember that he spoke at the RNC.

    The Warren supporting portion of my Twitter feed are really fucking salty that Mayor Pete has not received the level of scrutiny of his healthcare plan that they feel Warren has.
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 431

    On the descent into tribalism, this time on the other flank of American politics:

    https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1225873750647803910?s=21

    It's hilarious and some of the breakdowns are amusing (e.g. moderates are the most favourable towards the extinction of humanity), but all it really tells us is that people sometimes lie in polls, especially if they are asked a stupid question. I'm not even sure how I would have answered it.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    edited February 2020
    kinabalu said:



    There is no doubt about that. However, is the median quality of Remainers (as people) materially higher than that of Leavers? That would be an undeniable yes. The evidence for it is overwhelming.

    Your first job is to get a large, statistically unbiased sample of Remainers & Leavers, without any selection effects. How did you do that?

    Your second job is to quantify "the median quality" of people "as people" (whatever that means) into some measure that a statistically survey can record.

    You have done all this, and have "overwhelming evidence".

    Let's see your evidence.
  • On the descent into tribalism, this time on the other flank of American politics:

    https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1225873750647803910?s=21

    I reckon they might be being a tad hyperbolic.

    On the descent into tribalism, this time on the other flank of American politics:

    https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1225873750647803910?s=21

    I reckon they might be being a tad hyperbolic.
    Indeed. Hypothetical polls are just nonsense, I'd have answered Meteor Strike too. Only lesson to be learnt here is polls are nonsense.
    I'd prefer Hitler to a meteor strike wiping out all human life on the basis that the human race would at least continue and he could eventually be overthrown by a coup or military force, and order restored. In fact, I'd prefer almost anything to that.

    Apocalyptic oblivion would be absolutely final.

    "WHAT!!?!! You prefer HITLER?! You're a NAZI!!!!"

    Etc. Etc.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    On topic. 70% of Americans wanted witnesses called during the Senate trial. The Senate didn't call witnesses.

  • DavidL said:

    On topic, what we are seeing is a descent into tribalism. Standards of governance decline sharply when the tribe is seen as more important than the standard.

    As others have said, Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important. One or two shed a few crocodile tears but if they actually cared about governance standards they wouldn’t have voted for him.

    Interestingly, enough Remainers have not yet made that descent, refusing to give Jeremy Corbyn support to block Brexit. Those who submitted to the judgment of Solomon have found themselves ignored and derided since. Virtue has not been rewarded.

    The lesson they will learn is that tribalism pays. The country will suffer more accordingly.

    "Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important."

    The voters have decided that Boris Johnson was manifestly suitable to give a 80 seat majority. You are the one out of line.
    Your last utterance was to confidently assert an unfounded allegation of extreme political bias against a unanimous Supreme Court. Your latest is to prove your inability to read. You’re on a roll this morning.
    I confidently asserted the view of the voters. I have an 80 seat majority and PM Boris to back up that confident assertion.

    You have your own bile.
    I hadn’t realised the voters had voted on the Supreme Court decision. Perhaps that election took place in the deranged imaginations inside your head?
    I think they did. The election was very shortly after the Supreme Court had declared that the PM had acted illegally (and probably misled the Queen). And people said, whatever, politics as usual. Its a good example of David's thesis, way better than the impeachment.
    That @MarqueeMark’s conspiracist ravings against the Supreme Court is a commonplace among Leavers shows just how sick Britain’s civic culture now is.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    By 48% to 39% Americans thought Trump was guilty.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Given some comments about it being wrong to remove the president even if he's done wrong it sounds like the whole process of impeachment is pointless as far as many of them are concerned.

    Which is odd in a country which worships its founders and its constitution.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    kinabalu said:

    So Remainers just better people then? Yes, I see the light now. We Leavers all better just shut up, know our place, and defer to our betters. Would you like us to bow or is doffing our caps sufficient?

    It would be both ludicrous and offensive to say baldly that "Remainers are better people than Leavers" with no context or qualification. There are large numbers of Leavers who are better people than large numbers of Remainers. There is no doubt about that. However, is the median quality of Remainers (as people) materially higher than that of Leavers? That would be an undeniable yes. The evidence for it is overwhelming.
    I don't think that's true either.

    You're making a values judgement, which reeks of confirmation bias.
    And the selection effects are huge at at least two stages: when people choose to overtly self-identify or not, and when the media select from those self-selections to portray the typical Remainer (Cambridge don) of Leaver (BNP footsoldier). This is embarrassing.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Boris's suspension of Parliament was initially upheld by the Queen's Bench. It only became "illegal" when a politically-motivated Supreme Court "did their bit" to try and nail Brexit Boris.

    That is paranoid derangement. Give your head a good shake.
    Have to agree with mr meeks on this one. The idea every single supreme court justice is a politically motivated hack, even those who sided with the government on the A50 decision, is simply not credible.
  • Systems based on honourable chaps doing the right thing are vulnerable to takeover by hard men who do not follow the conventions, and it really makes no difference whether they are crooks or plaster saints who have persuaded themselves their opponents are so dangerous they must do whatever it takes; the ends justify the means.

    Trump's mendacity is GW Bush's truthiness on steroids. Arguably Reagan too, delaying the hostages' release and the Iran-Contras scandal. Closer to home, take Corbyn's clinging on despite the no-confidence votes when an honourable man, his opponents calculated, would surely have resigned. Even Cameron/Osborne gerrymandering was motivated by the sincere belief Labour had rigged the system against them.

    Trump was acquitted not because he deserved to be or the case was lacking but because a partisan Senate declined to hear the evidence.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,555

    kinabalu said:



    There is no doubt about that. However, is the median quality of Remainers (as people) materially higher than that of Leavers? That would be an undeniable yes. The evidence for it is overwhelming.

    Your first job is to get a large, statistically unbiased sample of Remainers & Leavers, without any selection effects. How did you do that?

    Your second job is to quantify "the median quality" of people "as people" (whatever that means) into some measure that a statistically survey can record.

    You have done all this, and have "overwhelming evidence".

    Let's see your evidence.
    Don't feed the troll. It is not his lunchtime yet.
  • DavidL said:

    On topic, what we are seeing is a descent into tribalism. Standards of governance decline sharply when the tribe is seen as more important than the standard.

    As others have said, Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important. One or two shed a few crocodile tears but if they actually cared about governance standards they wouldn’t have voted for him.

    Interestingly, enough Remainers have not yet made that descent, refusing to give Jeremy Corbyn support to block Brexit. Those who submitted to the judgment of Solomon have found themselves ignored and derided since. Virtue has not been rewarded.

    The lesson they will learn is that tribalism pays. The country will suffer more accordingly.

    "Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important."

    The voters have decided that Boris Johnson was manifestly suitable to give a 80 seat majority. You are the one out of line.
    Your last utterance was to confidently assert an unfounded allegation of extreme political bias against a unanimous Supreme Court. Your latest is to prove your inability to read. You’re on a roll this morning.
    I confidently asserted the view of the voters. I have an 80 seat majority and PM Boris to back up that confident assertion.

    You have your own bile.
    I hadn’t realised the voters had voted on the Supreme Court decision. Perhaps that election took place in the deranged imaginations inside your head?
    I think they did. The election was very shortly after the Supreme Court had declared that the PM had acted illegally (and probably misled the Queen). And people said, whatever, politics as usual. Its a good example of David's thesis, way better than the impeachment.
    That @MarqueeMark’s conspiracist ravings against the Supreme Court is a commonplace among Leavers shows just how sick Britain’s civic culture now is.
    I supported the Supreme Court's decision, and thought it was a fair judgement.

    But, I was in no doubt as to what Lady Hale's personal politics were.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Alistair said:

    By 48% to 39% Americans thought Trump was guilty.

    So he would have been acquitted by a jury, too? :p
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    TGOHF666 said:
    Perhaps they should have hired someone without ten other jobs. :)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Apparently Layla Moran is to say the LDs failed to properly explain their Brexit policy at the GE, which seems very odd to me. Surely the positive thing about their policy is how easy it was to understand?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51413562
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited February 2020
    Trump firing everyone who testafied to Congress
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 2,722

    DavidL said:

    On topic, what we are seeing is a descent into tribalism. Standards of governance decline sharply when the tribe is seen as more important than the standard.

    As others have said, Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important. One or two shed a few crocodile tears but if they actually cared about governance standards they wouldn’t have voted for him.

    Interestingly, enough Remainers have not yet made that descent, refusing to give Jeremy Corbyn support to block Brexit. Those who submitted to the judgment of Solomon have found themselves ignored and derided since. Virtue has not been rewarded.

    The lesson they will learn is that tribalism pays. The country will suffer more accordingly.

    "Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important."

    The voters have decided that Boris Johnson was manifestly suitable to give a 80 seat majority. You are the one out of line.
    Your last utterance was to confidently assert an unfounded allegation of extreme political bias against a unanimous Supreme Court. Your latest is to prove your inability to read. You’re on a roll this morning.
    I confidently asserted the view of the voters. I have an 80 seat majority and PM Boris to back up that confident assertion.

    You have your own bile.
    I hadn’t realised the voters had voted on the Supreme Court decision. Perhaps that election took place in the deranged imaginations inside your head?
    I think they did. The election was very shortly after the Supreme Court had declared that the PM had acted illegally (and probably misled the Queen). And people said, whatever, politics as usual. Its a good example of David's thesis, way better than the impeachment.
    That @MarqueeMark’s conspiracist ravings against the Supreme Court is a commonplace among Leavers shows just how sick Britain’s civic culture now is.
    Johnson himself said proroguing parliament had nothing to do with Brexit. So how could ruling it illegal have been frustrating Brexit?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    DavidL said:

    On topic, what we are seeing is a descent into tribalism. Standards of governance decline sharply when the tribe is seen as more important than the standard.

    As others have said, Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important. One or two shed a few crocodile tears but if they actually cared about governance standards they wouldn’t have voted for him.

    Interestingly, enough Remainers have not yet made that descent, refusing to give Jeremy Corbyn support to block Brexit. Those who submitted to the judgment of Solomon have found themselves ignored and derided since. Virtue has not been rewarded.

    The lesson they will learn is that tribalism pays. The country will suffer more accordingly.

    "Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important."

    The voters have decided that Boris Johnson was manifestly suitable to give a 80 seat majority. You are the one out of line.
    Your last utterance was to confidently assert an unfounded allegation of extreme political bias against a unanimous Supreme Court. Your latest is to prove your inability to read. You’re on a roll this morning.
    I confidently asserted the view of the voters. I have an 80 seat majority and PM Boris to back up that confident assertion.

    You have your own bile.
    I hadn’t realised the voters had voted on the Supreme Court decision. Perhaps that election took place in the deranged imaginations inside your head?
    I think they did. The election was very shortly after the Supreme Court had declared that the PM had acted illegally (and probably misled the Queen). And people said, whatever, politics as usual. Its a good example of David's thesis, way better than the impeachment.
    That @MarqueeMark’s conspiracist ravings against the Supreme Court is a commonplace among Leavers shows just how sick Britain’s civic culture now is.
    I supported the Supreme Court's decision, and thought it was a fair judgement.

    But, I was in no doubt as to what Lady Hale's personal politics were.
    That may be so, and I could understand the conspiracists more if it was an 8-5 decision or something. But not when it was unanimous. I'd have supported their decision if it went the other way, because to me the key was I thought the action wrong whether or not it was unlawful, and I could accept it being lawful.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    Fishing said:

    kinabalu said:



    There is no doubt about that. However, is the median quality of Remainers (as people) materially higher than that of Leavers? That would be an undeniable yes. The evidence for it is overwhelming.

    Your first job is to get a large, statistically unbiased sample of Remainers & Leavers, without any selection effects. How did you do that?

    Your second job is to quantify "the median quality" of people "as people" (whatever that means) into some measure that a statistically survey can record.

    You have done all this, and have "overwhelming evidence".

    Let's see your evidence.
    Don't feed the troll. It is not his lunchtime yet.
    Kinabula is not a troll.

    He has an engaging woolliness of thinking. Which I quite like.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    kle4 said:

    Apparently Layla Moran is to say the LDs failed to properly explain their Brexit policy at the GE, which seems very odd to me. Surely the positive thing about their policy is how easy it was to understand?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51413562

    I thought it straightforward too: Revoke A50 if LibDems got a majority, otherwise another Referendum.
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 431
    edited February 2020
    DavidL said:


    "Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important."

    The voters have decided that Boris Johnson was manifestly suitable to give a 80 seat majority. You are the one out of line.

    Your last utterance was to confidently assert an unfounded allegation of extreme political bias against a unanimous Supreme Court. Your latest is to prove your inability to read. You’re on a roll this morning.
    I confidently asserted the view of the voters. I have an 80 seat majority and PM Boris to back up that confident assertion.

    You have your own bile.
    I hadn’t realised the voters had voted on the Supreme Court decision. Perhaps that election took place in the deranged imaginations inside your head?
    I think they did. The election was very shortly after the Supreme Court had declared that the PM had acted illegally (and probably misled the Queen). And people said, whatever, politics as usual. Its a good example of David's thesis, way better than the impeachment.
    On this specific point, you may be right. Most people simply weren't outraged or concerned by the government's actions there. However, if you follow the thread of these discussions, it does get very silly. The winning side claims that one single vote which had two possible winners simultaneously and irrefutably demonstrates many different things.

    In this case, we are all expected to accept as proven fact:

    - that the country thinks Johnson is a good prime minister
    - that it wanted to get Brexit done
    - that it doesn't care about undemocratic actions by the government
    - that Corbyn was the worst political leader this country has ever seen
    - that socialists will always lose
    - that every individual item in the Labour manifesto was unpopular
    - that every individual item in the Conservative manifesto was popular

    and anyone who question any one of these things is a whining loser who is still in denial.

    The logical fallacy of these claims is so obvious that it should hardly need spelling out, yet somehow it does, again and again.
  • Alistair said:

    Trump firing everyone who testafied to Congress

    And also their family members, IIUC.

    It's time for Americans to stop paying taxes.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    kle4 said:

    Apparently Layla Moran is to say the LDs failed to properly explain their Brexit policy at the GE, which seems very odd to me. Surely the positive thing about their policy is how easy it was to understand?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51413562

    She is an absolute wonder.

    I can see the LibDems pulling the trigger this time.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    Given a choice between Johnson and Corbyn, it's a very easy choice to favour Johnson. That doesn't mean you have to like Johnson.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    kle4 said:

    Apparently Layla Moran is to say the LDs failed to properly explain their Brexit policy at the GE, which seems very odd to me. Surely the positive thing about their policy is how easy it was to understand?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51413562

    "It made us look arrogant, and it made us look stupid," she says. Quite.

    In the same piece Ashworth is positioning himself for a top job under the new regime.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    kinabalu said:

    So Remainers just better people then? Yes, I see the light now. We Leavers all better just shut up, know our place, and defer to our betters. Would you like us to bow or is doffing our caps sufficient?

    It would be both ludicrous and offensive to say baldly that "Remainers are better people than Leavers" with no context or qualification. There are large numbers of Leavers who are better people than large numbers of Remainers. There is no doubt about that. However, is the median quality of Remainers (as people) materially higher than that of Leavers? That would be an undeniable yes. The evidence for it is overwhelming.
    What evidence is that, other than that they agree with you?
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 431

    Fishing said:

    kinabalu said:



    There is no doubt about that. However, is the median quality of Remainers (as people) materially higher than that of Leavers? That would be an undeniable yes. The evidence for it is overwhelming.

    Your first job is to get a large, statistically unbiased sample of Remainers & Leavers, without any selection effects. How did you do that?

    Your second job is to quantify "the median quality" of people "as people" (whatever that means) into some measure that a statistically survey can record.

    You have done all this, and have "overwhelming evidence".

    Let's see your evidence.
    Don't feed the troll. It is not his lunchtime yet.
    Kinabula is not a troll.

    He has an engaging woolliness of thinking. Which I quite like.
    Indeed! Pretty much the antithesis of a troll. Consistently reasonable and open to criticism.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    kle4 said:

    Apparently Layla Moran is to say the LDs failed to properly explain their Brexit policy at the GE, which seems very odd to me. Surely the positive thing about their policy is how easy it was to understand?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51413562

    "It made us look arrogant, and it made us look stupid," she says. Quite.
    But I dont see how she thinks it would look less arrogant or stupid if it were 'properly explained'. Isnt that just saying it only looked stupid and arrogant because the public didnt understand? So she thinks the policy itself was just fine.

    I'll be in interested to hear how much more simply she thinks the policy could have been explained.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    kicorse said:

    DavidL said:


    "Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important."

    The voters have decided that Boris Johnson was manifestly suitable to give a 80 seat majority. You are the one out of line.

    Your last utterance was to confidently assert an unfounded allegation of extreme political bias against a unanimous Supreme Court. Your latest is to prove your inability to read. You’re on a roll this morning.
    I confidently asserted the view of the voters. I have an 80 seat majority and PM Boris to back up that confident assertion.

    You have your own bile.
    I hadn’t realised the voters had voted on the Supreme Court decision. Perhaps that election took place in the deranged imaginations inside your head?
    I think they did. The election was very shortly after the Supreme Court had declared that the PM had acted illegally (and probably misled the Queen). And people said, whatever, politics as usual. Its a good example of David's thesis, way better than the impeachment.
    On this specific point, you may be right. Most people simply weren't outraged or concerned by the government's actions there. However, if you follow the thread of these discussions, it does get very silly. The winning side claims that one single vote which had two possible winners simultaneously and irrefutably demonstrates many different things.

    In this case, we are all expected to accept as proven fact:

    - that the country thinks Johnson is a good prime minister
    - that it wanted to get Brexit done
    - that it doesn't care about undemocratic actions by the government
    - that Corbyn was the worst political leader this country has ever seen
    - that socialists will always lose
    - that every individual item in the Labour manifesto was unpopular
    - that every individual item in the Conservative manifesto was popular

    and anyone who question any one of these things is a whining loser who is still in denial.

    The logical fallacy of these claims is so obvious that it should hardly need spelling out, yet somehow it does, again and again.
    Corbyn was massively unpopular, and I think Labour promised far too much in their manifesto. A couple of popular policies are quite sufficient. Promising vast payouts to everyone outside the top 10% was just not credible. The promise to the WASPI women likely pissed off anyone who was not a WASPI woman.

    I think that Corbyn's/Labour's unpopularity mattered much more than attitudes towards Johnson and the Conservatives.
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 431
    edited February 2020
    kle4 said:

    Apparently Layla Moran is to say the LDs failed to properly explain their Brexit policy at the GE, which seems very odd to me. Surely the positive thing about their policy is how easy it was to understand?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51413562

    What they failed to explain was that they didn't really want to dismantle democracy, that the policy was just a symbolic way of being the most Remainy party after Labour fully signed up to the second referendum, and that they would never have actually implemented it.
  • Mr. F, I forget the figure but the sum involved throwing money at women who were displeased that equality didn't go their way for once was enormous. That would've annoyed a lot of people.

    Corbyn was an immense asset for Johnson.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    kicorse said:

    DavidL said:


    "Leavers have descended into such a tribe, ignoring Boris Johnson’s manifest unsuitability because they considered Brexit to be more important."

    The voters have decided that Boris Johnson was manifestly suitable to give a 80 seat majority. You are the one out of line.

    Your last utterance was to confidently assert an unfounded allegation of extreme political bias against a unanimous Supreme Court. Your latest is to prove your inability to read. You’re on a roll this morning.
    I confidently asserted the view of the voters. I have an 80 seat majority and PM Boris to back up that confident assertion.

    You have your own bile.
    I hadn’t realised the voters had voted on the Supreme Court decision. Perhaps that election took place in the deranged imaginations inside your head?
    I think they did. The election was very shortly after the Supreme Court had declared that the PM had acted illegally (and probably misled the Queen). And people said, whatever, politics as usual. Its a good example of David's thesis, way better than the impeachment.
    On this specific point, you may be right. Most people simply weren't outraged or concerned by the government's actions there. However, if you follow the thread of these discussions, it does get very silly. The winning side claims that one single vote which had two possible winners simultaneously and irrefutably demonstrates many different things.

    In this case, we are all expected to accept as proven fact:

    - that the country thinks Johnson is a good prime minister
    - that it wanted to get Brexit done
    - that it doesn't care about undemocratic actions by the government
    - that Corbyn was the worst political leader this country has ever seen
    - that socialists will always lose
    - that every individual item in the Labour manifesto was unpopular
    - that every individual item in the Conservative manifesto was popular

    and anyone who question any one of these things is a whining loser who is still in denial.

    The logical fallacy of these claims is so obvious that it should hardly need spelling out, yet somehow it does, again and again.
    Sadly socialists don't always lose, normally its with horrific results, for example Venezuelan.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    Sean_F said:

    What evidence is that, other than that they agree with you?

    The TV vox pops of members of the public of the respective persuasions?

    The fact that most high achievers in most fields are Remainers?

    The fact that almost all known "deplorables" are supporters of Leave?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    Alistair said:

    Trump firing everyone who testafied to Congress

    "The most powerful man in the world - buoyed by the silent, the pliable, and the complicit - has decided to exact revenge."

    MOBSTER.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    kinabalu said:

    Sean_F said:

    What evidence is that, other than that they agree with you?

    The TV vox pops of members of the public of the respective persuasions?

    The fact that most high achievers in most fields are Remainers?

    The fact that almost all known "deplorables" are supporters of Leave?
    You have to be a high achiever to be a good person? What are you smoking.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    edited February 2020
    kinabalu said:

    Sean_F said:

    What evidence is that, other than that they agree with you?

    The TV vox pops of members of the public of the respective persuasions?

    The fact that most high achievers in most fields are Remainers?

    The fact that almost all known "deplorables" are supporters of Leave?
    It's rather a bold claim to equate high achievement with virtue. Certainly, most leading financiers are Remainers, but would you say they are virtuous?
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    kicorse said:

    kle4 said:

    Apparently Layla Moran is to say the LDs failed to properly explain their Brexit policy at the GE, which seems very odd to me. Surely the positive thing about their policy is how easy it was to understand?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51413562

    What they failed to explain was that they didn't really want to dismantle democracy, that the policy was just a symbolic way of being the most Remainy party after Labour fully signed up to the second referendum, and that they would never have actually implemented it.
    Rightly or wrongly, there was always the possibility, in the minds of some, that in the case of a Lib-Lab coalition, the coalition would not have a referendum, because it was in one of the party's manifestos.
  • Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    So Remainers just better people then? Yes, I see the light now. We Leavers all better just shut up, know our place, and defer to our betters. Would you like us to bow or is doffing our caps sufficient?

    It would be both ludicrous and offensive to say baldly that "Remainers are better people than Leavers" with no context or qualification. There are large numbers of Leavers who are better people than large numbers of Remainers. There is no doubt about that. However, is the median quality of Remainers (as people) materially higher than that of Leavers? That would be an undeniable yes. The evidence for it is overwhelming.
    What evidence is that, other than that they agree with you?
    The polling that showed Brexiteers were prepared to the destroy the Union and the Northern Ireland peace process so they could have Brexit.
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 431
    edited February 2020
    Sean_F said:

    kicorse said:

    DavidL said:



    I confidently asserted the view of the voters. I have an 80 seat majority and PM Boris to back up that confident assertion.

    You have your own bile.

    I hadn’t realised the voters had voted on the Supreme Court decision. Perhaps that election took place in the deranged imaginations inside your head?
    I think they did. The election was very shortly after the Supreme Court had declared that the PM had acted illegally (and probably misled the Queen). And people said, whatever, politics as usual. Its a good example of David's thesis, way better than the impeachment.
    On this specific point, you may be right. Most people simply weren't outraged or concerned by the government's actions there. However, if you follow the thread of these discussions, it does get very silly. The winning side claims that one single vote which had two possible winners simultaneously and irrefutably demonstrates many different things.

    In this case, we are all expected to accept as proven fact:

    - that the country thinks Johnson is a good prime minister
    - that it wanted to get Brexit done
    - that it doesn't care about undemocratic actions by the government
    - that Corbyn was the worst political leader this country has ever seen
    - that socialists will always lose
    - that every individual item in the Labour manifesto was unpopular
    - that every individual item in the Conservative manifesto was popular

    and anyone who question any one of these things is a whining loser who is still in denial.

    The logical fallacy of these claims is so obvious that it should hardly need spelling out, yet somehow it does, again and again.
    Corbyn was massively unpopular, and I think Labour promised far too much in their manifesto. A couple of popular policies are quite sufficient. Promising vast payouts to everyone outside the top 10% was just not credible. The promise to the WASPI women likely pissed off anyone who was not a WASPI woman.

    I think that Corbyn's/Labour's unpopularity mattered much more than attitudes towards Johnson and the Conservatives.
    Sure, I agree with most of what you just wrote. The point I was making is that you clearly cannot claim that a single election results irrefutably proves more than one such assertion. In practice, you cannot even claim that it proves one of them.

    Yet we've just seen an exchange (one of many like it) in which Alastair Meeks was told to shut up because people who agree with him on a particular issue lost, and that proves him wrong. It's that absurdity that deserves to be ridiculed.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    edited February 2020
    Revocation was a dumb policy. The problem was clarity but that people knew about it, putting off every shade of Leaver and many moderate Remainers.

    But worse than that was the stupidity. The odds on a Lib Dem straight General Election triumph were an order of magnitude longer than getting a second referendum (and Remain winning it). But the revocation policy put off plenty of people whilst at the same time being very unlikely to ever happen yet being front and centre of the Lib Dem platform on the EU.

    Not unlike 'Little Englander' and 'back of the queue' it was an entirely needless own goal at a time when the Lib Dems were enjoying some defections and had some momentum going.

    Edited extra bit: ahem, the problem was not* clarity etc etc.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    So Remainers just better people then? Yes, I see the light now. We Leavers all better just shut up, know our place, and defer to our betters. Would you like us to bow or is doffing our caps sufficient?

    It would be both ludicrous and offensive to say baldly that "Remainers are better people than Leavers" with no context or qualification. There are large numbers of Leavers who are better people than large numbers of Remainers. There is no doubt about that. However, is the median quality of Remainers (as people) materially higher than that of Leavers? That would be an undeniable yes. The evidence for it is overwhelming.
    What evidence is that, other than that they agree with you?
    The polling that showed Brexiteers were prepared to the destroy the Union and the Northern Ireland peace process so they could have Brexit.
    Well they've damaged the union and it's likely that the peace process is going to accelerate towards reunion.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    Kinabula is not a troll.

    He has an engaging woolliness of thinking. Which I quite like.

    Well I do like that "Kinabula" spelling, I must say! Let's stick with that. And thank you for most kind sentiments and recognition of my non-trollity.

    But I do reject the "woolly thinking" charge obvs. I like to meander and roam but there is a cold clean streak of ruthless logic running throughout. :smile:
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 431
    BigRich said:

    kicorse said:

    kle4 said:

    Apparently Layla Moran is to say the LDs failed to properly explain their Brexit policy at the GE, which seems very odd to me. Surely the positive thing about their policy is how easy it was to understand?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51413562

    What they failed to explain was that they didn't really want to dismantle democracy, that the policy was just a symbolic way of being the most Remainy party after Labour fully signed up to the second referendum, and that they would never have actually implemented it.
    Rightly or wrongly, there was always the possibility, in the minds of some, that in the case of a Lib-Lab coalition, the coalition would not have a referendum, because it was in one of the party's manifestos.
    Indeed. It was a breathtakingly stupid thing to do. And "we didn't really mean it" was a terrible excuse, especially from the party of the tuition-fees pledge.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,343
    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    So Remainers just better people then? Yes, I see the light now. We Leavers all better just shut up, know our place, and defer to our betters. Would you like us to bow or is doffing our caps sufficient?

    It would be both ludicrous and offensive to say baldly that "Remainers are better people than Leavers" with no context or qualification. There are large numbers of Leavers who are better people than large numbers of Remainers. There is no doubt about that. However, is the median quality of Remainers (as people) materially higher than that of Leavers? That would be an undeniable yes. The evidence for it is overwhelming.
    What evidence is that, other than that they agree with you?
    Suppose this suggestion about relative merit were true? (Which I have no reason for thinking BTW). Democracy is what it is. It gives exactly equal weight to the vote of the person someone may think is either dim or morally unmeritorious. We all know this. This places on those who rate themselves either intellectually or morally to be bright and effective campaigners for whatever cause they espouse. One of the doubts about the relative merits of Remainers is that they managed to run a fantastically non-idealistic, negative, destructive and generally rubbish campaign when Remainers had had 45 years to sell their dream, work out its campaign merits and present a credible narrative and vision.



  • Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sean_F said:

    What evidence is that, other than that they agree with you?

    The TV vox pops of members of the public of the respective persuasions?

    The fact that most high achievers in most fields are Remainers?

    The fact that almost all known "deplorables" are supporters of Leave?
    It's rather a bold claim to equate high achievement with virtue. Certainly, most leading financiers are Remainers, but would you say they are virtuous?
    Maybe I'm starting to turn into a bit of a misanthrope but, whenever I hang around any Leave or Remain protesting crowds, I find myself disliking both of them.

    Everyone (and I mean everyone) who mouths an opinion about Brexit out loud at my place of work is a Remainer, and talk to me with the very clear presumption that I too am a Remainer. What they say is often unpleasant and paints them in a poor light.

    I've learnt to keep my mouth shut, and change the subject.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,287
    kinabalu said:

    Alistair said:

    Trump firing everyone who testafied to Congress

    "The most powerful man in the world - buoyed by the silent, the pliable, and the complicit - has decided to exact revenge."

    MOBSTER.
    I think anybody in that position would have fired his accusers having been acquitted. Its a case of best having these enemies pissing on the tent from the outside rather than from within.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,343
    edited February 2020
    eek said:

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    So Remainers just better people then? Yes, I see the light now. We Leavers all better just shut up, know our place, and defer to our betters. Would you like us to bow or is doffing our caps sufficient?

    It would be both ludicrous and offensive to say baldly that "Remainers are better people than Leavers" with no context or qualification. There are large numbers of Leavers who are better people than large numbers of Remainers. There is no doubt about that. However, is the median quality of Remainers (as people) materially higher than that of Leavers? That would be an undeniable yes. The evidence for it is overwhelming.
    What evidence is that, other than that they agree with you?
    The polling that showed Brexiteers were prepared to the destroy the Union and the Northern Ireland peace process so they could have Brexit.
    Well they've damaged the union and it's likely that the peace process is going to accelerate towards reunion.
    Polling about forced choices proves nothing. Brexiteers wanted in the main both Brexit and the Union and non violence.

    See the recent USA polling about political outcomes v meteorite destruction for another example.

    In a peace loving democracy most are never ever going to say they prefer a non democratic outcome, like the threat of violence, to the enacting of a democratic mandate.

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    Your first job is to get a large, statistically unbiased sample of Remainers & Leavers, without any selection effects. How did you do that?

    Your second job is to quantify "the median quality" of people "as people" (whatever that means) into some measure that a statistically survey can record.

    You have done all this, and have "overwhelming evidence".

    Let's see your evidence.

    That is daunting. I can't do it. But it would constitute an interesting and worthwhile exercise for somebody IMO. Perhaps a PHD if funding could be arranged. I wonder - serious question - if a study along these lines would be deemed appropriate for that? The value is obvious but I can imagine that it might be thought to be unPC and divisive.
This discussion has been closed.