New Tory Leader

[Fen Canary 825]

28 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

And then proved it with the two paragraphs that followed.

Please explain what you disagree with.

The police said transphobia wasn’t a motive, even if Ratcliffe had been disparaging towards Ghey in text messages. With a list of potential victims with nothing linking them except being known to the murderers (and Ghey not being the favoured target) it appears Ghey was simply unlucky rather than being targeted for anything trans related.

[Fen Canary 825]

1 hour ago, Herman said:

Blimey Fen!! A trans kid was murdered, her being trans was the major reason for her killing, the PM made some crass transphobic joke in parliament, while the mother of the murdered kid was in parliament.

I'm clearly not fully au fait with the trans debate, I simply don't get it, but even with limited knowledge it's clear that Sunak made an awful mess. Sometimes you've just got to hold your hands up, apologise and hopefully move on. Making excuses for this is just pathetic.

A trans kid was murdered, but being trans had nothing to do with the motive for the murder. The PM made no mention of the crime, or attacked trans people in any way but mocked the oppositions flip flopping on the debate. The mother wasn’t in the chamber at the time this took place.

It was maybe naive to bring it up on that particular day, but all those claiming to be offended on the mothers behalf are simply ghouls for using a murdered teen in order to score political points 

[Herman 9,767]

Do **** off Fen, for Christ's sake. Gaslighting par excellence. 

[dylanisabaddog 4,928]

This lady is Chief Secretary to the Treasury.despite the fact she can't do sums. Watch and weep

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-68250372

[dylanisabaddog 4,928]

8 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

A trans kid was murdered, but being trans had nothing to do with the motive for the murder. The PM made no mention of the crime, or attacked trans people in any way but mocked the oppositions flip flopping on the debate. The mother wasn’t in the chamber at the time this took place.

It was maybe naive to bring it up on that particular day, but all those claiming to be offended on the mothers behalf are simply ghouls for using a murdered teen in order to score political points 

Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you really not understand? 

Sunak had 2 choices. He either made a joke about trans people or he didn't. His judgement was that it was a good idea to do so. 

At the moment he is rock bottom in the opinion polls. In order to change that situation he needs to appeal to the 70% of the population who don't intend to vote for him. His judgement is that making bets about putting refugees on planes or jokes about trans people is going to appeal to them. Quite simply it isn't. It will appeal to the 30% of the people who are going to vote for him anyway but the vast majority of the 70% will simply feel that their current judgement of him is correct. 

It doesn't really matter what the electorate thinks about immigration or transgender issues. What matters is the electorate's opinion as to whether Sunak is capable of making sound decisions in a pressured situation. Trying to appeal to people who will vote for you regardless doesn't win elections.

I can only assume that he is trying to appeal to the 10% who are going to vote for Reform. Trying to appeal to people who are stupid enough to vote for a party that isn't going to win a single seat is extremely questionable judgement. Starmer has looked at what Blair achieved and has worked out that the key to winning elections is the middle ground. Always has been and always will be. 

So you have 2 choices. Either his judgement is poor or he's an idiot. Or there's the third option which is both. 

 

Edited February 10 by dylanisabaddog

[Fen Canary 825]

15 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you really not understand? 

Sunak had 2 choices. He either made a joke about trans people or he didn't. His judgement was that it was a good idea to do so. 

At the moment he is rock bottom in the opinion polls. In order to change that situation he needs to appeal to the 70% of the population who don't intend to vote for him. His judgement is that making bets about putting refugees on planes or jokes about trans people is going to appeal to them. Quite simply it isn't. It will appeal to the 30% of the people who are going to vote for him anyway but the vast majority of the 70% will simply feel that their current judgement of him is correct. 

It doesn't really matter what the electorate thinks about immigration or transgender issues. What matters is the electorate's opinion as to whether Sunak is capable of making sound decisions in a pressured situation. Trying to appeal to people who will vote for you regardless doesn't win elections.

I can only assume that he is trying to appeal to the 10% who are going to vote for Reform. Trying to appeal to people who are stupid enough to vote for a party that isn't going to win a single seat is extremely questionable judgement. Starmer has looked at what Blair achieved and has worked out that the key to winning elections is the middle ground. Always has been and always will be. 

So you have 2 choices. Either his judgement is poor or he's an idiot. Or there's the third option which is both. 

 

I’m not going to defend Sunak as I think he’s rather useless, and it was politically naive of him to give Starmer the opportunity to turn the tables on possibly the only subject the Tories currently enjoy the upper hand.

I simply get tired of all the faux outrage. Nobody was actually offended by anything Sunak said, and anybody with half a brain knows it was a dig at Starmer and had absolutely nothing to do with the murder of Ghey

[Fen Canary 825]

1 hour ago, Herman said:

Do **** off Fen, for Christ's sake. Gaslighting par excellence. 

Why? Don’t you like hearing opposing views? Would you rather the board be an echo chamber of others telling you how righteous your opinions are? 

[Herman 9,767]

You are not giving an opinion.You are just making up nonsense to back up you long held dislike of trans people. There's no sense of reality of what actually happened in your statements and I am in my right to call you out for it.

[Fen Canary 825]

18 minutes ago, Herman said:

You are not giving an opinion.You are just making up nonsense to back up you long held dislike of trans people. There's no sense of reality of what actually happened in your statements and I am in my right to call you out for it.

When have I ever said I dislike trans people? You know nothing of my dealings with or opinions of them, so stop insinuating that I’m some kind of bigot unless you have evidence to back up your accusation. Accusing people of bigotry is simply a lazy way of trying to shut down a conversation when you’re unable to respond to the points they’re putting across 

[Herman 9,767]

Two subjects you always get animated about are immigrants and trans people. Maybe you're not a bigot and just a concerned citizen but it seems rather odd to me that you focus attention on two minority groups.

Now,if you are going to have an opinion have it on the reality that we all saw and heard. That is all.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

56 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

When have I ever said I dislike trans people? You know nothing of my dealings with or opinions of them, so stop insinuating that I’m some kind of bigot unless you have evidence to back up your accusation. Accusing people of bigotry is simply a lazy way of trying to shut down a conversation when you’re unable to respond to the points they’re putting across 

It's impossible to question boundaries on anything without it leading to an accusation of bigotry of some sort or other these days. This isn't simply about accepting people as they are. What's conveniently ignored is that this subject matter has become a matter of child welfare in the way it's being presented to children and in encouraging chemical intervention in children over their sexuality. Lots of parents are legitimately alarmed at the harm the medical and legislative bodies are going to do with their weird, ideologically driven social experiments. There's a massive difference between wanting to protect a vulnerable minority from harm and wanting to turn society upside down for the sake of validating a tiny section of society that often happens to have a lot of other psychological issues alongside their doubts and confusion over their sexuality. This whole field has about as much ethical integrity as eugenics.

Edited February 10 by littleyellowbirdie

[Nuff Said 5,142]

4 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's impossible to question boundaries on anything without it leading to an accusation of bigotry of some sort or other these days. This isn't simply about accepting people as they are. What's conveniently ignored is that this subject matter has become a matter of child welfare in the way it's being presented to children and in encouraging chemical intervention in children over their sexuality. Lots of parents are legitimately alarmed at the harm the medical and legislative bodies are going to do with their weird, ideologically driven social experiments. There's a massive difference between wanting to protect a vulnerable minority from harm and wanting to turn society upside down for the sake of validating a tiny section of society that often happens to have a lot of other psychological issues alongside their doubts and confusion over their sexuality.

I’m by no means a fully paid up trans “ally” (I probably agree with some of the points you touch on) but do you not see that this is just rude and provocative? Ignoring the chicken and egg argument for those it does apply to (I.e. how many of the psychological issues are because of people’s attitudes towards trans people?), it just makes you look like a bigot rather than someone trying to have a genuine debate.

[horsefly 4,300]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

I’m not going to defend Sunak as I think he’s rather useless, and it was politically naive of him to give Starmer the opportunity to turn the tables on possibly the only subject the Tories currently enjoy the upper hand.

I simply get tired of all the faux outrage. Nobody was actually offended by anything Sunak said, and anybody with half a brain knows it was a dig at Starmer and had absolutely nothing to do with the murder of Ghey

 

34 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

When have I ever said I dislike trans people? You know nothing of my dealings with or opinions of them, so stop insinuating that I’m some kind of bigot unless you have evidence to back up your accusation. Accusing people of bigotry is simply a lazy way of trying to shut down a conversation when you’re unable to respond to the points they’re putting across 

Herman is spot on in his observations about you. The give away is your crass comment "I simply get tired of all the faux outrage." It simply doesn't occur to you that people could genuinely be disgusted by attacks on transgender people, asylum seekers, and other minority groups. Because you don't find such attacks disgusting, you think you can dismiss the objections of people who despise such bigotry as mere "faux outrage". Such an attitude is typical of the far-right who wish to avoid addressing the hatred engendered by the sort of divisive bigotry that the likes of Sunak intentionally employ.

Very obviously, Sunak's jibe was aimed to undermine Starmer. However, equally as obvious, the jibe depended entirely on  transphobic assumptions to give it its content (The utterly puerile "Oh look everybody! Starmer thinks women can have a willy"). It gave the entirety of the Conservative benches a damned good laugh; but not the parents of Brianna Ghey, nor the small community of transgender people in the UK who are victims of violence and abuse on a daily basis. Sunak could have reeled off his prewritten jibe about Starmer's putative U-turns without employing any mention of transgender issues, it would have made no difference to his political point. That he didn't, even when he knew that the mother of a transgender murder victim was visiting parliament that day, says everything about his grotesque moral judgement, and his willingness to employ prejudice in his personal cause.

The disgust is real, not faux. You might receive politer engagement if you simply accepted the fact that the people responding to you on this site hold their opinions sincerely. If you wish to continue to describe their deeply held values as "faux", then expect them to respond to you appropriately (as Herman has done).

[dylanisabaddog 4,928]

2 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

I’m not going to defend Sunak as I think he’s rather useless, and it was politically naive of him to give Starmer the opportunity to turn the tables on possibly the only subject the Tories currently enjoy the upper hand.

I simply get tired of all the faux outrage. Nobody was actually offended by anything Sunak said, and anybody with half a brain knows it was a dig at Starmer and had absolutely nothing to do with the murder of Ghey

I'm afraid that's not the case at all. I listened to PMQ'S and I was genuinely shocked and disgusted by what he said. It's not a subject that really concerns me bearing in mind the current state of affairs, but Sunak descended to the level of Bernard Manning. So yes I'm outraged, and no that outrage isn't false. I'm quite sure 75% of the population feel exactly the same way as me. It's actually 100% of the people I know but that's probably not a balanced survey. However, it does include one apolitical female who asked me when the election is. 

[Yellow Fever 3,786]

2 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

I’m not going to defend Sunak as I think he’s rather useless, and it was politically naive of him to give Starmer the opportunity to turn the tables on possibly the only subject the Tories currently enjoy the upper hand.

I simply get tired of all the faux outrage. Nobody was actually offended by anything Sunak said, and anybody with half a brain knows it was a dig at Starmer and had absolutely nothing to do with the murder of Ghey

Apart from Briannas' parents it seems!. You just got this one wrong Fen  - same as Sunak.

"Brianna’s father, Peter Spooner, said Sunak’s comment had been “dehumanising” and urged him to apologise. Brianna was lured to a park in Cheshire and murdered by two teenagers in February last year."

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

1 hour ago, Nuff Said said:

I’m by no means a fully paid up trans “ally” (I probably agree with some of the points you touch on) but do you not see that this is just rude and provocative? Ignoring the chicken and egg argument for those it does apply to (I.e. how many of the psychological issues are because of people’s attitudes towards trans people?), it just makes you look like a bigot rather than someone trying to have a genuine debate.

Would I say that to a trans person standing in front of me? No way. I feel sorry for them. But at the same time, it's true and it's completely relevant to the argument about what is done at a legislative level on the subject.

There is no rational way you can justify the different treatment of other body dysphorias, which are treated as psychological issues, and the treatment of sexual dysphoria, where the medical profession increasingly seems to take the view that, yup, it's your body that's wrong so we'll chop some bits off you and give you some hormones and then you'll be happy. 

People will cast people as 'ignorant' for questioning the thinking behind a lot of this. The campaigning in favour of this trend is aggressive. Look at the treatment of JK Rowling and other pretty moderate figures challenging a lot of the thinking, the sportswomen who have been targeted for standing up to it for the sake of preventing their own rights being trampled on.

Edited February 10 by littleyellowbirdie

[dylanisabaddog 4,928]

18 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Would I say that to a trans person standing in front of me? No way. I feel sorry for them. But at the same time, it's true and it's completely relevant to the argument about what is done at a legislative level on the subject.

There is no rational way you can justify the different treatment of other body dysphorias, which are treated as psychological issues, and the treatment of sexual dysphoria, where the medical profession increasingly seems to take the view that, yup, it's your body that's wrong so we'll chop some bits off you and give you some hormones and then you'll be happy. 

People will cast people as 'ignorant' for questioning the thinking behind a lot of this. The campaigning in favour of this trend is aggressive. Look at the treatment of JK Rowling and other pretty moderate figures challenging a lot of the thinking, the sportswomen who have been targeted for standing up to it.

You're turning this into a debate about the transgender issue. It's not. It's a debate about Sunak being a suitable person to lead one of our two major political parties. You may think he is but you've got a surprise coming to you on election night. 

I'm not remotely interested in your views on transgender people or immigration but here's a very simple question. If you were in Sunak’s shoes would you have behaved like him in the last week? 

PS. I've just listened to a political commentator on the radio who answered a question for me. I've been baffled by Sunak’s behaviour but the consensus among Tory MP's is apparently that they know they have lost the election so Sunak and Co are trying to minimise the defeat by wooing back the 10% Reform vote. In their view the Conservative Party could be a thing of the past if they don't. That is absolutely extraordinary. They will be left as a 25% right wing party with Labour controlling the middle ground. And that 25% are mainly aged 60+ and will soon start dropping like flies. 

On the plus side, it gives me some hope for the future. 

[Yellow Fever 3,786]

21 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

PS. I've just listened to a political commentator on the radio who answered a question for me. I've been baffled by Sunak’s behaviour but the consensus among Tory MP's is apparently that they know they have lost the election so Sunak and Co are trying to minimise the defeat by wooing back the 10% Reform vote. In their view the Conservative Party could be a thing of the past if they don't. That is absolutely extraordinary. They will be left as a 25% right wing party with Labour controlling the middle ground. And that 25% are mainly aged 60+ and will soon start dropping like flies. 

This so true. It's all about attracting or hold onto their far right vote.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

18 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

You're turning this into a debate about the transgender issue. It's not. It's a debate about Sunak being a suitable person to lead one of our two major political parties. You may think he is but you've got a surprise coming to you on election night. 

I'm not remotely interested in your views on transgender people or immigration but here's a very simple question. If you were in Sunak’s shoes would you have behaved like him in the last week? 

PS. I've just listened to a political commentator on the radio who answered a question for me. I've been baffled by Sunak’s behaviour but the consensus among Tory MP's is apparently that they know they have lost the election so Sunak and Co are trying to minimise the defeat by wooing back the 10% Reform vote. In their view the Conservative Party could be a thing of the past if they don't. That is absolutely extraordinary. They will be left as a 25% right wing party with Labour controlling the middle ground. And that 25% are mainly aged 60+ and will soon start dropping like flies. 

On the plus side, it gives me some hope for the future. 

I don't disagree with much there.

What is populism? I suppose you could say it's politicians making simple and appealing statements to 'the great unwashed'; those politicians prepared to indulge the swathes of people mainstream politicians don't want to acknowledge or engage with. When you think of it like that, populism has no appeal unless mainstream politics isn't doing its job properly.

 

[Fen Canary 825]

5 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I don't disagree with much there.

What is populism? I suppose you could say it's politicians making simple and appealing statements to 'the great unwashed'; those politicians prepared to indulge the swathes of people mainstream politicians don't want to acknowledge or engage with. When you think of it like that, populism has no appeal unless mainstream politics isn't doing its job properly.

 

Populism essentially means political parties whose policies don’t align with the self appointed experts of the middle class uni cohort. It’s a lazy attempt at dismissing these parties positions as not being worthy of discussion, however as we’re seeing in Europe it’s becoming much harder to ignore them. It’s much harder for them to break through in the UK due to the electoral system mind you

[Yellow Fever 3,786]

31 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Populism essentially means political parties whose policies don’t align with the self appointed experts of the middle class uni cohort. It’s a lazy attempt at dismissing these parties positions as not being worthy of discussion, however as we’re seeing in Europe it’s becoming much harder to ignore them. It’s much harder for them to break through in the UK due to the electoral system mind you

This might help - 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-43301423

 

Edited February 10 by Yellow Fever

[horsefly 4,300]

15 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

This might help - 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-43301423

 

Sadly, it won't. But then I think that because I'm an elitist.

[horsefly 4,300]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/disastrous-truss-budget-forced-uk-councils-to-take-out-massive-50-year-loans-at-soaring-rates/ar-BB1i4W6Y?ocid=msedgntp&pc=LCTS&cvid=a8e724a15b49474796b99e0d0ac97954&ei=10

Disastrous Truss budget forced UK councils to take out massive 50-year loans at soaring rates

[Fen Canary 825]

22 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

This might help - 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-43301423

 

Which largely backs up what I said, policies aimed at the working classes rather than the uni educated middle class cohort that largely run the countries and supranational organisations from the time of Blair through to the end of Cameron 

[Yellow Fever 3,786]

2 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

Which largely backs up what I said, policies aimed at the working classes rather than the uni educated middle class cohort that largely run the countries and supranational organisations from the time of Blair through to the end of Cameron 

I don't think it says that at all - nor does it paint a very good picture of them!

Some extracts - 

The other, he says, is "perpetuating a state of crisis" - and always seeming to be on the offensive.

he argues that populist content is "made of negatives" - whether it is anti-politics, anti-intellectualism, or anti-elite. 

 

It's what Prof Bull says is called "irresponsible bidding". "In order to garner support, they're quicker than the establishment party to make offers, or to promise to change things… that on closer inspection may not turn out to be feasible," he said.

I tend to take the view in line with the last comment that Populists tend to offer simplistic, superficially attractive solutions to complex problems without a lot of thought (or indeed outright dismissal) of predictable unintended consequences to garner support. Always finding others to blame i.e 'negatives'. I suppose the obvious recent example is 'We've had enough of experts'.  The sort of people who urge others sign a contract without reading or considering the small print. 

Your working class / Uni says more about some sort of misplaced dated class war or personal vendetta than populism. However - any 'anti' target group will do for populists. Somebody else to blame! 

 

Edited February 10 by Yellow Fever

[sonyc 5,519]

35 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I don't think it says that at all - nor does it paint a very good picture of them!

Some extracts - 

The other, he says, is "perpetuating a state of crisis" - and always seeming to be on the offensive.

he argues that populist content is "made of negatives" - whether it is anti-politics, anti-intellectualism, or anti-elite. 

 

It's what Prof Bull says is called "irresponsible bidding". "In order to garner support, they're quicker than the establishment party to make offers, or to promise to change things… that on closer inspection may not turn out to be feasible," he said.

I tend to take the view in line with the last comment that Populists tend to offer simplistic, superficially attractive solutions to complex problems without a lot of thought (or indeed outright dismissal) of predictable unintended consequences to garner support. Always finding others to blame i.e 'negatives'. I suppose the obvious recent example is 'We've had enough of experts'.  The sort of people who urge others sign a contract without reading or considering the small print. 

Your working class / Uni says more about some sort of misplaced dated class war or personal vendetta than populism. However - any 'anti' target group will do for populists. Somebody else to blame! 

 

After the match disappointment I looked up some articles on populism. This one probably is close to the points you've made.

It provides 3 good examples as very short case studies.

https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/populism/44261

The points that match with your summary YF are nicely outlined here....

"Populists also stir up fear and insecurity by focusing on negative stories. They warn of alleged dangers posed by certain groups of the population, such as ethnic minorities, feminists, LGBTQI persons or immigrants. They claim that other stakeholders, such as political parties and human rights activists, are unpatriotic and a danger to the national culture.

Complex social issues are extremely simplified and often highly emotionalised. This simplification is intended to create the impression that populists are better suited to resolve problems than their competitors or "the elite""

 

And also here...

"Even if moderate populism is not automatically anti-democratic, extreme populism as well as right-wing populism cannot be reconciled with the values of a liberal democracy.

In order to explain why this is the case, one must first understand a fundamental attribute of liberal democracy: pluralism. Pluralism means that within a democratic society, many ways of life, opinions, interests and goals can coexist on an equal footing. There is respect for each other and people recognise the diversity of society. This also applies to politics, because everyone has the right to have their opinion heard and considered by politicians.

Populists, however, do not appreciate such pluralism. They see the people as a homogeneous mass. Only certain political positions and attitudes are accepted. In more extreme cases, dissenting opinions are even seen as treason.

In Germany, it is mainly populism from the right-wing spectrum that has become prevalent. It uses terms such as " Volk" (people) and "Nation" primarily in ways that exclude social minorities.

The emotionalisation of problems is also reflected in the way populists conduct debates. In discussions, insults are often used, as well as ''alternative facts'', which are mainly based on personal feelings and opinions instead of scientific findings. This makes factual debate very difficult. The goal in a democracy is to reach a compromise based on facts. But if an opposing faction is not willing to reach such an agreement, this is almost impossible"

 

But, I believe the following is somewhat the point that Fen is making too.....

 

"For a start, it is important to avoid ignoring populist parties. Populist parties could use this to assume a victim role, which in turn would further confirm their position as "outside the elite". Instead, a substantive debate should be sought to show that populists talk a lot about problems, without ever offering adequate solutions themselves.

More transparency can also be a possible solution. It gives citizens the opportunity to see and understand how a government acts and why certain decisions are made. And last but not least, dialogue between the electorate and the elected is essential"

 

With so many people feeling marginalised I do think that proper "dialogue between the electorate and elected" has been poor for years...and that vacuum has been filled with all kinds of characters (arguably left and right, but clearly the current government has ratcheted up the emotion (which again is stated in this article). 

With all of this happening daily in our national politics is it any wonder when folk on forums such as ours / this one start to polarise too? We hardly have role models on the whole (and we can claim we are independent minded all we like, but we have our own stances and look to those commentators who echo or articulate them.

I agree with both of you actually though you both come at it from very different angles.

 

[Fen Canary 825]

10 hours ago, sonyc said:

After the match disappointment I looked up some articles on populism. This one probably is close to the points you've made.

It provides 3 good examples as very short case studies.

https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/populism/44261

The points that match with your summary YF are nicely outlined here....

"Populists also stir up fear and insecurity by focusing on negative stories. They warn of alleged dangers posed by certain groups of the population, such as ethnic minorities, feminists, LGBTQI persons or immigrants. They claim that other stakeholders, such as political parties and human rights activists, are unpatriotic and a danger to the national culture.

Complex social issues are extremely simplified and often highly emotionalised. This simplification is intended to create the impression that populists are better suited to resolve problems than their competitors or "the elite""

 

And also here...

"Even if moderate populism is not automatically anti-democratic, extreme populism as well as right-wing populism cannot be reconciled with the values of a liberal democracy.

In order to explain why this is the case, one must first understand a fundamental attribute of liberal democracy: pluralism. Pluralism means that within a democratic society, many ways of life, opinions, interests and goals can coexist on an equal footing. There is respect for each other and people recognise the diversity of society. This also applies to politics, because everyone has the right to have their opinion heard and considered by politicians.

Populists, however, do not appreciate such pluralism. They see the people as a homogeneous mass. Only certain political positions and attitudes are accepted. In more extreme cases, dissenting opinions are even seen as treason.

In Germany, it is mainly populism from the right-wing spectrum that has become prevalent. It uses terms such as " Volk" (people) and "Nation" primarily in ways that exclude social minorities.

The emotionalisation of problems is also reflected in the way populists conduct debates. In discussions, insults are often used, as well as ''alternative facts'', which are mainly based on personal feelings and opinions instead of scientific findings. This makes factual debate very difficult. The goal in a democracy is to reach a compromise based on facts. But if an opposing faction is not willing to reach such an agreement, this is almost impossible"

 

But, I believe the following is somewhat the point that Fen is making too.....

 

"For a start, it is important to avoid ignoring populist parties. Populist parties could use this to assume a victim role, which in turn would further confirm their position as "outside the elite". Instead, a substantive debate should be sought to show that populists talk a lot about problems, without ever offering adequate solutions themselves.

More transparency can also be a possible solution. It gives citizens the opportunity to see and understand how a government acts and why certain decisions are made. And last but not least, dialogue between the electorate and the elected is essential"

 

With so many people feeling marginalised I do think that proper "dialogue between the electorate and elected" has been poor for years...and that vacuum has been filled with all kinds of characters (arguably left and right, but clearly the current government has ratcheted up the emotion (which again is stated in this article). 

With all of this happening daily in our national politics is it any wonder when folk on forums such as ours / this one start to polarise too? We hardly have role models on the whole (and we can claim we are independent minded all we like, but we have our own stances and look to those commentators who echo or articulate them.

I agree with both of you actually though you both come at it from very different angles.

 

You’re spot on with this, far too many seem to think if they ignore the issue eventually it will go away, but that’s not how politics works. I know I bang on about immigration, but that’s the easiest example to use. For 20 years now just about every survey has indicated that a majority of the electorate wanted to see immigration reduced, yet both major parties increased it significantly. They then seem miffed when those that have been ignored start voting for others, which in Britain was Brexit or UKIP, and on the continent it’s been AfD, Le Pen, Melanie, Wilders etc. Likewise with Trump in the States. After a generation of watching their jobs outsourced abroad, their towns fall into ruin and being told by every traditional establishment politician tough luck, it’s globalisation and there’s no other way, can you really blame those in the rust belt for taking a chance on a maverick who campaigned on protectionism and bringing those jobs back?

As you say a lot of these parties are fairly incompetent, but that’s a charge that can also be labelled at most of the traditional parties as well. The Germans were always looked upon as the sensible ones, but many of Merkels policies are now haunting her party. The welcoming of a million refugees with no popular mandate to do so has caused the rise of the AfD, and the scrapping of the nuclear power plants has led to them burning filthy coal and soaring power costs due to leaving themselves at the whim of Putin for gas.

Whilst the populist parties likely won’t fix the problems they identify, they campaign on trying to do so, which is more than the established ones do. Given a choice between a party who may try but fail, and another that won’t give it the time of day you’ll vote for the first even if it’s more in hope than expectation 

[A Load of Squit 5,164]

We now have a part time Prime Minister, 2 days a week, the other 3 he's going to be connecting with voters electioneering.

If only some one would call an election.

 

[Yellow Fever 3,786]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

You’re spot on with this, far too many seem to think if they ignore the issue eventually it will go away, but that’s not how politics works. I know I bang on about immigration, but that’s the easiest example to use. For 20 years now just about every survey has indicated that a majority of the electorate wanted to see immigration reduced, yet both major parties increased it significantly. They then seem miffed when those that have been ignored start voting for others, which in Britain was Brexit or UKIP, and on the continent it’s been AfD, Le Pen, Melanie, Wilders etc. Likewise with Trump in the States. After a generation of watching their jobs outsourced abroad, their towns fall into ruin and being told by every traditional establishment politician tough luck, it’s globalisation and there’s no other way, can you really blame those in the rust belt for taking a chance on a maverick who campaigned on protectionism and bringing those jobs back?

As you say a lot of these parties are fairly incompetent, but that’s a charge that can also be labelled at most of the traditional parties as well. The Germans were always looked upon as the sensible ones, but many of Merkels policies are now haunting her party. The welcoming of a million refugees with no popular mandate to do so has caused the rise of the AfD, and the scrapping of the nuclear power plants has led to them burning filthy coal and soaring power costs due to leaving themselves at the whim of Putin for gas.

Whilst the populist parties likely won’t fix the problems they identify, they campaign on trying to do so, which is more than the established ones do. Given a choice between a party who may try but fail, and another that won’t give it the time of day you’ll vote for the first even if it’s more in hope than expectation 

Thanks Fen.

You identified nicely the conundrum at the heart of Brexit and current UK populism generally.

You identify with 'protectionism' and bringing those jobs back.

Yet Brexit (and the right wing Tory party) was sold as all about 'global Britain' - trading with the rest of the world - removing non EU protectionist barriers (see CPTTP). Even Truss in her short tenure wanted to increase immigration ! Its 180 degrees at odds with your local 'Protectionism'. Obviously the shortage of labour in key occupations is also rapidly coming home to to roost too! 

So somebody has been not telling the whole truth / reading the small print. Too late. Gotcha!

My guess is that its the 'Populist' Brexiters like Johnson and Farage. Be careful what you wish vote for!

As per that original extract - It's what Prof Bull says is called "irresponsible bidding". 

[sonyc 5,519]

2 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

You’re spot on with this, far too many seem to think if they ignore the issue eventually it will go away, but that’s not how politics works. I know I bang on about immigration, but that’s the easiest example to use. For 20 years now just about every survey has indicated that a majority of the electorate wanted to see immigration reduced, yet both major parties increased it significantly. They then seem miffed when those that have been ignored start voting for others, which in Britain was Brexit or UKIP, and on the continent it’s been AfD, Le Pen, Melanie, Wilders etc. Likewise with Trump in the States. After a generation of watching their jobs outsourced abroad, their towns fall into ruin and being told by every traditional establishment politician tough luck, it’s globalisation and there’s no other way, can you really blame those in the rust belt for taking a chance on a maverick who campaigned on protectionism and bringing those jobs back?

As you say a lot of these parties are fairly incompetent, but that’s a charge that can also be labelled at most of the traditional parties as well. The Germans were always looked upon as the sensible ones, but many of Merkels policies are now haunting her party. The welcoming of a million refugees with no popular mandate to do so has caused the rise of the AfD, and the scrapping of the nuclear power plants has led to them burning filthy coal and soaring power costs due to leaving themselves at the whim of Putin for gas.

Whilst the populist parties likely won’t fix the problems they identify, they campaign on trying to do so, which is more than the established ones do. Given a choice between a party who may try but fail, and another that won’t give it the time of day you’ll vote for the first even if it’s more in hope than expectation 

There's a lot I can agree with there Fen.....the reasons or part reasons why places like the Rust Belt in the US voted for Trump and like towns here in the north east voted for Brexit. I agree about globalisation too (though had a smile listening to Andrew Neil this morning bemoan the fact that the Spectator and Telegraph may be bought by foreign countries he dislikes). I get the whole point about protectionism and jobs at home.

What I disagree with you about is the so-called "choice of a party that tries but fails". The kind of populism we've witnessed has been about personal vanity (Cummings even stated recently that Johnson had no vision or ideology, save looking to build things and big projects...reminds me of  wealthy Victorians building follies in their own names because they wanted to be immortal). Johnson didn't build 40 hospitals, he didn't level up anything. In fact on most metrics the UK has greatly suffered. Brexit is a great example. Tell loads of businesses now about the sunlit uplands and see what response you'll get.

In the US Trump didn't drain any swamps, he didn't build any walls, he was not good in the pandemic...and so on. He claimed he would make America great and that he cared so much for the US. That's the point made in the article I copied above, the premise is based on lies and insincerity - populism divides people. It simplified things that are complex. It creates the kind of political atmosphere that is toxic. Those who are liberal or left are suddenly the enemy or self-righteous.

The chances are that most people actually might agree on a whole range of issues about how they might be solved if there was enough time and room for serious debate. I honestly believe that a whole Pinkun community (on the non political side for example) could (admittedly after many sharp exchanges) agree a whole range of policies to solve or certainly improve a  whole range of problems policy wise. Yet, that is entirely hypothetical of course.

We need a series of serious governments to do that (couldn't care less who to be honest if it was explained well.enough....a bit like our club when it used to tell us their long term plans and strategy. Fans understood it even though some felt it wasn't the right path). Labour looks like it will have the chance next time. It may end up the same but I'm hoping we don't see the same chancers and vain personalities like Johnson, Mogg, the bonkers Truss and so on. It has improved marginally under Sunak but they've no ideas left. They've failed very badly. We don't need more populist idiots that's for sure.

And in Thatcher, whatever one's views, she at least had a strategy and long term vision that underpinned her belief...personal responsibility, reduction of waste, rolling back the state. It appealed to peoples' aspirations, about home ownership, holding shares, privatisation of big industry, union power reduced, low taxes to stimulate investment and so on. I disagreed with a lot of it but could understand the direction. She wouldn't have been a Brexiter, ever, she understood Europe, she didn't fill her cabinet with low calibre ministers either.  Yet, her policies exacerbated the north / south divide, her policies eviscerated some industries. A long shadow (that might last over a century). This is not the place for a discussion of her legacy or the rights and wrongs but I'm making a point about a long term view.

Populists don't have a long term plan. And this current 'Brexit obsessed' government has wasted 14 years. A lot could have been done in 14 years. So- called "Global Britain" is a huge conceit. So is "levelling up". Because if you really believed that you would need policies that truly connected with trading partners, you would need serious tax increases and huge investment - the like we've never known since Atlee. We know it's possible because of schemes such as furlough to help through covid. We now know there's always a magic money tree - if the will is there. But as a country we need to pay for it. Otherwise, it's another 'race to the bottom'. Cheap, short termism. And that kind of thing will never be 'popular'.