Culture Wars
#61
(06-29-2020, 09:15 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(06-26-2020, 01:20 PM)Shabby Russian Wrote: I have to repeat again, when General Election after General Election result, returned Governments who were mandated to remain in the EU, it didn't stop those who wanted to leave the EU from campaigning for that  and more importantly nor should it have done.

There is a BIG difference between campaigning for something and using every single legal and procedural mechanism to frustrate it.

There is a BIG difference between campaigning for something and attempting to completely denegrate the other side with "racist", "thick", "fascist" epithets.

Compared with trying to suspend Parliament to remove democratic oversight? Or calling people who vote for parties that want to remain in the EU traitors? Or saying that people who want to use democratic mechanisms are against democracy? Or trying to force everyone to fall in line and unconditionally support something they think is bad for the country? Or calling the judiciary "Enemies of the People"?
Reply
#62
(06-29-2020, 09:43 AM)Borin\ Baggie Wrote:
(06-29-2020, 09:15 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(06-26-2020, 01:20 PM)Shabby Russian Wrote: I have to repeat again, when General Election after General Election result, returned Governments who were mandated to remain in the EU, it didn't stop those who wanted to leave the EU from campaigning for that  and more importantly nor should it have done.

There is a BIG difference between campaigning for something and using every single legal and procedural mechanism to frustrate it.

There is a BIG difference between campaigning for something and attempting to completely denegrate the other side with "racist", "thick", "fascist" epithets.

Compared with trying to suspend Parliament to remove democratic oversight? Or calling people who vote for parties that want to remain in the EU traitors? Or saying that people who want to use democratic mechanisms are against democracy? Or trying to force everyone to fall in line and unconditionally support something they think is bad for the country? Or calling the judiciary "Enemies of the People"?

Leavers would have meekly accepted the result if the votes were flipped.
Reply
#63
(06-29-2020, 09:43 AM)Borin\ Baggie Wrote:
(06-29-2020, 09:15 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(06-26-2020, 01:20 PM)Shabby Russian Wrote: I have to repeat again, when General Election after General Election result, returned Governments who were mandated to remain in the EU, it didn't stop those who wanted to leave the EU from campaigning for that  and more importantly nor should it have done.

There is a BIG difference between campaigning for something and using every single legal and procedural mechanism to frustrate it.

There is a BIG difference between campaigning for something and attempting to completely denegrate the other side with "racist", "thick", "fascist" epithets.

Compared with trying to suspend Parliament to remove democratic oversight? Or calling people who vote for parties that want to remain in the EU traitors? Or saying that people who want to use democratic mechanisms are against democracy? Or trying to force everyone to fall in line and unconditionally support something they think is bad for the country? Or calling the judiciary "Enemies of the People"?

The key difference being that the whole weight of the Establishment was used against Leave - Parliament, the Judiciary, Academia, the BBC. I wouldn't have called the judicary the "Enemies of the People", though I would (and did) call into question their independence. I wouldn't (and didn't) calll people who voted for parties that wanted to remain in the EU "Traitors", though I would (and did) call into question their belief in the fundamentals of our democracy.

As it is, Brexit will be a cakewalk compared with the last 3 months.
Reply
#64
The key difference is you campaigned for and voted to leave so you don't care about things that get said towards the other side. I was called a traitor by people working for my MP because I was campaigning for the Lib Dems in the run up to the 2017 election, and some of the treatment from Tory activists in Kenilworth and Southam that I and other Lib Dems were subjected to in 2017 made me not want to do it in 2019. All the other stuff has been prominent, one of those things was put on the front page of a popular national newspaper.

The British "establishment" was split on the EU issue, as was the country. One of the most pervasive and influential parts of the establishment were actively supporting Brexit, as shown by the types of people leading the various Leave campaigns. Compare this with the AV referendum where the entire weight of the establishment genuinely was actually stacked on one side. Get that chip off your shoulder.

As for academia, people reliant on the EU for funding and research collaboration don't want to risk losing that. No shit. As for the judiciary, they did their constitutional role as per Common Law, we don't have a German-style legal system and how the Judiciary acted was within precedent.

Regarding democracy, the fundamental of our democracy is being able to challenge stuff you disagree with so it seems pretty obvious that the people doing the criticising of people who didn't want to leave the EU for not putting up and shutting up were the people being anti-democratic, why should people not be allowed to exercise their belief that they think the country is doing something stupid?

Brexit has been a complete shitshow for 4 years, we're due to leave the EU safety net at the end of the year and we're an international laughing stock already. Can't wait to see how this bunch of incompetent morons can make things worse.
Reply
#65
(06-29-2020, 10:03 PM)Borin\ Baggie Wrote: The key difference is you campaigned for and voted to leave so you don't care about things that get said towards the other side. I was called a traitor by people working for my MP because I was campaigning for the Lib Dems in the run up to the 2017 election, and some of the treatment from Tory activists in Kenilworth and Southam that I and other Lib Dems were subjected to in 2017 made me not want to do it in 2019. All the other stuff has been prominent, one of those things was put on the front page of a popular national newspaper.

The British "establishment" was split on the EU issue, as was the country. One of the most pervasive and influential parts of the establishment were actively supporting Brexit, as shown by the types of people leading the various Leave campaigns. Compare this with the AV referendum where the entire weight of the establishment genuinely was actually stacked on one side. Get that chip off your shoulder.

As for academia, people reliant on the EU for funding and research collaboration don't want to risk losing that. No shit. As for the judiciary, they did their constitutional role as per Common Law, we don't have a German-style legal system and how the Judiciary acted was within precedent.

Regarding democracy, the fundamental of our democracy is being able to challenge stuff you disagree with so it seems pretty obvious that the people doing the criticising of people who didn't want to leave the EU for not putting up and shutting up were the people being anti-democratic, why should people not be allowed to exercise their belief that they think the country is doing something stupid?

Brexit has been a complete shitshow for 4 years, we're due to leave the EU safety net at the end of the year and we're an international laughing stock already. Can't wait to see how this bunch of incompetent morons can make things worse.

Agree. For about five seconds when elected PM Johnson projected the resolute leadership needed in the Brexit crisis. Then he reverted to bungling buffoon type, and subsequently his administration showed their lack of leadership skills under Corona and the ensuing economic meltdown.

In a self-evident crisis people look to leadership, though they weary over time. Johnson has handled the endgame for the quarantine badly; a reemergence of the virus cannot be contained thru social distancing and it's every man, woman, and child for himself. I doubt Johnson will have another chance to appear to be a cohesive national leader.* There will be no mass acceptance of a second lock-down. Roll all this into the EU exit negotiations and preparations for a global Britain in a era of a global pandemic, and something will have to give.
 

*The Scandinavians use the word "Landsfather/mother" for such a leader who is capable of garnering majority support and satisfaction, often across ideological divides. Olof Palme was one; Angela Merkel certainly is; and Mette Jakobsen in Denmark may well develop to be one.
Reply
#66
(06-30-2020, 04:42 AM)Pneumann Wrote:
(06-29-2020, 10:03 PM)Borin\ Baggie Wrote: The key difference is you campaigned for and voted to leave so you don't care about things that get said towards the other side. I was called a traitor by people working for my MP because I was campaigning for the Lib Dems in the run up to the 2017 election, and some of the treatment from Tory activists in Kenilworth and Southam that I and other Lib Dems were subjected to in 2017 made me not want to do it in 2019. All the other stuff has been prominent, one of those things was put on the front page of a popular national newspaper.

The British "establishment" was split on the EU issue, as was the country. One of the most pervasive and influential parts of the establishment were actively supporting Brexit, as shown by the types of people leading the various Leave campaigns. Compare this with the AV referendum where the entire weight of the establishment genuinely was actually stacked on one side. Get that chip off your shoulder.

As for academia, people reliant on the EU for funding and research collaboration don't want to risk losing that. No shit. As for the judiciary, they did their constitutional role as per Common Law, we don't have a German-style legal system and how the Judiciary acted was within precedent.

Regarding democracy, the fundamental of our democracy is being able to challenge stuff you disagree with so it seems pretty obvious that the people doing the criticising of people who didn't want to leave the EU for not putting up and shutting up were the people being anti-democratic, why should people not be allowed to exercise their belief that they think the country is doing something stupid?

Brexit has been a complete shitshow for 4 years, we're due to leave the EU safety net at the end of the year and we're an international laughing stock already. Can't wait to see how this bunch of incompetent morons can make things worse.

Agree. For about five seconds when elected PM Johnson projected the resolute leadership needed in the Brexit crisis. Then he reverted to bungling buffoon type, and subsequently his administration showed their lack of leadership skills under Corona and the ensuing economic meltdown.

In a self-evident crisis people look to leadership, though they weary over time. Johnson has handled the endgame for the quarantine badly; a reemergence of the virus cannot be contained thru social distancing and it's every man, woman, and child for himself. I doubt Johnson will have another chance to appear to be a cohesive national leader.* There will be no mass acceptance of a second lock-down. Roll all this into the EU exit negotiations and preparations for a global Britain in a era of a global pandemic, and something will have to give.
 

*The Scandinavians use the word "Landsfather/mother" for such a leader who is capable of garnering majority support and satisfaction, often across ideological divides. Olof Palme was one; Angela Merkel certainly is; and Mette Jakobsen in Denmark may well develop to be one.

Helmut Schmidt was another, and at a difficult time.

There are valid arguments for saying Attlee did it throughout the war years, by running the domestic agenda and leaving Churchill free to concentrate on being the leader of the war effort. That was certainly reflected in the result of the 1945 election.

Or it could just be that I've picked two of my own personal favourites. Confirmation bias I think it's called - perhaps I'm finally ready for Twitter.
Reply
#67
(06-30-2020, 07:44 AM)Ossian Wrote:
(06-30-2020, 04:42 AM)Pneumann Wrote:
(06-29-2020, 10:03 PM)Borin\ Baggie Wrote: The key difference is you campaigned for and voted to leave so you don't care about things that get said towards the other side. I was called a traitor by people working for my MP because I was campaigning for the Lib Dems in the run up to the 2017 election, and some of the treatment from Tory activists in Kenilworth and Southam that I and other Lib Dems were subjected to in 2017 made me not want to do it in 2019. All the other stuff has been prominent, one of those things was put on the front page of a popular national newspaper.

The British "establishment" was split on the EU issue, as was the country. One of the most pervasive and influential parts of the establishment were actively supporting Brexit, as shown by the types of people leading the various Leave campaigns. Compare this with the AV referendum where the entire weight of the establishment genuinely was actually stacked on one side. Get that chip off your shoulder.

As for academia, people reliant on the EU for funding and research collaboration don't want to risk losing that. No shit. As for the judiciary, they did their constitutional role as per Common Law, we don't have a German-style legal system and how the Judiciary acted was within precedent.

Regarding democracy, the fundamental of our democracy is being able to challenge stuff you disagree with so it seems pretty obvious that the people doing the criticising of people who didn't want to leave the EU for not putting up and shutting up were the people being anti-democratic, why should people not be allowed to exercise their belief that they think the country is doing something stupid?

Brexit has been a complete shitshow for 4 years, we're due to leave the EU safety net at the end of the year and we're an international laughing stock already. Can't wait to see how this bunch of incompetent morons can make things worse.

Agree. For about five seconds when elected PM Johnson projected the resolute leadership needed in the Brexit crisis. Then he reverted to bungling buffoon type, and subsequently his administration showed their lack of leadership skills under Corona and the ensuing economic meltdown.

In a self-evident crisis people look to leadership, though they weary over time. Johnson has handled the endgame for the quarantine badly; a reemergence of the virus cannot be contained thru social distancing and it's every man, woman, and child for himself. I doubt Johnson will have another chance to appear to be a cohesive national leader.* There will be no mass acceptance of a second lock-down. Roll all this into the EU exit negotiations and preparations for a global Britain in a era of a global pandemic, and something will have to give.
 

*The Scandinavians use the word "Landsfather/mother" for such a leader who is capable of garnering majority support and satisfaction, often across ideological divides. Olof Palme was one; Angela Merkel certainly is; and Mette Jakobsen in Denmark may well develop to be one.

Helmut Schmidt was another, and at a difficult time.

There are valid arguments for saying Attlee did it throughout the war years, by running the domestic agenda and leaving Churchill free to concentrate on being the leader of the war effort. That was certainly reflected in the result of the 1945 election.

Or it could just be that I've picked two of my own personal favourites. Confirmation bias I think it's called - perhaps I'm finally ready for Twitter.

Schmidt and Brandt both, and maybe Attlee. It’s telling that there are few UK examples, Oss.
Reply
#68
Adversarial politics, like our adversarial legal system - ingrained and immutable.

We know best, though. We always know best.
Reply
#69
Not sure i would put Atlee into this category. No doubt he was popular with a segment of the electorate - indeed i think i am right in saying that in losing the 1951 election, the votes gained by Labour still is the highest ever achieved by a political party in a UK election.

But he was very much supported by Labour supporters and was able to get the Labour vote out, i doubt he had appeal to Conservative voters. Blair i would say was a different kettle of fish. And though this may surprise some people, i also think Thatcher had the ability to reach into the other party's base and take their votes.

But generally in UK politics the winners are those who can get their own core supporters out. The importance of the floating voter is very much exaggerated in my opinion.
Reply
#70
(06-30-2020, 10:43 AM)Shabby Russian Wrote: Not sure i would put Atlee into this category. No doubt he was popular with a segment of the electorate - indeed i think i am right in saying that in losing the 1951 election, the votes gained by Labour still is the highest ever achieved by a political party in a UK election.

But he was very much supported by Labour supporters and was able to get the Labour vote out, i doubt he had appeal to Conservative voters. Blair i would say was a different kettle of fish. And though this may surprise some people, i also think Thatcher had the ability to reach into the other party's base and take their votes.

But generally in UK politics the winners are those who can get their own core supporters out. The importance of the floating voter is very much exaggerated in my opinion.

Wholeheartedly disagree with Thatcher. In '79 Labour's vote share didn't decrease that much and it seems more like Liberal voters switched based on the numbers, '83 and '87 she was bailed out by FPTP as the Liberal-SDP Alliance was ridiculously underrepresented (25% of the vote, 23 seats).

The only leaders in the "modern" political system we have that I'd attribute that to is Blair. He worked with Paddy Ashdown in 1997 and the Labour gains that election were from the Conservative voters switching, due to the LD-Lab agreement and the cooperation agreement the Labour government effectively had 460 odd votes they could garner support from with 420 being Labour MPs. Before that you're looking at Baldwin, Gladstone and Disreali realistically.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)