Thread: To all the lefties on here Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029915
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
I had been wondering why this forum was so dominated by obnoxious, boring, self righteous, lefties. I have to come to the conclusion its due to the moderation. I started a thread today on the subject of feminism, it started to get into a lively interaction of different opinion and then the mods shut it down on the grounds that it was 'going downhill'.
If you want to have a forum moderated like that, and most people here obviously do like it, then that's up to you. You'll end up with what you've got, a board dominated by sanctimonious lefties and not a huge variety of opinion.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
Oh and before I get banned for that post I would point out that I am not criticising the moderators. Its your board not mine, I have no objection, and no right to object, to you moderating however you want. Moderation of some kind is necessary on any board. The tone of any board is set by the moderation. It just happens with this board that that tone, i.e. of the board being dominated by self righteous lefties, is not one I'm a huge fan of.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
I have to wonder, this atmosphere, domination by lots of chattering sanctimonious left wingers. Is this is what its like in today's academia?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Unless I'm much mistaken, this board, in fact all the boards on the Ship, don't have moderators.
See: we're not obnoxious, boring, self righteous, lefties. We're obnoxious, boring, self righteous, pedantic lefties.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Barnabas did say the closing is *temporary*, while the H/As huddle about it. Maybe start a thread in Styx? FWIW.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
I'm guessing there was a happy hour at Bibliophile's local tonight.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Unless I'm much mistaken, this board, in fact all the boards on the Ship, don't have moderators.
See: we're not obnoxious, boring, self righteous, lefties. We're obnoxious, boring, self righteous, pedantic lefties.
To be fair I'm sure that a lot of you have plenty of good qualities, including a sense of humour, and of course all of us have fault. I find the politically correct tone of most of the posters here comes across as boring, self righteous and obnoxious, but we are all fallen creatures.
Anyway, what's the difference between an admin and a mod?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Board culture from the FAQs - tells you about Admins and anything else you might want to know
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
Bibliophile, I think you're probably mistaken about the reason for the temporary shut down; this is understandable, since you weren't a poster when the "previous threads on the topic which led to Admin action" occurred. I suspect it probably has something to do with this advice.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Well, I guess this is the nearest I ever got to being called to Hell. Instead of the Styx of course. Where concerns about this bit of Hosting can be raised and answered.
Bibliophile, you just shot yourself in the foot
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
As an obnoxious, boring, self righteous, lefty, I don't think that the moderatiors should be given any credit for our domination of this forum.
Apparenty, you are unaware of the widely known fact that it is our goal to dominate everything, everbody, everywhere.
This forum is just one of our many successes. Beware, Bibliophile, we now have you directly in our cross-hairs.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
Man, for a bunch of pinko commie socialists with a dictatorial streak, we sure do a bad job of abusing our Unlimited Powers and just booting out the rightwingers.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
Bibliophile, you are wrong about why the thread was closed. Wronger than a wrong thing on National Wrong Things Day with wrong sauce on top. You obviously don't know the history.
Don't feel bad, it's not like you're the only right-winger who flaps their gums without knowing what they're talking about.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I had been wondering why this forum was so dominated by obnoxious, boring, self righteous, lefties.
"Lefty" is relative to your vantage point, most people are self righteous to some extent, boring is not the same thing as not treating you as the centre of attention, and obnoxious? Excuse me, have you seen the rest of the internet?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
the politically correct tone of most of the posters here
Earlier this year, I read something about "political correctness" that I will never, ever forget.
It was a copy of
this remark from Neil Gaiman.
I tell you, it's a real eye-opener. People never strive to be politically correct, we only hear about political correctness when people are complaining about it.
And what they're almost always complaining about is a feeling that their right to talk shit about other people has been curtailed.
Well good news, Bibliophile. This board has actually allowed you to talk shit about people remarkably often, because you sure do talk a lot of shit.
This does not, mean, however, that you can expect Shipmates to smile upon you while you do it.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Thanks for the Gaiman link. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
"Politically correct" refers to other people's concerns.
I think the irregular verb goes like this:
I am fighting oppression.
You are being polite and/or compassionate.
They are being politically correct.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Bibliophile talks nonsense about something he knows nothing about. Others mock him. There. That's the thread explained. You can close it now.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Bibliophile, I think you're probably mistaken about the reason for the temporary shut down; this is understandable, since you weren't a poster when the "previous threads on the topic which led to Admin action" occurred. I suspect it probably has something to do with this advice.
Odds are, you are correct, Dave W. It does appear as though, based on what he's posted, Bibliophile is suffering a misunderstanding. I hope your reasonable contribution, along with most everybody else's, helps put everything right.
But there is an alternate possibility. Perhaps Bibliophile is not mistaken.
Consider that Alex Cockell has just recently returned from an extended self-imposed leave, and posts in All Saints about how he is suffering. Then, not that long after, Bibliophile just happens to construct the exact topic-honey-pot which completely fucks with Alex's shit. Keep in mind that Bibliophile is not new here, and Alex's previous sufferings were extremely public.
Consider then, after a Host kindly suspended Alex's source of torment, Bibliophile's next move was to start a general bait-as-many-people-as-possible thread in Hell about it.
Put it in context of all the other threads he's started. And all the other posts he's made.
It's possible that, after having his toy taken away too soon, Bibliophile got slightly less-careful and leaked out too much trolling at once. Because it's possible that, in addition to whatever else he might be, Bibliophile is mostly just a fucking troll. He's not here to "engage" with anybody, and he's not unhappy about "sanctimonious lefties" - he's here specifically because of the high proportion of people he gets his jollies trying to troll.
But maybe not. He could very well just be stupid, like he suggests.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I had been wondering why this forum was so dominated by obnoxious, boring, self righteous, lefties. I have to come to the conclusion its due to the moderation. I started a thread today on the subject of feminism, it started to get into a lively interaction of different opinion and then the mods shut it down on the grounds that it was 'going downhill'.
Bibliophile: you may have the wrong impression about the (possible) reasons the thread was locked. I thought it was an interesting thread topic and was looking forward to posting on it.
Soror Magna alluded to "the history". From my POV - and I may be wrong about the hosts' and admin's reasons - the history includes Alex Cockell's personal difficulties with this subject, which tend to take up a lot of thread space and provide limited possibilities for dialogue or debate. I don't think it was about your POV particularly.
So don't be all salty about the thread closure, and maybe try again if the thread gets unlocked.
Also I think you're a total tool, but I'm glad you're here.
(I see that RooK was somewhat less charitable.)
[ 25. October 2015, 04:05: Message edited by: Leaf ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Bibliophile is mostly just a fucking troll.
Too bad this is not an H&A day. Fucking Troll would fit nicely under his Ship name and serve as a reminder for other Shipmates.
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
(I see that RooK was somewhat less charitable.)
I'd say he was a little more accurate.
[ 25. October 2015, 04:09: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
Speaking as a self-righteous, boring, obnoxious lefty... You are missing the point here Biblio, old chum. The reason we're self-righteous is because we are right about everything. Boring because we keep having to say the same things again as you haven't got it yet and obnoxious because we're so fed up of having to say the same things to you again and again.
Meanwhile, back on planet reality, the quality of debate between people of multiple views remains excellent on these boards. Do I need to list the self-righteous, boring, obnoxious Righties around here?
Oh and one final thing - the comments about Political Correctness above are spot on. Essentially political correctness is a myth and a verbal form of the me-victim illusion. Let me put it like this: I want to maintain my prejudices about people with less power than me which are deeply unfair and unfounded. When some one calls me on this I am going to feel oppressed and scream that it's unfair
Ways to tell the person talking to you is an idiot number 3: They complain about political correctness.
AFZ
P.S. Does anyone know what number you dial to get the legendary PC-Brigade and more importantly, what uniforms do they wear?
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on
:
Bibliophile, perhaps you should make it a policy to only post while sober.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
Bibliophile, perhaps you should make it a policy to only post while sober.
My worry is that this is him only posting while sober. So my suggestion is: Bibliophile, never get drunk.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I had been wondering why this forum was so dominated by obnoxious, boring, self righteous, lefties. I have to come to the conclusion its due to the moderation. I started a thread today on the subject of feminism, it started to get into a lively interaction of different opinion and then the mods shut it down on the grounds that it was 'going downhill'.
If you want to have a forum moderated like that, and most people here obviously do like it, then that's up to you. You'll end up with what you've got, a board dominated by sanctimonious lefties and not a huge variety of opinion.
I'm a lefty and I agree with Bibliophile. I think the hosts tend to be so shocked at the utterances of right wingers they perceive it as hostile when it's not.
I've almost given up discussion in Purgatory for that reason. My most recent attempt to say something against the mainstream in Purg was on the thread, "Would you vote for a Muslim?" On that thread people were allowed to call me a bigot and one person said my stupidity "was frightening" without getting in any trouble from the host, but when I started to reply with similar heat I was stopped in my tracks.
I decided to leave the thread but came back a few days later to see I was still getting hostly warnings based on what I might be thinking:
quote:
Host
# 9110
- Twilight
It doesn't take much imagination to foresee the effect of this latest post by Croesos. If you wish to continue along the lines of your earlier riposte viz.
quote:
"You think I'm a bigot? Your false assumptions and eagerness to hate anyone who doesn't want to vote exactly like you, to call them ugly and attribute horrible motives to them, is far more bigoted and narrow minded than anything I've said here."
then take it to Hell.
As a matter of Hosting, IMO Croesos' latest post does not infringe normal Purgatorial guidelines, though I could well understand why you might be pissed off with it. If so, you know what to do.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
I'm not complaining about Barnabas's hosting, don't tell me to take it to Styx, I'm using that as an example of what I see as a general fear of controversy that's beginning to make the ship sound, "boring and self-righteous."
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Bibliophile, I think you're probably mistaken about the reason for the temporary shut down; this is understandable, since you weren't a poster when the "previous threads on the topic which led to Admin action" occurred. I suspect it probably has something to do with this advice.
Odds are, you are correct, Dave W. It does appear as though, based on what he's posted, Bibliophile is suffering a misunderstanding. I hope your reasonable contribution, along with most everybody else's, helps put everything right.
But there is an alternate possibility. Perhaps Bibliophile is not mistaken.
Consider that Alex Cockell has just recently returned from an extended self-imposed leave, and posts in All Saints about how he is suffering. Then, not that long after, Bibliophile just happens to construct the exact topic-honey-pot which completely fucks with Alex's shit. Keep in mind that Bibliophile is not new here, and Alex's previous sufferings were extremely public.
Consider then, after a Host kindly suspended Alex's source of torment, Bibliophile's next move was to start a general bait-as-many-people-as-possible thread in Hell about it.
Put it in context of all the other threads he's started. And all the other posts he's made.
It's possible that, after having his toy taken away too soon, Bibliophile got slightly less-careful and leaked out too much trolling at once. Because it's possible that, in addition to whatever else he might be, Bibliophile is mostly just a fucking troll. He's not here to "engage" with anybody, and he's not unhappy about "sanctimonious lefties" - he's here specifically because of the high proportion of people he gets his jollies trying to troll.
But maybe not. He could very well just be stupid, like he suggests.
I have not read any of the threads in 'All Saints' recently and have no interest at all in 'setting anyone off', I like lively conversation on interesting topics.I started this 'Hell' thread not to complain about the moderation, if someone runs a board they have the right to get any tone they like and the moderation sets the tone of any board. I started the hell thread to say that the tone of this board just doesn't suit me. I find it boring, sanctimonious etc. However its your board not mine so if you like it that way then God bless you. It doesn't suit me at all.
Good by and God bless.
[ 25. October 2015, 10:46: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm a lefty and I agree with Bibliophile. I think the hosts tend to be so shocked at the utterances of right wingers they perceive it as hostile when it's not.
Exactly, the tone of any board is set by the moderation, even when the moderation is light. This board is particularly lefty dominated because of the kind of moderation you describe. It doesn't suit me so I'm leaving.
Once again God bless
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Deleted post content, as I realised the pointlessness of trying to debate with you.
[ 25. October 2015, 11:05: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I started this 'Hell' thread not to complain about the moderation, if someone runs a board they have the right to get any tone they like and the moderation sets the tone of any board. I started the hell thread to say that the tone of this board just doesn't suit me. I find it boring, sanctimonious etc.
Not complaining then - just expressing dissatisfaction or annoyance about a state of affairs or an event. Thanks for clearing that up!
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm a lefty and I agree with Bibliophile. I think the hosts tend to be so shocked at the utterances of right wingers they perceive it as hostile when it's not.
Exactly, the tone of any board is set by the moderation, even when the moderation is light. This board is particularly lefty dominated because of the kind of moderation you describe. It doesn't suit me so I'm leaving.
Good, because we were about to boot you anyway. Sneaking back under a new name when you've previously been banned doesn't go down well Tommy1
Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out
Spike
SoF Admin
[ 25. October 2015, 11:30: Message edited by: Spike ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Twilight
Why would you not want to discuss your concerns in the Styx? You're still free to do that, or have a good old rant in Hell. Or you can PM me if you like.
All Hosts do is monitor posts against the guidelines, as in the example you gave. So if you think the Hosting was OK in accordance with the guidelines, then you've got a problem with them or the general ethos of the place. Can't you spell that out? The general ethos is still unrest.
[ 25. October 2015, 11:42: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Good, because we were about to boot you anyway. Sneaking back under a new name when you've previously been banned doesn't go down well Tommy1
Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out
Spike
SoF Admin
Fucking sockpuppet trolls. If this particular lesser life form hated the place so much, why did he/she sneak back?
Feel free not to stay in touch, BibliTommy1. Feel free to fuck off and die.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
Power to the people, I say - time and again.
Those who troll make me ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
And I'm right.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
To get back, in a very un-hellish way, to the original issue: is the ship left-wing? Yes, probably. Because that is what most shipmates want, and that is what the origins of the ship.
I don't think the entire ship is full of lefties. I think there are some other right-wing shipmates who find a place to discuss on here.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Most of the lefties here are gentle, fluffy ones. There aren't many "Tankies" (Stalinists), Trots or Maoists here.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Although I'm fairly apolitical on the whole, I have expressed right wing sentiment on The Ship, over immigration and such like, without any hostly come back.
As for me boring? Yep, can't really argue that one ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Most of the lefties here are gentle, fluffy ones. There aren't many "Tankies" (Stalinists), Trots or Maoists here.
Speak for yourself revisionist running dog of capitalism.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm not complaining about Barnabas's hosting, don't tell me to take it to Styx, I'm using that as an example of what I see as a general fear of controversy that's beginning to make the ship sound, "boring and self-righteous."
Sounds to me like a complaint about hosting thinly disguised as concern about "fear of controversy."
Or maybe just they're just two things crudely stitched together, like a lovely monkey-pony pet!
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I don't think the entire ship is full of lefties. I think there are some other right-wing shipmates who find a place to discuss on here.
Yo.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Most of the lefties here are gentle, fluffy ones. There aren't many "Tankies" (Stalinists), Trots or Maoists here.
Speak for yourself revisionist running dog of capitalism.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Most of the lefties here are gentle, fluffy ones. There aren't many "Tankies" (Stalinists), Trots or Maoists here.
Actually, I think it is more that those who get on here know how to discuss with others, especially those with whom they are fundamentally in disagreement. I think left or right, evangelical or traditionalist, enjoyer of trivial word games or passionate hater: these are all less relevant than whether people are prepared to discuss calmly and while accepting that others may be offended by your views.
So yes, there are shipmates who I reckon talk out of their arses (whether fat and hairy or pretty and pert). Mostly, I engage appropriately with them - accepting where they are clearly wrong, ignoring them where they might accidentally make a valid point.
That is the nature of interaction on this sort of site.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
It's funny how the idea of left-wing versus right-wing has taken root, as though there is a bright dividing line down the middle.
My perception of the place is that we're mostly in the central fuselage. Some of us prefer the starboard windows while others like the port windows, but we're all essentially near the balance of progressive and reflective. When the vessel starts to tip too far on one direction, we tend to lean the other way to even it out.
When somebody yells at us about how we're all far to one side of them, it mostly means that they're a lunatic on the unbalanced fringe.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
As a leftie, I get fed up with the many tories on here - until I realise that their challenges keep me on my toes.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
I usually find I disagree with most of the left-wing views expressed here but life is too short to want to waste it spending my spare time getting into arguments about this, that and the other. Just take it that I probably won't agree with you and let's move on. The world is a big enough place for people to be able to disagree with each other and leave it at that.
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Most of the lefties here are gentle, fluffy ones. There aren't many "Tankies" (Stalinists), Trots or Maoists here.
Dunno. There seem to be a lot of supporters of Comrade Corbyn on the boards. What happened to the moderates?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Speak fer yerself, ya scurvy capitalist dogs! Hard a port, ye lubbers!
And where's me bounty fer bein' the first ta spot Bibliotroll, the Great Trite Fail?
ETA: plurality, 'cause of the soon to be plank-walking X-posters
[ 25. October 2015, 15:30: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I usually find I disagree with most of the left-wing views expressed here but life is too short to want to waste it spending my spare time getting into arguments ...
I'm probably about the same - if there's such a thing as "fluffy-but-slightly-right-of-centre" I'm probably it.
And, just for the record (and to confuse matters), I've never voted Conservative.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Corbyn is really not hard left - hard left would be folk like the socialist workers party.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Dunno. There seem to be a lot of supporters of Comrade Corbyn on the boards. What happened to the moderates?
Corbyn is a moderate. The radicals were expelled from the Labour Party in the 80s. All Corbyn is advocating is the sort of economic policies that gave Britain full employment, the NHS and the welfare state under both parties in the 50s and 60s. The fact that this is considered extreme tells you how far to the extreme right our economics has been dragged in the last 30 years. I'm not seeing him advocate nationalisation of anything except natural monopolies (which is common sense and practiced throughout Europe). I'm not seeing him push for changes to corporate law to promote co-operative enterprise. I'm not seeing him call for tax rates like those that served Britain and the US well right up until the mid 80s whether worshippers of the laffer curve demanded their abolition.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
I have an announcement.
Ahem . . .
It's all my fault.
Thank you.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Addendum: the SWP are shouty middle-class wannabees. The real hard left are the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist), the Communist Party of Britain, the Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee) and the Revolutionary Communist Group. I think they can, between, them, muster about enough members for a rugby match. Not that they would, because they hate each other even more than they hate the tories.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Corbyn is really not hard left - hard left would be folk like the socialist workers party.
I would agree. The left has been moving so far to the right, that Corbyn seems like a radical lefty, when he is just where Labour used to be. His position is simply reflecting the moderate left wing, which is what scares the right.
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I have an announcement.
Ahem . . .
It's all my fault.
Thank you.
You wife told you to say that, I presume?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Addendum: the SWP are shouty middle-class wannabees....
Small tangent: has anyone ever met any (or more than a token number of) SWP members who are 'workers' rather than 'intellectuals'? I don't think I ever have. Pretty much all the SWP people I've ever met have been teachers or academics or voluntary sector people.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Corbyn is really not hard left - hard left would be folk like the socialist workers party.
Who are behind, for example, the Stop the War Coalition, which Jeremy Corbyn chaired until very recently. Sometimes difficult to see where the line is.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
It's usually quite easy to spot the SWP. For a start, they almots always seem to use the same typeface and layout on their materials.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Corbyn is really not hard left - hard left would be folk like the socialist workers party.
Who are behind, for example, the Stop the War Coalition, which Jeremy Corbyn chaired until very recently. Sometimes difficult to see where the line is.
It was founded at a meeting in Friends House, does that make him a Quaker ?
[ 25. October 2015, 17:39: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Addendum: the SWP are shouty middle-class wannabees....
Small tangent: has anyone ever met any (or more than a token number of) SWP members who are 'workers' rather than 'intellectuals'? I don't think I ever have. Pretty much all the SWP people I've ever met have been teachers or academics or voluntary sector people.
These people don't work ?
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It was founded at a meeting in Friends House, does that make him a Quaker ?
No, why would it?
YMM well V but the man is an atheist who wants to abolish the monarchy, and there are way too many question marks hanging over his head at this early stage. I wouldn't trust him any further than I could throw him. Also, he's scruffy.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Likewise the fact the SWP were involved inthe Stop the War Coallition doesn't make him somehow secretly a member.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
the man is an atheist who wants to abolish the monarchy...Also, he's scruffy.
You say it like those are bad things.
Besides, those are boxes I tick myself....
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Jeremy Corbyn is hardly unrepresentative of the UK population when a recent survey suggests two thirds are either not religious or atheist and about 17% or 22% to 50% are republican depending on source.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I wouldn't trust him any further than I could throw him.
And you would trust Cameron? Who lies at every opportunity? And who put his know in a pigs head?
I don't agree with Corbyn on everything, but I would trust him to do what he says. That is a radical change from leading politicians for many years.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Summarizing people by a single dimension like left handedness is no more sensible than summarizing people by calling them booklovers or Stupid White People which is the usual meaning of SWP.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I wouldn't trust him any further than I could throw him.
And you would trust Cameron? Who lies at every opportunity? And who put his know in a pigs head?
I don't agree with Corbyn on everything, but I would trust him to do what he says. That is a radical change from leading politicians for many years.
This is where it stands. Who do you trust?
If Corbyn gets into power and does not keep his promises then his popularity will dive quicker than a very fast diving thing. His popularity is because he is seen as honest, not on policies. If that goes he will not see the term out.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Summarizing people by a single dimension like left handedness is no more sensible than summarizing people by calling them booklovers or Stupid White People which is the usual meaning of SWP.
Not all white people are stupid. Some of my best friends are white, so I know.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I am mostly white and at least intermittently stupid. Though I have thought losing my hair and going bald is at least as likely the cause of my stupidity.
I typed this with my right index finger. Does that mean I am not a lefty?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Drat. I thought this was going to be about lefthandedness. Instead it's just a sock.
Oh well, my dog can get her teeth into it, anyway.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
And you would trust Cameron? Who lies at every opportunity? And who put his know in a pigs head?
Yes, I trust him a lot more than I do Corbyn. I don't agree with everything the Conservatives do and I think they've got it wrong on some points, but they're the least worst option. I don't think Cameron lies at every opportunity either.
quote:
I don't agree with Corbyn on everything, but I would trust him to do what he says. That is a radical change from leading politicians for many years.
I don't trust him to do what he says - and I don't agree with him on much anyway. My gut feeling is that if ever he got into power, he'd dump any attempt to be reasonable and bankrupt the country within a week. As I said, YMMV.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
My gut feeling is that if ever he got into power, he'd dump any attempt to be reasonable and bankrupt the country within a week. As I said, YMMV.
You mean you think he'd finish the job Cameron started?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I have to say that as an outsider (but spending part of my time in the UK), I'm a bit astonished by the level of irrational Corbyn demonisation that's going around.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Apparently only men in smart dark suits are to be trusted, if you meet any who ask for your bank details it is perfectly fine to give them to these upstanding gentlemen. Don't trust any scruffy nerds who tell you not to, you can tell they're mischief making cos they don't iron.
[ 25. October 2015, 20:07: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
Attlee and Bevan are in their graves, alas. Jeremy (who, like me, was born when this was not the case) is the last glow of that fire that held the poor deserved education and health and housing as much as the rich. The council houses and the grant-funded university are shot and the NHS is being pulled down, but they're still ideas to fight for.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Addendum: the SWP are shouty middle-class wannabees....
Small tangent: has anyone ever met any (or more than a token number of) SWP members who are 'workers' rather than 'intellectuals'? I don't think I ever have. Pretty much all the SWP people I've ever met have been teachers or academics or voluntary sector people.
We used to live in an area which was a mixture of student-poor and downright-poor. One of our neighbours was an academic and a member of the SWP. Bizarrely, instead of sending his son to the nearest school, he put in a placing request and got him into a school in a far more middle class area. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
I'm not a great fan of Corbyn because though his heart's in the right place domestically, I think that in foreign policy terms, he's far too close to various idiots and his appointment of Seumas Milne rather undermines claims that he's been unfairly traduced for just sharing platforms with people.
However, the policies most likely to cripple the economy are the austerity policies of the conservatives which damped down the British economic recovery and had to be relaxed a bit to prevent disaster. They're based on research which was thoroughly discredited ages ago.
Austerity plan is failing, IMF tells Osborne
The IMF Admits It Was Wrong About Keynesianism
If you can't stand Corbyn and are worried about the economy at least vote for one of the other non-austerity parties.
[ 25. October 2015, 20:17: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm not complaining about Barnabas's hosting, don't tell me to take it to Styx, I'm using that as an example of what I see as a general fear of controversy that's beginning to make the ship sound, "boring and self-righteous."
Sounds to me like a complaint about hosting thinly disguised as concern about "fear of controversy."
Or maybe just they're just two things crudely stitched together, like a lovely monkey-pony pet!
Then let me explain further: When the hosts start sending out advance warnings to people, telling them not to respond to a particular post because they think they can read that person's mind and predict that their reaction might be irritation or even, gasp anger. What would you can that if not fear of controversy?
As to why I would not take this to Styx: First, I was not upset with Barnabas's hosting in particular, he just happened to be the Host enforcing the preferred tone of civility at that moment. Second, as far as I've ever observed it, "Take hosting complaints to Styx," never results in anything but a huge pile of people saying, "Our hosts are volunteers and so we should never say anything to them but thank you, you ungrateful wretch." Which is all good and true, but doesn't really allow for any airing of differences or even explanations.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
( If I lived in England though, I would vote for Corbyn any day of the week rather than a Tory. What the Conservatives are doing to the poor, disabled and unemployed is evil. Nothing justifies voting for them.)
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I just missed the May local elections, where I guess I could have voted as an EU citizen. I probably would have voted Green.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seumas_Milne
I take it it is not Seamus Milne's time at The Economist you object to ?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
And you would trust Cameron? Who lies at every opportunity? And who put his know in a pigs head?
Yes, I trust him a lot more than I do Corbyn. I don't agree with everything the Conservatives do and I think they've got it wrong on some points, but they're the least worst option. I don't think Cameron lies at every opportunity either.
I simply can't understand why people rate Cameron personally. I can understand that some people support this government, and I can understand that some people don't rate Corbyn. But the idea that Cameron is in some way trustworthy or 'Prime Ministerial' (not quite the same thing, I know) baffles me. I don't think he's a bad man and I think that he does have some decent instincts which occasionally slip through. But most of the time he seems to me to be so full of bluster, so poorly prepared, so dependent on an ability to do just about enough to wing his way out of any awkward situation and never mind what happens tomorrow, so happy to take bad advice, that he is utterly unfit for any post of significant public responsibility.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Second, as far as I've ever observed it, "Take hosting complaints to Styx," never results in anything but a huge pile of people saying, "Our hosts are volunteers and so we should never say anything to them but thank you, you ungrateful wretch."
Dunno, though I am generally of the sentiment you express,* I had a row with parts of the hostly set in the Styx. Seems to have resolved into a solution beyond shut it and be happy.
*Except the 'never say anything to them but thank you' bit.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
YMM well V but the man is an atheist who wants to abolish the monarchy, and there are way too many question marks hanging over his head at this early stage. I wouldn't trust him any further than I could throw him. Also, he's scruffy.
I'm a Christian who wants to abolish the monarchy. I'm also scruffy. Your point is what?
But while I'd agree there are many question marks hanging over his head, I'd rather have the posibility of those than the certainty of Pig-fucker Cameron (as he is known in my bailiwick) killing yet more poor people.
(edited for code. Because I can)
[ 25. October 2015, 20:43: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
Twilight, there's enough truth in what you say about Styx that it made me chuckle, but I was able to point out on a thread once (that I did not start) that previous posts made by the host in the discussion made later official posts seem less than fair. This was a few years ago-I don't post a lot anymore.
I think Barnabas was the host in question, but I wouldn't bet a shiny nickel on it. It resulted in an apology, and a different host moderated the rest of the thread.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Well, now that you've made me think about it. I had a good result once, too.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I mildly doubt Cameron actually fucked a pig. Or a a pigs head.
[ 25. October 2015, 20:44: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seumas_Milne
I take it it is not Seamus Milne's time at The Economist you object to ?
Guardian columns too numerous to mention, I'm afraid. The third paragraph of this is a fairly good summary of the sort of thing. He's one of these people who takes anti-imperialism to extreme lengths where he ends up looking the other way at atrocities committed by anyone who's not the US or minimising them. As far as I'm concerned, it's imperialism and murder when Russia does it too.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I mildly doubt Cameron actually fucked a pig. Or a a pigs head.
It doesn't matter. What matters is everyone thinks he's the kind of man who might.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I mildly doubt Cameron actually fucked a pig. Or a a pigs head.
Since the alleged act happened during an initiation ceremony for a society that Mr Cameron never actually joined, I think that's a fair assumption.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm not complaining about Barnabas's hosting, don't tell me to take it to Styx, I'm using that as an example of what I see as a general fear of controversy that's beginning to make the ship sound, "boring and self-righteous."
Sounds to me like a complaint about hosting thinly disguised as concern about "fear of controversy."
Or maybe just they're just two things crudely stitched together, like a lovely monkey-pony pet!
Then let me explain further: When the hosts start sending out advance warnings to people, telling them not to respond to a particular post because they think they can read that person's mind and predict that their reaction might be irritation or even, gasp anger. What would you can that if not fear of controversy?
Trying to save you from getting suspended or banned, I should say. But I suppose no good deed goes unpunished.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seumas_Milne
I take it it is not Seamus Milne's time at The Economist you object to ?
Guardian columns too numerous to mention, I'm afraid. The third paragraph of this is a fairly good summary of the sort of thing. He's one of these people who takes anti-imperialism to extreme lengths where he ends up looking the other way at atrocities committed by anyone who's not the US or minimising them. As far as I'm concerned, it's imperialism and murder when Russia does it too.
While I agree that Mr Milne has some rather eccentric, if not disturbing, views, his appointment to his new role as Communications Director seems bizarre to me. If Labour wants to win the next election, it has to win over the undecided and Tory voters of, say, Nuneaton. How is Milne qualified to do that?
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
He's an experienced journalist, so presumably good at how the media works.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Temperature control in Purgatory threads is a bit of an art, Dave W. Letting threads run as hot as possible without getting Hellish is a good standard for Purgatory. But I've taken Twilight's point. Next time I'll just wait to see if she drops herself in it when being wound up by Shipmates who excel at the skill of doing the winding within Purgatory guidelines. That's probably more respectful of her autonomy. Which I guess is what I would have said in the Styx. Had she been prepared to trust the process or at least try it out.
There's a certain irony in all of this you see. Stopping that thread this time was trying to help a vulnerable Shipmate avoid being wound up by a suspect troll and get himself back into hot water. As it turns out, that still looks like a good call to me. But some folks may see it as nannying, not unrestful enough. They are entitled to that opinion. Feel free to take that issue of balance to the Styx where it really belongs. Drawing these kinds of distinctions is one of the challenges of Hosting.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
I think that the hard left can be defined as people who don't think that capitalism can be reformed and tend towards Marx's analysis, seeing Social Democracy to not actually addressing the root of the problem, which is the class war and consequent perpetrated by capitalism. Corbyn is a social democrat, one which wants to protect the best of Social Democracy's achievements.
The SWP are certainly a bunch of twats, what with that suppression of that alleged rape victim. They see that the broad social democrat party that is the Labour pary as being liable towards being corrupted by capitalism and, using Trotsky's analysis, see the value of being a revolutionary socialist party.
There are a number of anti-capitalist Labor Party members. There are also some who are not SWP members.
Within anti-capitalist people are a big diversity of views and some are more developed in their views than others. For the record, I stand in the ambivalent corner which thinks that capitalism is per se about exploitation and due to its crisis has produced neo-liberalism and austerity, something which harms many capitalists; at the same time, like Marx, I see that capitalism brings a lot of benefits. I believe it to be needed to have an ambivalent approach towards something so complex. A lack of it by anyone, left or right, leads to dogmatism.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
[We used to live in an area which was a mixture of student-poor and downright-poor. One of our neighbours was an academic and a member of the SWP. Bizarrely, instead of sending his son to the nearest school, he put in a placing request and got him into a school in a far more middle class area.
Sounds like he was acting in a fine socialist tradition.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Back in the 80s a group of SWP folk used to
sell their newspaper outside our local supermarket every Saturday. This was in a fairly well-heeled part of north London which has since become Very Desirable.
Their tag line was, "Buy the 'Socialist Worker', smash the Tory Government" (you need to get the stress and intonation just right). I always thought that was a bit of a non-sequitur, although I am no fan of the Conservatives myself.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
YMM well V but the man is an atheist who wants to abolish the monarchy, and there are way too many question marks hanging over his head at this early stage. I wouldn't trust him any further than I could throw him. Also, he's scruffy.
I'm a Christian who wants to abolish the monarchy. I'm also scruffy. Your point is what?
Me too. I wear my scruffiness with pride on the basis that a man shouldn't be put down for doing what he does best. It hurts no-one.
I instinctively distrust the well-dressed, the conventional and the suit-wearing. I'm also aware it's an irrational prejudice that I try to address.
[ 26. October 2015, 11:00: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Ken Clark is scruffy; Rab Butler was scruffy; the whole Cecil family had a reputation for being scruffy. Scruffiness is not a preserve of the Left (and anyway Corbyn can be quite sufficiently smart when required).
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
I think that in foreign policy terms, [Corbyn]'s far too close to various idiots and his appointment of Seumas Milne rather undermines claims that he's been unfairly traduced for just sharing platforms with people.
Agreed.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Apparently only men in smart dark suits are to be trusted, if you meet any who ask for your bank details it is perfectly fine to give them to these upstanding gentlemen. Don't trust any scruffy nerds who tell you not to, you can tell they're mischief making cos they don't iron.
In this day and age of spin, appearances count. I expect a leader to make some effort to show he takes the job seriously, not shamble in looking like he’s had a hard afternoon on the sofa watching telly. If he presents himself as an ordinary sort of man he’ll come across as just another ordinary sort of man with no clear abilities and how much confidence is anyone going to have in that? Speaking of which, Corbyn can’t even think up his own PMQs. Also, his appointment of a vegan who hates farming to the post of shadow minister for agriculture is about as helpful as it sounds.
There do need to be some austerity measures, though axing welfare benefits is not the way to go about it. Part of the problem is that MPs are rarely ever trained in how to run a country - they don't all have any background in economics or finance or the subject area that they’re appointed to and sometimes seem to visibly be winging it. Sometimes with disastrous consequences. The government would be much improved IMO if they got rid of Osborne, Gove, IDS and Jeremy Hunt and replaced them with some other MPs or some newer ones whose desire to be helpful to people hasn’t yet been entirely eroded.
[ 26. October 2015, 11:05: Message edited by: Ariel ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
(re Jeremy Corbyn) his appointment of a vegan who hates farming to the post of shadow minister for agriculture is about as helpful as it sounds.
It's better than to have a member of the "big agriculture" lobby in there. I'm sure a director of Fisons became a minister some years ago and that many other mins of ag have moved the other way. Someone with ties to the Soil Association is probably as good a bet there as anyone.
quote:
There do need to be some austerity measures, though axing welfare benefits is not the way to go about it. Part of the problem is that MPs are rarely ever trained in how to run a country - they don't all have any background in economics or finance or the subject area that they’re appointed to and sometimes seem to visibly be winging it. Sometimes with disastrous consequences. The government would be much improved IMO if they got rid of Osborne, Gove, IDS and Jeremy Hunt and replaced them with some other MPs or some newer ones whose desire to be helpful to people hasn’t yet been entirely eroded.
The problem there is that these are the best they have. Really, this government is so lacking in depth as well as competence that its only a few ressignations away from implosion. Just wait for the Europe debates - I don't see Cameron surviving them for long.
Ariel, you're treating the papers as objective reportage rather than chip wrappers. That's very dangerous even if it is what the government wants.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
In this day and age of spin, appearances count. I expect a leader to make some effort to show he takes the job seriously, not shamble in looking like he’s had a hard afternoon on the sofa watching telly. If he presents himself as an ordinary sort of man he’ll come across as just another ordinary sort of man with no clear abilities and how much confidence is anyone going to have in that?
Explain Boris Johnson, then.
Explain Boris Johnson's hair.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Simple. The media largely agree with his political position. You can get away with any number of sartorial mistakes when what you say goes down well with the media.
Hold policies that the media dislike, and you'd better make sure you match the tie you choose with the socks you put on. Or, your crime against fashion will be headline news for at least a month.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
Boris is posh scruffy in a ducal, these-tweeds-have-been-in-the-family-since-Edward VII sort of way.
Actually, Corbyn doesn't strike me as particularly scruffy, more normcore scientist/academic.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
I disagree, Alan.
The key to his success is the adoption of the 'cheeky chappy' persona. I have a colleague who adopts the same tactic and it allows him to get away with all sorts of racism, misogyny, etc.
By painting himself as a bit of an eccentric (noting that we've long loved the idea of the slightly rogue-ish Bohemian) it's a ready made excuse that allows him to get away with much more than would afforded to someone a bit more straight-laced.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I just can't make the link between "matching jacket and trousers, tie and top button done up" and "takes the job seriously". I just can't.
Anyone can do that, well almost anyone - I'd look sruffy in the best Saville Row suit; it's my essense - but it tells me absolutely bugger all about someone, except that they know how to look "smart". Personally, I've known too many absolute shits who were seriously conventionally smart to put any faith whatsoever in someone projecting that image.
Which is why Corbyn comes across positively in this regard. It's like he's saying "Bollocks to all that; bollocks to all image and no trousers; let's concentrate on what matters, like actual policies. Don't trust the suits!" - which is something that resonates with me.
[ 26. October 2015, 12:19: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's an interesting cultural divide - some people find Corbyn scruffy, which to them denotes incompetence and unreliability; others warm to it, as denoting authenticity. I suppose equally for the latter, the 'suits' suggest a fake persona, someone you can't trust, whereas for the scruff-haters, being well-dressed suggests competence.
Well, it's cultural and political as well, as so many cultural symbols are.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I just can't make the link between "matching jacket and trousers, tie and top button done up" and "takes the job seriously". I just can't.
Also, I can't make the link that not wearing a suit and tie = scruffy. My doctor never wears a tie and quite often wears jeans, but I wouldn't describe him as scruffy by any means.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
It isn't the suits that make me distrust Cameron, Osborne and the rest, but they all look the same all of the time. The uniformity is like you see in 'fifties sci-fi films when humanoid aliens come down the ramp from the spacecraft.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Boris is posh scruffy in a ducal, these-tweeds-have-been-in-the-family-since-Edward VII sort of way.
Like the story of the Duke of somewhere-or-other, who was ticked off by a friend in his village for looking scruffy and said, "It doesn't matter, everyone knows me here".
One day said friend bumped into him walking down the street in a smart part of London and wearing the same clothes. This time his response was, "It doesn't matter, no-one knows me here".
I do agree that "posh scruffiness" is different to the scruff of those further down the social ladder. Not quite sure where that places Corbyn.
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on
:
To all the Left who on these pages dwell
I bid you all disingenuous farewell.
IthoughtthiswasaChristianwebsite. I was wrong. Oh well.
I'll be seenya. I'll be seenya.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Boris is posh scruffy in a ducal, these-tweeds-have-been-in-the-family-since-Edward VII sort of way.
Like the story of the Duke of somewhere-or-other, who was ticked off by a friend in his village for looking scruffy and said, "It doesn't matter, everyone knows me here".
One day said friend bumped into him walking down the street in a smart part of London and wearing the same clothes. This time his response was, "It doesn't matter, no-one knows me here".
I do agree that "posh scruffiness" is different to the scruff of those further down the social ladder. Not quite sure where that places Corbyn.
Yes, good story, that. Macmillan was an example of someone who- perhaps like Boris- indulged in a carefully calculated scruffiness to try to convey that sort of attitude.
I'd agree with whoever said that Corbyn was standard (middle class intellectual) academic/scientist scruffy. Contrast that with Neil Kinnock, whose dressed exactly as you would expect someone under the influence of a respectable working class South Walian mam to do- neat haircut, nicely pressed shirt, shined shoes, at all times.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
In this day and age of spin, appearances count.
Isn't that the point, though? Mr Corbyn claims to represent politics without spin, so not caring about appearances is consistent with that.
(Personally I think more politicians should dress like Yanis Varoufakis ... )
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
I rather fancy one that dresses like this.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
You do know he got in on his father's coattails, right?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
But were they scruffy or smart coat tails?
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Name recognition is definitely a thing.
Running in opposition of a widely reviled and largely incompetent shit weasel is also a thing.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Name recognition is definitely a thing.
Recognition of the name "Bush" isn't doing wonders for JEB -- probably more harm than good.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
I'd argue that it depends on the name being recognized. George Bush Sr. was a good-enough president. Dubya was a fucking shitshow.
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
... [Corbyn] is far too close to various idiots ...
... and terrorists.
I find it very hard to take someone who cosies up the way Corbyn does to the IRA and sundry other terrorist groups as leader of "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition".
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
It was the "cosying up" (as you put it) that ultimately led to the peace talks.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But were they scruffy or smart coat tails?
Both, depending on when you looked.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
It was the "cosying up" (as you put it) that ultimately led to the peace talks.
Which is rather different to the cosying up that Cameron and Osborne do with Saudi Arabia and China. David and George are overlooking human rights abuses in order to make a quick buck and pass themselves off as heroes of free market economics, when in fact they're little better than the Del Boys of globalisation.
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
Well said.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Which is why Corbyn comes across positively in this regard. It's like he's saying "Bollocks to all that; bollocks to all image and no trousers; let's concentrate on what matters, like actual policies. Don't trust the suits!" - which is something that resonates with me.
I was happy to see that he managed to dress in white tie for the state dinner when the Chinese president came calling.
It does rather underline the fact that his choice to look like a politics lecturer in a sports jacket rather than wearing a suit is a deliberate choice of image, though.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I think there was a deal done for him to do what the gov wanted at the banquet, in exchange for a private meeting 1to1 with president Xi.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It does rather underline the fact that his choice to look like a politics lecturer in a sports jacket rather than wearing a suit is a deliberate choice of image, though.
Or it could just be what he's comfortable in? When I sing in a concert, I wear DJ with black bow tie as that's what's expected for such an occasion, but I'm buggered if I'm going to wear that stuff the rest of the time.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I was happy to see that he managed to dress in white tie for the state dinner when the Chinese president came calling.
Although the news (and I can't remember which broadcaster it was now) described him as "wearing an ill-fitting hired suit a size too big with a white tie askew". Still, it's a start.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
You mean like this? That picture came from the Mirror, the article was a whole lot less judgemental.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
Yes, that's the picture, though I didn't see it in the Mirror.
The next thing will be Poppy Day, I expect.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Or it could just be what he's comfortable in?
In terms of physical comfort, I don't think there's a difference between a suit and a sports jacket.
In terms of psychological comfort? Perhaps Mr. Corbyn would feel uncomfortable in the clothing of the enemy. Where does genuine discomfort end and cultivated image begin? I'm not sure they're really separable.
As far as "hired suit" goes - of course it was a hired suit. Mr. Corbyn hardly had time to go out and have a tailcoat made, even if he was inclined to do so. Being a hired suit, it was a poor fit. Such is the nature of the beast - a "standard" size is never going to fit as well as something that is made for you.
What of it? Politicians wearing badly-fitting suits isn't exactly unusual. If you want to judge Mr. Corbyn for not owning a tailcoat, you could do so, but given that almost nobody owns one, you might find it difficult to get support.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
He looked perfectly OK in his white tie. Actually I always found it rather comfortable- I think it's the cut of the front of the coat that makes it so- clear of the hips.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Actually, Corbyn doesn't strike me as particularly scruffy, more normcore scientist/academic.
Shockingly accurate. Corbyn is not scruffy at all. I do scruffy so I should know. Anyway, scruffy is as much a dress code as any other.
Jeremy Corbyn habitually wears his collars at least two sizes too large. Since he almost certainly hired that white tie kit and would have been measured for it, maybe he suffers from some kind of neck or throat sensitivity.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
Personally, I hate wearing a suit and tie. I have had to wear one for work at various times, and I don't like it, not least because I don't look smart in it, and I don't feel especially comfortable.
The idea that wearing a nice suit makes someone trustworthy should be consigned to the bin - these days it means someone has money. Nothing else. More and more business leaders are abandoning the suit and tie, and good for them. These days, a businessman in a suit I suspect of being after my money.
A actually think the dress code in the HoC should be scrapped. MPs should be allowed to dress how they like - it would be interesting to see what some of them would wear. CallMeDave would probably wear tailor-made polo shirts, whereas Corbyn would probably wear his usual jacket. That is representing who he is - someone who is not dressing up (himself or his politics).
And yes, I am a hated leftie. If it means that I don't have to dress up in a monkey suit, I am quite happy. Smart dress is stupid.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The idea that wearing a nice suit makes someone trustworthy should be consigned to the bin - these days it means someone has money. Nothing else.
Do you think it really does? A suit can be acquired these days for quite a reasonable price, I'd say.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Although the news (and I can't remember which broadcaster it was now) described him as "wearing an ill-fitting hired suit a size too big with a white tie askew".
I expect he's had to buy his own furniture as well.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Smart dress is stupid.
Balls. People who say that 'smart dress is stupid;' usually just can't be arsed. It's always worth making an effort if you're going to be around anyone more than you and those who know and tolerate you. Basic self-respect. And, in the Commons, that's just what Corbyn does.
[ 26. October 2015, 20:27: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
I find it very hard to take someone who cosies up the way Corbyn does to the IRA and sundry other terrorist groups as leader of "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition".
Although, as leader of Her Majesty's Opposition he hasn't cosied up to any terrorist groups. His meetings with groups that have been described as terrorists were all before he became leader of the Labour Party.
Besides, there is very little difference between many terrorists groups and some governments with awful records of human rights abuse. Except the government thugs wear a nice suit and the terrorists a mismatched trousers and sports jacket.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
People who say that 'smart dress is stupid;' usually just can't be arsed.
That's like saying people who don't learn Latin can't be arsed. In a sense it's true, but the real question is why should they.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
People who say that 'smart dress is stupid;' usually just can't be arsed.
That's like saying people who don't learn Latin can't be arsed. In a sense it's true, but the real question is why should they.
People learn (enough) Latin so they can create an appearance of being well educated and knowledgeable. People wear particular clothes to create an appearance of being competent in business and politics. In both cases it can very easily be all show, bluster without substance.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Congratulations on turning this thread into a de-facto discussion about tat.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Well, we lost the focus of our ire. And, since we're not going to be inviting him back we've turned to the next best thing to rant Hellishly about ... whether or not it's OK to wear a jacket with mismatched trousers.
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Personally, I hate wearing a suit and tie..... Smart dress is stupid.
I feel the same way, but what on earth is "smart dress"? Suits aren't dress - they're packaging; an attempt to make the contents look as if they are worth more, like something on a supermarket shelf. I donated my only suit to a charity recently. I hadn't worn it for years, it made me look phony, and it was hellishly uncomfortable. If I want to dress up for a special occasion I wear my kilt, which is comfortable, and doesn't attract excessive attention to the contents.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Congratulations on turning this thread into a de-facto discussion about tat.
"Congratulations" wasn't exactly the exclamation that was coming to mind as I caught up on the latest entries...
Really, it's bloody fucking scary that people judge a political leader on his clothing as much as on his policies, or even more than on his policies, but it's typical human nature. There's plenty of evidence that we make snap judgements about people in a matter of seconds before they've even opened their mouths. Pathetic, but there it is.
Clothing does have a psychological component for the wearer as well, affecting mood/mindset. Plus it's tribal. I once saw a fairly hilarious article about how the fans of different rock bands would dress. In the accompanying quiz I spotted the Radiohead fans a mile off, but that's probably because Radiohead was the one band in the quiz I liked a lot.
So yeah, maybe the former Greek Treasurer's fondness for leather jackets said something about his political style. Maybe even his political substance. Maybe it just said he likes leather jackets.
The only thing I do know is that "the clothing of the enemy" is the stupidest phrase I've read today, but hey, it's only lunchtime and I've not been on the internet much.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The only thing I do know is that "the clothing of the enemy" is the stupidest phrase I've read today, but hey, it's only lunchtime and I've not been on the internet much.
I'm glad you liked it. If I only managed "stupidest phrase of the day" I'll have to try harder - I was aiming for a best-of-the-week at least. I toyed with "mantle of capitalism" for a while, but that was the wrong kind of silly.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... whether or not it's OK to wear a jacket with mismatched trousers.
Ah, but what if it's the *jacket* that's mismatched?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Since it's all about who wears the trousers, the trousers are the only thing that matters.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
People who say that 'smart dress is stupid;' usually just can't be arsed.
That's like saying people who don't learn Latin can't be arsed. In a sense it's true, but the real question is why should they.
People learn (enough) Latin so they can create an appearance of being well educated and knowledgeable. People wear particular clothes to create an appearance of being competent in business and politics. In both cases it can very easily be all show, bluster without substance.
Of course it can. But presenting yourself reasonably smartly and tidily- and that doesn't necessarily mean a suit, it could be very informal clothes, although I personally think that for a man a well-cut and well-fitting suit takes some beating- is a compliment to other people, the equivalent of speaking to them politely. On your own, or with those closest to you, or when you're just popping out from digging the allotment or whatever, it's different. But all this 'smart dress is stupid' stuff seems to me to be essentially just an inversion of the attitude that is being decried.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
It's all about culture, and being sensitive to the culture of people you are doing business with if you wish to succeed. So, if you want to do business in a culture where it is expected that a small gift be given on the first meeting, don't be surprised if your principled stand against bribery results in you being (politely) ignored and getting no where in your business dealings.
And, if you're dealing with a culture where informal attire is the norm then don't be surprised if you come across as pompous if you wear a suit and tie. And, for most people in the UK the culture is that a suit and tie is only for the most special of occasions - a wedding or similar (and, even then maybe only for the groom and best man).
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I had a colleague whose husband worked in a German based electrical company. He needed two sets of work clothes. If he did not attend the UK offices in a suit, he was thought not to take the work seriously. If he did not attend the German offices in casual wear he was thought to be taking appearances more seriously than the work.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Exactly, and for a lot of people in the UK the second attitude would be most common.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
And, just for the non-lefties ... what the Telegraph has to say about wearing suits at work
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Some years ago I read a management book that talked about the Abilene paradox in the context of wearing suits to work.
The author of the book had about 100 mid-level people from an organisation in the room. First, she asked how many of them thought they were expected by colleagues to wear a suit. Most of the hands in the room went up.
Then she asked how many of them actually liked wearing a suit. Only about 10 hands stayed up.
She urged them to look around and register that they'd all be a lot happier if they agreed that people didn't have to wear suits if they didn't want to.
PS I like that the article mentions wearing a poppy. The apparent obsession with this issue in the UK comes across as very strange from outside.
[ 27. October 2015, 07:59: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
PS I like that the article mentions wearing a poppy. The apparent obsession with this issue in the UK comes across as very strange from outside.
That obsession comes across as very strange to many on the inside as well.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Ah, we're about due for Poppy-gate.
Scenario 1: Cameron is photographed wearing a poppy first, and the press will criticise Corbyn for not commemorating our fallen heroes for a long enough period before Remembrance Day.
Scenario 2: Corbyn is photographed wearing a poppy before Cameron, and the press will criticise him for trying too hard to appear as though he's honouring our fallen heroes by getting the poppy out too soon.
[Scenario 3, where all political leaders agree to appear simultaneously wearing a poppy so as to avoid making it a political issue will never happen]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's all about culture, and being sensitive to the culture of people you are doing business with if you wish to succeed. So, if you want to do business in a culture where it is expected that a small gift be given on the first meeting, don't be surprised if your principled stand against bribery results in you being (politely) ignored and getting no where in your business dealings.
And, if you're dealing with a culture where informal attire is the norm then don't be surprised if you come across as pompous if you wear a suit and tie. And, for most people in the UK the culture is that a suit and tie is only for the most special of occasions - a wedding or similar (and, even then maybe only for the groom and best man).
This issue arose in the courts here when native title type cases (in the broadest sense) started, way back in the pre-Mabo days. The judges were being asked to take evidence where the land was and where the claimants lived. A very reasonable request to which ready assent was given. They then took different positions about what they should wear and there were discussions at the Court Users Group. Group A said that had the hearing been in a traditional court, they would have robed, or at least worn suits; that to do otherwise when they were out on a remote site would have been to both patronising and show less respect to the claimants than they would have shown other litigants. Group B said that even ignoring the great advantages of wearing shorts and light shirts, that was the sort of clothing that the litigants would wear and that wearing suits would have suggested superiority.
After long discussion, the principal executive officer of the court was asked to make discreet soundings through leaders of local communities and report back. The judges then very quickly agreed that everyone should dress sensibly in shorts/lightweight trousers and light shirts. There is a photo of one of the hearings conducted hundreds of kilometres from the nearest township, judge sitting on the trunk of a fallen tree, shorthand reporter having a sort of card table, and others gathered around.
The point: both sides of the debate were sensitive to the culture of the applicants, and not agreeing on how to approach it, made sensible enquiries. The very fact that all this was known throughout the relevant communities was well received and gained credibility for a difficult and emotional process.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Ah, we're about due for Poppy-gate.
Scenario 1: Cameron is photographed wearing a poppy first, and the press will criticise Corbyn for not commemorating our fallen heroes for a long enough period before Remembrance Day.
Scenario 2: Corbyn is photographed wearing a poppy before Cameron, and the press will criticise him for trying too hard to appear as though he's honouring our fallen heroes by getting the poppy out too soon.
[Scenario 3, where all political leaders agree to appear simultaneously wearing a poppy so as to avoid making it a political issue will never happen]
Then there is the issue over colour. If Jeremy Corbyn wears a white one as well as a red then he'll be attacked for wearing a symbol of cowardice that doesn't respect veterans or the victims of war.
If he doesn't wear one, he'll be accused of reneging on his pacifist principles in order to appear more respectful, which he clearly isn't because no person on the left is ever respectful in exactly the right way that our noble and entitled right wing overlords are, as they are faultless, upright and outstanding public servants whose judgement is unimpeachable.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Some of us know the feeling ...
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
People who say that 'smart dress is stupid;' usually just can't be arsed.
That's like saying people who don't learn Latin can't be arsed. In a sense it's true, but the real question is why should they.
People learn (enough) Latin so they can create an appearance of being well educated and knowledgeable. People wear particular clothes to create an appearance of being competent in business and politics. In both cases it can very easily be all show, bluster without substance.
Of course it can. But presenting yourself reasonably smartly and tidily- and that doesn't necessarily mean a suit, it could be very informal clothes, although I personally think that for a man a well-cut and well-fitting suit takes some beating- is a compliment to other people, the equivalent of speaking to them politely. On your own, or with those closest to you, or when you're just popping out from digging the allotment or whatever, it's different. But all this 'smart dress is stupid' stuff seems to me to be essentially just an inversion of the attitude that is being decried.
Possibly, possibly. But then as an inversion it's surely equally valid - what I signal by varying from scruffy to presentable-but-never-wearing-a-tie-unless-I-absolutely-HAVE-to (e.g. formal wedding, probably funeral, job interview) is as valid as what's signalled by wearing a suit, such as "I plough my own furrow and do not defer to convention for convention's sake. Instead I am inventive and creative".
God alone knows how true that actually is, but it's what I think when I see someone not in a suit where one might be expected.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Is that any more reasonable than assuming that someone in a suit is trustworthy/intelligent/rightly entitled to be ercognised as in authority etc?
And AIUI the whole 'not dressing formally' thing is used by some people to hide their very authoritarian and in some cases borderline socopathic tendencies.
This is a going nowhere discussion though, isn't it?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Or, in a work situation with an unwritten dress code (after all, how many times is it actually written into the contract "a suit will be worn at all times in the office"?) someone who is very competent can afford to dress more sensibly because he knows he's too good at the job to be fired. On the other hand, someone who is not as competent can't afford not to conform to the unwritten code because he doesn't want to present an excuse to get fired.
Now, which of these two looks like they're hiding behind their wardrobe because they lack competence to do the job?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Is that any more reasonable than assuming that someone in a suit is trustworthy/intelligent/rightly entitled to be ercognised as in authority etc?
And AIUI the whole 'not dressing formally' thing is used by some people to hide their very authoritarian and in some cases borderline socopathic tendencies.
This is a going nowhere discussion though, isn't it?
Probably. Some of the borderline psychopaths I've known have worn suits. Personally I think the whole signalling thing is fraught with mistranslation. You may want to send the message Trustworthy, Intelligent, etc., but the recipient might actually receive "arrogant" or "boring" or "clone". This is why, as I alluded to earlier, I try to be aware of my prejudices and assumptions and rise above them. I've also known suit wearers (or at least shirt and tie types) who did it because it involved no effort whatsoever and no thought - which is rather the opposite of the "making an effort" assumption.
Best, really, to ignore what people are wearing. It rarely tells you much. It's brilliant for reinforcing prejudices though.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
This is a going nowhere discussion though, isn't it?
Is that a call to judge politicians by their policies, their character and their record rather than what hey wear? What a terribly radical and dangerous idea. It'll never fly, after all it would put the newspaper photographers out of work if it didn't matter what someone looks like and how they're dressed.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Probably that's indeed what it is. Ho hum.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
Surely you can tell something about a person by what they wear.
My eyes, my eyes! ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Ah, we're about due for Poppy-gate.
Scenario 1: Cameron is photographed wearing a poppy first, and the press will criticise Corbyn for not commemorating our fallen heroes for a long enough period before Remembrance Day.
Cameron’s already been wearing one. He wore one in order to commemorate our fallen heroes when he met the Chinese President the other day. No sign of Corbyn wearing one so far. Do try to keep up. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 27. October 2015, 10:46: Message edited by: Ariel ]
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
There's such a big difference between "what someone looks like," and "how they're dressed."
People can't help what they look like. They're born to be tall, short, pretty or plain, but how they dress represents a choice they made that morning and can tell you a whole lot about their common sense, willingness to make an effort, priorities, attention to detail, color blindness, and sometimes what baseball team they like.
Of course we should judge people on character before dress but we often don't really know much about the first. If someone shows up for a job interview, the person in human resources will have academic records and testing and oral interviews to "judge," with, but there will often be several people who do equally well in those areas, so it might come down to who has demonstrated enough common sense to try to look the part for the job they want.
My first job was as a waitress and my last jobs were in banks. I had a uniform for the waitress job and was expected to wear suits in the banking jobs and it was all just "my work uniform" to me.
The people I've worked with who were constantly bucking against that uniform, seeing what they could get away with as far as low cut blouses, ties off before noon, no tights or socks, all seemed ridiculously obsessed with the clothes issue to me. I didn't see them as creative or original just the usual group of kids still bucking against authority in the same petty way they did as teenagers.
Going against tradition is great when it's for a good reason, like hiring minorities, giving more loans to small businesses, opening later to serve more people. Coming to work in a band logo T-shirt says nothing to me or the customer except, "Letting people know what band I like is really, really important to me."
There's a new young pastor at the local Methodist church. He stands in front of the first pew to preach rather than at the podium because he wants to let us know he's "On our level and not above us." He wears jeans and T-shirts for the same reason. I think he's assuming we're in awe of him when we really aren't, but some people do think all this proves what a great down-to-earth guy he is. I guess I see the pointedly under-dressed as much more "phony," and concerned with appearances than the people who just humbly assume the uniform of their job.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
There you are, you see. Complete disconnect in the signalling between the wearer and the viewer.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
All this thread is proving is how damn excellent people are at judging people.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
I guess I see the pointedly under-dressed as much more "phony," and concerned with appearances than the people who just humbly assume the uniform of their job.
We will always have uniforms, I think. Clothing is part of how we communicate. I'm not sure I agree with your assessment, though. Not because it doesn't happen this way, but because their are too many variables. Is someone 'humbly' wearing a suit or doing so to enforce authority?
I do not like the concept of "uniforms"* as it reinforces social and class distinctions I do not think are ultimately beneficial.
*Actual uniforms for emergency services, military and such are a seperate case.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Ah, we're about due for Poppy-gate.
Scenario 1: Cameron is photographed wearing a poppy first, and the press will criticise Corbyn for not commemorating our fallen heroes for a long enough period before Remembrance Day.
Cameron’s already been wearing one. He wore one in order to commemorate our fallen heroes when he met the Chinese President the other day. No sign of Corbyn wearing one so far. Do try to keep up.
Cameron wore a poppy! To meet the Chinese President?
Oh my! That was either total ignorance or deliberate "don't take any notice of my kowtow, this is what I really think!"
Mind you, I expect that Xi had been briefed on what we wear poppies for. But I definitely remember the message being about the other year for some reason that poppies are not welcomed in British/Chinese relationships because of what our governments did in forcing opium onto the country.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Ah, we're about due for Poppy-gate.
Scenario 1: Cameron is photographed wearing a poppy first, and the press will criticise Corbyn for not commemorating our fallen heroes for a long enough period before Remembrance Day.
Cameron’s already been wearing one. He wore one in order to commemorate our fallen heroes when he met the Chinese President the other day. No sign of Corbyn wearing one so far. Do try to keep up.
Already? It's still October. Isn't there some form of etiquette to wearing poppies, like "not before November"? At this rate we might as well just wear poppies as soon as shops start celebrating Christmas, ie the whole year.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Ah, we're about due for Poppy-gate.
Scenario 1: Cameron is photographed wearing a poppy first, and the press will criticise Corbyn for not commemorating our fallen heroes for a long enough period before Remembrance Day.
Cameron’s already been wearing one. He wore one in order to commemorate our fallen heroes when he met the Chinese President the other day. No sign of Corbyn wearing one so far. Do try to keep up.
Bollocks. Cameron wore a poppy so that no one would take him to task for not doing so and to steal a march on Corbyn. We're more than two weeks from Remembrance Day. Why are people wearing poppies?
Sunday 8th November is Remembrance Sunday so I'll be wearing mine between from then to 11th November, Remembrance Day.
(x-p with Alan Cresswell)
[ 27. October 2015, 11:43: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
The edict from the BBC has obviously already gone out, the judges on Strictly were wearing poppies last weekend - that's 3 weeks before Remembrance Sunday. (It's early this year, celebrated on 8 November.)
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Cameron knew what he was doing. Perhaps he was more frightened of upsetting the British Legion than the Chinese President?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
OK, from the Royal British Legion website
quote:
Traditionally, the Poppy Appeal runs for the two weeks leading up to Armistice Day or Remembrance Sunday, whichever is later.
Which is, by my reckoning is from the 28th October. ie: it's still too early according to the RBL own etiquette guide, let alone last Thursday.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
They've been selling them in Waitrose since last week.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
There's a difference between selling (or, buying) and wearing.
I frequently buy inexpensive Christmas decorations in January, that doesn't mean up put them up then, or any other time before December.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Cameron knew what he was doing.
We've missed the most important point about the photo though. Where are their ties? Slovenly gits.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Already? It's still October. Isn't there some form of etiquette to wearing poppies, like "not before November"? At this rate we might as well just wear poppies as soon as shops start celebrating Christmas, ie the whole year.
You may have missed this but you can get giant poppies to put on the front of your car. Some people do keep them on all year round.
quote:
We've missed the most important point about the photo though. Where are their ties? Slovenly gits.
Yes, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming this photo was taken after they'd been down the pub for that pint and the fish and chips the President wanted to have.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Cameron knew what he was doing. Perhaps he was more frightened of upsetting the British Legion than the Chinese President?
While we're on the subject of etiquette, reports reach The Spectator that Jezza managed to cause a bit of a stir by getting caught texting at the dinner table during the state banquet. As things go, that's probably in the same sort of ballpark (maybe slightly worse) as going for a selfie at a Mandela memorial service, but if it's true he really doesn't help himself does he?
Regardless of what you have to wear or not, using your phone at the dinner table (state banquet or no) is just plain oafish - when surrounded by half the world's diplomatic representatives to London (none of the rest of whom seem to have felt the need to get their phones out), doubly so.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
If true- and I say if advisedly, because Corbyn is such a polarising figure one has to treat any single report about him with caution, especially (but not only) one in the right-wing media- yes, that is oafish.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
I guess I see the pointedly under-dressed as much more "phony," and concerned with appearances than the people who just humbly assume the uniform of their job.
We will always have uniforms, I think. Clothing is part of how we communicate. I'm not sure I agree with your assessment, though. Not because it doesn't happen this way, but because their are too many variables. Is someone 'humbly' wearing a suit or doing so to enforce authority?
I do not like the concept of "uniforms"* as it reinforces social and class distinctions I do not think are ultimately beneficial.
*Actual uniforms for emergency services, military and such are a seperate case.
As well as those you've mentioned there are the uniforms for food workers, Walmart employees, Real Estate agents, nurses, and UPS drivers to name just a fraction. I think most non-uniform jobs have a sort of unspoken expectation in dress, like construction workers in safety boots, and bankers in suits (even the most liberal people seem to want the folks who handle their money to look boringly conservative.)
The worker who insists on being original on the job may just irritate me more than most because my first husband was literally willing to let me and his unborn child starve, rather than cut his hair to get a job. It was 1968 and long hair meant a lot to young hippies like us, but the older employers hated it and would tell my husband he could have the job only if he would get his hair cut first. He always chose the hair over us.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
If true- and I say if advisedly, because Corbyn is such a polarising figure one has to treat any single report about him with caution, especially (but not only) one in the right-wing media- yes, that is oafish.
Yeah an anonymous spectator blog, literally no other outlet appears to have picked up that 'story'.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Ah, we're about due for Poppy-gate.
Scenario 1: Cameron is photographed wearing a poppy first, and the press will criticise Corbyn for not commemorating our fallen heroes for a long enough period before Remembrance Day.
Cameron’s already been wearing one. He wore one in order to commemorate our fallen heroes when he met the Chinese President the other day. No sign of Corbyn wearing one so far. Do try to keep up.
Already? It's still October. Isn't there some form of etiquette to wearing poppies, like "not before November"? At this rate we might as well just wear poppies as soon as shops start celebrating Christmas, ie the whole year.
Everyone on television started wearing them last Saturday - seems like the BBC endorses poppy fascism by insisting that all its presenters and guests wear them - even Peter Tatchell wore one.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
What with all the wars and killing going on all over the world all the bloody time, maybe we all ought to wear a poppy all the bloody year.
Ian J.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The edict from the BBC has obviously already gone out, the judges on Strictly were wearing poppies last weekend - that's 3 weeks before Remembrance Sunday. (It's early this year, celebrated on 8 November.)
Remembrance Day in Canada is unmovable. Nov 11 always. Holiday for most. Services start at 10:45, with the 2 mins at 11 a.m. Poppies worn usually starting end of Oct, or about now, but post-Halloween for certain. It's an odd statement to "celebrate" Remembrance Day to Canadian usage. Commemorate is more usual. Or observe.
[ 27. October 2015, 17:51: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
(none of the rest of whom seem to have felt the need to get their phones out), doubly so.
None of the rest of whom have been reported to have felt the need to get their phones out. Half the rest of the people in the building could have been chatting away merrily and the Spectator would still have picked up on Corbyn discretely checking his phone. If I had to make a shrewd guess as to what this story is actually about I'd suspect that Corbyn had forgotten to switch his phone off and did so to avoid interruption, and this led to a few braying hooray-henries making snide remarks to each other, and one of them happens to know this sad little excuse for journalism at the Spectator. Frankly it makes them look far worse than it does Corbyn, which is presumably why they've chosen to remain anonymous.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
While we're on the subject of etiquette, reports reach The Spectator that Jezza managed to cause a bit of a stir by getting caught texting at the dinner table during the state banquet. As things go, that's probably in the same sort of ballpark (maybe slightly worse) as going for a selfie at a Mandela memorial service, but if it's true he really doesn't help himself does he?
Regardless of what you have to wear or not, using your phone at the dinner table (state banquet or no) is just plain oafish - when surrounded by half the world's diplomatic representatives to London (none of the rest of whom seem to have felt the need to get their phones out), doubly so.
False, surely. A mobile phone is much too modern for Corbyn.
As to Twilight's heavy boots for construction workers - they are required wear here by safety regulations.
[ 27. October 2015, 20:11: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
My other half is a journalist, he just met the person from a certain broadsheet paper who was actually tasked with hunting down Jeremy Corbyn earlier this week to try to get a picture of him without a poppy, and who reported 'they don't want any pictures that don't make him look mad or bad. Just won't take them'.
So beware of being manipulated by the press on appearances.
Meanwhile the British economy is slowing because, as pointed out earlier, austerity is economic snake oil.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
But we don't have austerity, do we?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Not as much as Cameron would want to inflict on us. Thanks to what is possibly increasingly recognised as the moderation of the LibDems (it was hidden because we saw the faults of the coalition government but simply couldn't imagine how evil the Tories would have been without them), and now by the intervention of the Lords. God bless that undemocratic, anachronistic Second Chamber.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
But my understanding is that this government has continually spent more than its income and that debt is rising. How is that 'austerity'?
[ 27. October 2015, 22:50: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Not enough old and poor dying? Is that it?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Yes, you're right. If you're a commodities trader, investment fund manager, or someone else who brought the banking sector crashing down through your near-criminal disregard for prudence with other peoples money there isn't any austerity. You've been bailed out and are doing all right, though maybe you can only afford one holiday in Malaysia this year. Actually most working professionals have done OK under the Tories.
Though, the pensioner who worked hard all his life paying his stamp expecting a state pension to support him in retirement. Well, he'll freeze in the winter. But, that doesn't matter as he'll be dead and won't vote in the next election. He sees austerity. As does the single mum bouncing between various minimum wage zero-hour contracts, or the disabled man who is unable to work and has his benefit "sanctioned". Yeah, there's no austerity there.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
But we don't have austerity, do we?
If austerity works for you like it does for us, the wealthy pay a significant dollar or pound amount more, but the percentage amount is much greater for the poor and middle class. The wealthy folks can also find places and ways to transfer income around, and otherwise have accountants and advisors tell them how to scrimp on tax exposure. Ultimately austerity is never for the wealthy.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
But my understanding is that this government has continually spent more than its income and that debt is rising. How is that 'austerity'?
It isn't austerity for the government.
That's the trouble with these kinds of relational concepts. As soon as someone says "we need austerity", the first question should be "who's 'we'"?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
But my understanding is that this government has continually spent more than its income and that debt is rising. How is that 'austerity'?
It isn't austerity for the government.
That's the trouble with these kinds of relational concepts. As soon as someone says "we need austerity", the first question should be "who's 'we'"?
Exactly so. Central government spending on welfare is about 9% of the total budget. Pensions OTOH account for 26% and health 23%. Whole stack of statistics here.
The thrust of austerity has been at benefits recipients (with a side order of public sector pay), which isn't as large a proportion of government spending as the 'puff' from government and the tame media would have you believe.
It should therefore be no surprise that the 'austerity' programme has been a shambles: it hasn't reduced spending nor has brought about an economic recovery.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The edict from the BBC has obviously already gone out, the judges on Strictly were wearing poppies last weekend - that's 3 weeks before Remembrance Sunday. (It's early this year, celebrated on 8 November.)
Evan Davis on last night's "Newsnight" wasn't wearing one ... was he striking a blow for democracy, or had it just fallen off?
Although he did an awful interview with Baroness Smith who could hardly get a word in before he kept questioning her. Not his usual style.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The edict from the BBC has obviously already gone out, the judges on Strictly were wearing poppies last weekend - that's 3 weeks before Remembrance Sunday. (It's early this year, celebrated on 8 November.)
Evan Davis on last night's "Newsnight" wasn't wearing one ... was he striking a blow for democracy, or had it just fallen off?
Perhaps it wasn't visible because he'd secured it to his nipple ring.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
I never see the abbreviated title of this thread but i want to complete it as 'To all the lefties who from their Labour rest...'
That's it. Carry on.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I never see the abbreviated title of this thread but i want to complete it as 'To all the lefties who from their Labour rest...'
That's it. Carry on.
I have literally been singing it - for hours before your post; spooky
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If I had to make a shrewd guess as to what this story is actually about I'd suspect that Corbyn had forgotten to switch his phone off and did so to avoid interruption, and this led to a few braying hooray-henries making snide remarks to each other, and one of them happens to know this sad little excuse for journalism at the Spectator.
There's a difference between someone pressing one button to turn the phone off and putting it back in his pocket, and someone actively texting away. He might well have done. A lot of people do.
Anyway, at least he isn't recorded as having taken any selfies with any of the celebs present at the banquet.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I never see the abbreviated title of this thread but i want to complete it as 'To all the lefties who from their Labour rest...'
Getting Jeremy elected as Labour leader was just the first step. Comrades! It is not time to rest! It is time to press ahead! Cleanse our land from the Capitalists! Reclaim our historic rights to wear beige jackets and unironed shirts with the top button undone!
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Getting Jeremy elected as Labour leader was just the first step. Comrades! It is not time to rest! It is time to press ahead! Cleanse our land from the Capitalists! Reclaim our historic rights to wear beige jackets and unironed shirts with the top button undone!
See, this is why you can't trust these left-wing types. They want to abolish the monarchy, scrap all our defences and borders, and force us all to wear khaki dungarees and boiler suits.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Ariel: See, this is why you can't trust these left-wing types. They want to abolish the monarchy, scrap all our defences and borders, and force us all to wear khaki dungarees and boiler suits.
The first two are diversion tactics really to get to the third one which is our main goal.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
Yes I know. National Service and proper haircuts, that's what you lot need.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
What is this thing, called a 'haircut'? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
Don't worry about it. Just get a wig to cover that bald head in the cold weather.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Don't worry about it. Just get a wig to cover that bald head in the cold weather.
No need for a wig. All military uniforms include a hat of some sort.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I never see the abbreviated title of this thread but i want to complete it as 'To all the lefties who from their Labour rest...'
Getting Jeremy elected as Labour leader was just the first step. Comrades! It is not time to rest! It is time to press ahead! Cleanse our land from the Capitalists! Reclaim our historic rights to wear beige jackets and unironed shirts with the top button undone!
But comrade, buttons are surely a last remnant of petty bourgeois individualism. As Gramsci said in his last manuscript, the old is dying, the new cannot be born, and these fucking zips are a pain, forward to velcro.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
But Velcro is manufactured by a private company, so surely it is inherently capitalistic and exploitative?
I'm afraid you'll have to stick with Paddington Bear-style toggles.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But Velcro is manufactured by a private company, so surely it is inherently capitalistic and exploitative?
I'm afraid you'll have to stick with Paddington Bear-style toggles.
On the other hand, Adorno's famous paper, 'Paddington Bear as a trope of the socially constructed 'fatal separation' between feeling and understanding', must give us pause.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
And anyway, why has nobody yet mentioned the AFAICS always very well-groomed John McDonnell?
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
It's a lum hat government like a' the rest.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Well, for the sake of collective blood pressure, I thought I'd note Corbyn was wearing a red poppy at PMQs. Happy now ?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Well, for the sake of collective blood pressure, I thought I'd note Corbyn was wearing a red poppy at PMQs. Happy now ?
Noted. Also that it is very much Prime Minister's Questions, not Prime Minister's Answers, nor even Prime Minister's Replies. Corbyn asked the same question six times without even getting a crooked, let alone a straight answer, out of Cameron.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But Velcro is manufactured by a private company, so surely it is inherently capitalistic and exploitative?
I'm afraid you'll have to stick with Paddington Bear-style toggles.
On the other hand, Adorno's famous paper, 'Paddington Bear as a trope of the socially constructed 'fatal separation' between feeling and understanding', must give us pause.
That can't be its full title. All Proper Dissertations have to have a fancy title, followed by a colon and then the "real" title giving a clue to the content.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Well, for the sake of collective blood pressure, I thought I'd note Corbyn was wearing a red poppy at PMQs. Happy now ?
It's a start. The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.
"Soon after taking over, YouGov found [Corbyn] had a net satisfaction rating of -8 points. Now he is on -20."
Have a nice day.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
It is of course good to wear a Poppy at appropriate times. So, Corbyn wins by a) not getting the poppy out too early, and b) by not doing so where it would be an insult to a visiting head of state. Especially when that head of state represents one of the worlds largest economies, where British firms were hoping to gain a slice of the action before seeing said head of state insulted by our own PM.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, Corbyn wins by a) not getting the poppy out too early, and b) by not doing so where it would be an insult to a visiting head of state.
Or a) he hung on and only caved in under pressure and isn't wearing the white one which he presumably prefers, and b) the visiting head of state knows perfectly well it's the custom in England at this time, and the fact that a lot of people are wearing poppies around now is not a flash-mob co-ordinated reaction to his visit. I'm willing to bet that most people in Britain have either never even heard of the Opium Wars, or would have to think fairly hard to tell you anything about them, whereas they could very easily tell you about their grandfather in WW2 or relative who died in WW1.
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But Velcro is manufactured by a private company, so surely it is inherently capitalistic and exploitative?
I'm afraid you'll have to stick with Paddington Bear-style toggles.
I always thought Velcro was a complete rip-off anyway.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
There is of course the old joke (probably told by a Scotsman) about the American tourist visiting a shop in Fort William. Her purse was closed by Velcro and, when she opened it to get her money out, the shopkeeper said, “That’s a good purse you’ve got. It even screams when you open it!"
BT cowers behind sofa to avoid flying haggises (all right, haggii), mostly thrown by his wife who is Scottish.
[ 29. October 2015, 07:46: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, Corbyn wins by a) not getting the poppy out too early, and b) by not doing so where it would be an insult to a visiting head of state.
Or a) he hung on and only caved in under pressure and isn't wearing the white one which he presumably prefers, and b) the visiting head of state knows perfectly well it's the custom in England at this time, and the fact that a lot of people are wearing poppies around now is not a flash-mob co-ordinated reaction to his visit. I'm willing to bet that most people in Britain have either never even heard of the Opium Wars, or would have to think fairly hard to tell you anything about them, whereas they could very easily tell you about their grandfather in WW2 or relative who died in WW1.
The PM wasn't wearing a poppy in the street along with everyone else, it was a deliberate choice to wear it when inviting someone into his own (OK, official) home. It is common courtesy, I would have thought, that having invited someone to your home you don't then go out of your way to insult them. You wouldn't invite a Jewish friend for dinner and serve pork, would you?
Also, the event was earlier than the "two weeks before Remembrance Day or Remembrance Sunday, which ever is later" that the Royal British Legion considers to be appropriate. So, at that time there wouldn't have been lots of poppies being worn - it's possible that part of the negotiations over timing for the event even included making sure it was held before people started to wear poppies (if I was in the diplomatic corps organising such an event it would certainly be a consideration), in which case there is someone somewhere seething about how the plans to avoid that particular potential diplomatic incident were torpedoed by a clueless PM.
Finally, the first time after the RBL consider it to be appropriate that Corbyn made a public appearance appears to be the first time he wore the poppy. All proper and above board and in accordance with the etiquette of the wearing of poppies.
Of course, he still got caught in Poppygate. Because he simply can't win.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
PMQs: what's the point if the PM refuses to answer the Qs?
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
PMQs: what's the point if the PM refuses to answer the Qs?
Hameron will no doubt abolish PMQs after he's finished with the Lords.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
What evidence is there that the Chinese were offended by the poppies - or even that they asked that they not be worn?
Does the story come from an unnamed government official who said something like "The Chinese delegation asked us not to wear them, but we stood firm and explained how important they were to us"?
Searching for "poppy" in recent stories on the English-language website of Xinhua (China's official news agency) turns up no mention of the affair. Mostly they're about actual opium poppies, though I did find this story: Poppies that captured the hearts of five million to start their nationwide tour. It's about two giant sculptures in the Tower of London commemorating WWI - there's no mention of the Opium Wars. (China Daily reported the menu of Xi's state dinner at the White House, which included poppy seed bread, again with a notable lack of outrage at the insult.)
Did the government really stand up to China, or are they just pretending to have stood up to China, trying to slightly undercut the impression given by their ingratiating embrace of Xi and China's commercial opportunities?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
PMQs: what's the point if the PM refuses to answer the Qs?
It's a standard technique, isn't it? Many politicians are not actually trying to be honest and so on, but to present a persona; plus, of course, the right wing media can be assumed to defend the twats, sorry, the Tories, and keep up their anti-Corbyn spin.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out during the next couple of years. Making predictions in politics seems foolhardy these days, as it's all so volatile.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Five years it was recognised as offensive, and the Chinese asked for them to be removed. Even the Daily Heil said so. Would things have changed that much that it hadn't even crossed someone's mind that things could be handled a bit more diplomatically given that it wasn't even into the traditional time to wear poppies? It was certainly anticipated from what I've seen of the news, here in the Times, for example, and still Cameron carried on.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
PMQs: what's the point if the PM refuses to answer the Qs?
It's a standard technique, isn't it? Many politicians are not actually trying to be honest and so on, but to present a persona; plus, of course, the right wing media can be assumed to defend the twats, sorry, the Tories, and keep up their anti-Corbyn spin.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out during the next couple of years. Making predictions in politics seems foolhardy these days, as it's all so volatile.
Back in the day when I worked in a part of the Civil Service that prepared responses to constituents that had come down the line from MPs it was emphasized that these were replies not answers.
This principle applies at every level of HMG and I expect in every government. You see and hear a lot of it in business and in most workplaces too. It's not peculiar to politics and government at all, still less to any ideology or party.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
But where's an actual quote from an actual Chinese source? This (from your Daily Mail link from 5 years ago):
quote:
'When asked if it was a joke, the Chinese were stern-faced and said "No, we'd like you to remove them",' said one startled British aide.
'Clearly that was not an option so we tried to explain the importance of the poppy in Britain and informed them we would be wearing them all the same.'
is exactly the sort of anonymous sourced, self-serving "actually we were terribly firm and brave" statement I found this time around.
I can easily find an official Chinese statement condemning US provocations - where are the ones about poppies?
You say the Tories are trampling Chinese sensibilities; but maybe the Chinese don't actually care, and the Tories are really just pretending to stand tall and defend British tradition and memory in the face of Chinese pressure.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
PMQs: what's the point if the PM refuses to answer the Qs?
It's a standard technique, isn't it? Many politicians are not actually trying to be honest and so on, but to present a persona; plus, of course, the right wing media can be assumed to defend the twats, sorry, the Tories, and keep up their anti-Corbyn spin.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out during the next couple of years. Making predictions in politics seems foolhardy these days, as it's all so volatile.
Back in the day when I worked in a part of the Civil Service that prepared responses to constituents that had come down the line from MPs it was emphasized that these were replies not answers.
This principle applies at every level of HMG and I expect in every government. You see and hear a lot of it in business and in most workplaces too. It's not peculiar to politics and government at all, still less to any ideology or party.
Very good point. I suppose Corbyn has presented himself as breaking with this, so I will be interested to see if he can manage it. I would think the pressure to conform will be high, esp. from right-wing Labour. And of course, the right-wing media.
It's also a bit like the emperor's clothes, you might not be thanked for pointing out official lies. But if you are Machiavellian about it, you might argue that 'we give the public that lies which they want'.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
You say the Tories are trampling Chinese sensibilities; but maybe the Chinese don't actually care, and the Tories are really just pretending to stand tall and defend British tradition and memory in the face of Chinese pressure.
It's certainly possible that Cameron has played up a non-event to make him look like he's standing tall in the face of Chinese pressure. Juts ignore the man behind the curtain.
It's possible that the Chinese see a big opportunity to nab some lucrative contracts in the UK and make a load of dosh at the expense of the people of Britain. Of course, making sure there's just enough for UK businessmen who are big Tory supporters, many of who are in the government anyway, that they come out all right and Cameron can spin it as good for Britain - when what he means is good for him and his chums. The opportunity to buy Britain is too good to let the offence of a paper flower get in the way.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Because it appears to matter, I would like to announce that I wear yoga pants to the engineering office. Along with a suitably Kool-Aid-drinking company-logo-emblazoned polo.
Tremble before my future-now GPTW sartorial acumen!
Posted by argona (# 14037) on
:
Speaking tangentially off the cuff, I'm just wondering where the term "poppycock" comes from.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
From memory, I thought it came from the Dutch pappekak (sp?) meaning 'soft dung'. Or something like that.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
That would make sense in Dutch.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
There is of course the old joke (probably told by a Scotsman) about the American tourist visiting a shop in Fort William. Her purse was closed by Velcro and, when she opened it to get her money out, the shopkeeper said, “That’s a good purse you’ve got. It even screams when you open it!"
BT cowers behind sofa to avoid flying haggises (all right, haggii), mostly thrown by his wife who is Scottish.
Better stay down while this American throws apple pie. Why does the purse owner have to be an American tourist? Wouldn't it work with anyone? Do all UK jokes just start on principle with, "An American tourist...?" (You know they do you rascals.)
----
That reminds me:
Three men died and went to Heaven; a Catholic Priest, a Baptist pastor and an televangelist. St Peter said, "I'm terrible sorry, your rooms aren't quite ready yet, so I've asked Satan if he'd put you up for a week or so and he said, "Fine."
Satan called back a few days later, crying. He said, you have to come and get these guys. The priest forgave everybody, the Baptist saved them all and the televangelist raised enough money to put in air-conditioning.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Why does the purse owner have to be an American tourist? Wouldn't it work with anyone?
You need to find someone who would plausibly own a velcro wallet ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Hmmm ... when I was a kid back in the '60s and '70s there seemed to be quite a few US tourist jokes ... but I can't remember hearing any like that for years and years. I have found, though, that the French and Spanish have their own versions of US tourist jokes.
Mind you, I would risk an international incident were I to tell you some of the things I HAVE heard US tourists say ... for real ... or some of the things British people I know living in the US have been asked ... 'Do you have water in England?' and 'What language do you speak in England?' and so on ...
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
That's too bad. All the British people who come all the way to Florida, to shop for things like Velcro wallets and pink plastic flamingoes, are all highly refined and stunningly brilliant.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I used to have a velcro wallet, well not totally made o velcro - just velcro closure.
My issue with them isn't style, its that pocket lint clogs the velcro over time and then your money falls out ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
My current wallet has a velcro closure, and it has served me very well for a long time (almost 8 years now).
But, I bought it in Florida. Just to demonstrate that I'm highly refined and stunningly brilliant. For some reason, we didn't get any pink flamingoes though.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Wasted trip then.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I don't know. I have a wallet that screams in a most agreeable way when opened.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Alan--
Real flamingos? Or the decorative variety? It's not too late. (2nd link--most interesting ones down the page.)
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
You say the Tories are trampling Chinese sensibilities; but maybe the Chinese don't actually care, and the Tories are really just pretending to stand tall and defend British tradition and memory in the face of Chinese pressure.
It's certainly possible that Cameron has played up a non-event to make him look like he's standing tall in the face of Chinese pressure. Juts ignore the man behind the curtain.
It's possible that the Chinese see a big opportunity to nab some lucrative contracts in the UK and make a load of dosh at the expense of the people of Britain. Of course, making sure there's just enough for UK businessmen who are big Tory supporters, many of who are in the government anyway, that they come out all right and Cameron can spin it as good for Britain - when what he means is good for him and his chums. The opportunity to buy Britain is too good to let the offence of a paper flower get in the way.
I asked a colleague at work about this today - she's a Chinese national and avid consumer of media from back home. She was quite aware of Xi's visit to the UK, but was completely nonplussed when I described the claim that the Chinese delegation said they were offended by the poppies - she hadn't read anything about them, or any allusion to the Opium Wars, and they hadn't been a topic of interest among her friends.
She did allow that if the Chinese representatives had raised objections and been refused, they wouldn't have drawn attention to the humiliation by publicizing it at home, but if wearing poppies really was so offensive you might expect ordinary citizens to have noticed it on their own.
It's not clear to me that they would even have recognized those tiny little flowers as poppies; apparently opium poppy flowers grow much larger, up to 12 cm across. Now if Cameron had worn one of these in his lapel - or, better yet, one of these - that might have really pissed them off.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
It is, as I thought I said, entirely possible that the whole "controversy" about the poppies and the visit by Xi is something talked up by the British media and not actually an issue with either the Chinese government or people.
It does have a feel of something that is the reverse of the old "loony left" stories the media fabricated years ago. But, instead of a story about a Labour council falling over themselves to ban "Baa baa black sheep" to avoid offending ethnic minorities (which was widely reported but a complete fabrication used to try to discredit the Labour Party) the media have invented an offence and presented Cameron as "the strong man refusing to bow to political correctness gone mad". I wouldn't put it past Cameron or his advisors to be a party to this deception presented to the British people.
Never trust politicians or the media to tell the truth. Unfortunately, we rely on the media to know what's happening in the world - even if we need bucket loads of salt handy.
Posted by Mili (# 3254) on
:
I'm pretty sure the factory made poppies, badges, wristbands etc sold in Australia are made in China. It's really hard to find out on the internet for sure, but there was a controversy in New Zealand recently when they contracted Australian company Cash's to import Chinese made poppies for the NZ market. There was a big backlash so the New Zealand poppies are made in New Zealand now. In Australia no one seems to care, possibly because they haven't questioned it and the RSL (Returned Service League) keep quiet about it. Certainly a google search finds remembrance products with poppy pictures made in China.
[ 01. November 2015, 09:03: Message edited by: Mili ]
Posted by Mili (# 3254) on
:
Sorry to Cash's - I left it too long to edit. I found their website and they do make products outside Australia, but according to their website their products for the RSL are made in Australia
http://cashsawards.com.au/
However, I'm sure their Chinese factories would not be offended to make them if asked. It's more that as a fundraiser for Australian service members, the public expects the products to be made in Australia.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Glad to see you're amused. Now, any chance of you cheering the rest of us up by slinking off back to whatever hole you've been hiding in?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Glad to see you're amused. Now, any chance of you cheering the rest of us up by slinking off back to whatever hole you've been hiding in?
"That hole" has closed for the night. deano has just got back from the pub.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Early closing? Or did the landlord throw him out?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Thread necromancy makes the hosts sad.
No, not sad. What's that other word?
Angry. That's it. Angry. Very, very angry.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
Fuck it. It's late, a lame smily is no reason for necromancy, and I'm usually pretty grumpy.
Up yours. Yes, yours.
Thread Closed, because y'alls can't be trusted to leave well enough alone
—Ariston, Specialhell Host
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0