Off Topic Politics Thread

[It'sOnlyAGame]

"Where it used to be the religious right who yelled ‘You can’t say that!’, now it’s the woke left. Where once it was priests who strung up iconoclastic women, now it’s the politically correct."

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/09/04/from-sinead-to-roisin-why-blasphemous-women-get-cancelled/

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/09/01/the-never-ending-persecution-of-roisin-murphy/

 

[Onionman]

Have I missed something? I thought he was rolling in money. Why does he need to crowd fund his defence ? Or is that just thing that these grifter types do ?

It was tongue in cheek. It's a crowdfunder for victims to privately prosecute Tate.

So many Tate supporters suggest he can't get justice in Romania that I thought it deserved a reframe as being his opportunity to clear his name in the British courts

It's a good cause.

Vin

 

[Gregm1988]

It was tongue in cheek. It's a crowdfunder for victims to privately prosecute Tate.

So many Tate supporters suggest he can't get justice in Romania that I thought it deserved a reframe as being his opportunity to clear his name in the British courts

It's a good cause.

Vin

I was going to say that will teach me not to look at the links. But I didn’t even read the text of the link ! Oops

 

[Gregm1988]

"Where it used to be the religious right who yelled ‘You can’t say that!’, now it’s the woke left. Where once it was priests who strung up iconoclastic women, now it’s the politically correct."

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/09/04/from-sinead-to-roisin-why-blasphemous-women-get-cancelled/

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/09/01/the-never-ending-persecution-of-roisin-murphy/

I find the choice of comparatives intriguing because when those on the left try to challenge/dismiss the complaints of those they label TERFs with regards to harm of children they seem to just sidestep and point to the abuse of children by the Catholic Church as it is is some kind of defence. That is despite the critics not all being Catholic (they are often religious and that seems to be enough). And that is seems very much like a “what about Hilary and her emails” moment. But from the “other side” that (rightfully) pours scorn on that kind of whatabboutism

Does anyone know if there were any prominent male critics of the Catholic Church with regards to child abuse at around the same time as O’Connor? And what reaction did they get?

And is the proportion of the response in proportion to the level of fame of those speaking out? Because a common point is that the women speaking out get much more nasty and violent responses than the men (or at least seem to). But is that because, say in the case of JK Rowling and Graham Linehan, one critic is far more popular than the other so gets a far higher volume of responses and thus more chance of extreme ones? Or is it as the article says and that it is that women speaking out are treated more severely ?

 

[It'sOnlyAGame]

I find the choice of comparatives intriguing because when those on the left try to challenge/dismiss the complaints of those they label TERFs with regards to harm of children they seem to just sidestep and point to the abuse of children by the Catholic Church as it is is some kind of defence. That is despite the critics not all being Catholic (they are often religious and that seems to be enough). And that is seems very much like a “what about Hilary and her emails” moment. But from the “other side” that (rightfully) pours scorn on that kind of whatabboutism

Does anyone know if there were any prominent male critics of the Catholic Church with regards to child abuse at around the same time as O’Connor? And what reaction did they get?

And is the proportion of the response in proportion to the level of fame of those speaking out? Because a common point is that the women speaking out get much more nasty and violent responses than the men (or at least seem to). But is that because, say in the case of JK Rowling and Graham Linehan, one critic is far more popular than the other so gets a far higher volume of responses and thus more chance of extreme ones? Or is it as the article says and that it is that women speaking out are treated more severely ?

Unusually on here, you have a more balanced approach to comments without resorting to the puffed up, self importance displayed by one or two. I will respond more fully when I get the chance.

 

[The Ides of March]

Unusually on here, you have a more balanced approach to comments without resorting to the puffed up, self importance displayed by one or two. I will respond more fully when I get the chance.

Or perhaps the argument surrounding issues on Transgenderism has burnt itself out ready for the next topic of discussion such as the underfunding by successive UK Governments in the infrastructure from education, health, policing, to the environment. I think these are issues that should be at the forefront of discussion.

 

[......loading......]

Or perhaps the argument surrounding issues on Transgenderism has burnt itself out ready for the next topic of discussion such as the underfunding by successive UK Governments in the infrastructure from education, health, policing, to the environment. I think these are issues that should be at the forefront of discussion.

Very easy to make something look bad if you don’t look after it…

 

[Gregm1988]

Or perhaps the argument surrounding issues on Transgenderism has burnt itself out ready for the next topic of discussion such as the underfunding by successive UK Governments in the infrastructure from education, health, policing, to the environment. I think these are issues that should be at the forefront of discussion.

How much discussion really is there on this one though. Is the underfunding over 13 years really excusable in any way? Is there any justification for the highest tax rate in decades but it not seemingly going where it needs to go? Or how when the schools were empty in covid the funding that wen to the fake PPE companies could have gone into improvements

Maybe it comes across as puffed up but there doesn’t seem to be much of a debate or discussion on this one. But I’m open to hearing a potential defence of the conservatives here

Edit : unless the discussion is about where funding is going to come from when it eventually has to be spent. No doubt by a labour government

 

[shoot_spiderman]

How much discussion really is there on this one though. Is the underfunding over 13 years really excusable in any way? Is there any justification for the highest tax rate in decades but it not seemingly going where it needs to go? Or how when the schools were empty in covid the funding that wen to the fake PPE companies could have gone into improvements

Maybe it comes across as puffed up but there doesn’t seem to be much of a debate or discussion on this one. But I’m open to hearing a potential defence of the conservatives here

Edit : unless the discussion is about where funding is going to come from when it eventually has to be spent. No doubt by a labour government

There is here …

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/04/pressure-mounts-on-sunak-and-keegan-over-school-concrete-crisis

 

[......loading......]

The shock with this story is just how unshocking it is. I worked at a school in the city where the roof leaked so badly that the basement (which houses the heating and generator) would regularly flood to waist high. We applied for grants to fix it and were given money to fix our windows.

I just wish the Tory supporters could step back and think about why Labour always seems to overspend. If every time they come in, they have to make up for continuous shortfalls in funding, then they will always look like they are crazy spenders. The truth is that one party has been in power for 80% of my life and if they were remotely competent we would not be in this position.

Lower taxes and vilifying the poor as parasites has gone a hell of a way towards making our top 5% wealthy as hell. It has done great harm to the bottom 20 (probably grown to 30%). The rest of us will suffer more as the bottom of our society becomes increasingly deprived.

 

[milton archer]

Near me in N. Devon, a few years ago some people embarked on a vanity project to build an (ironically named) "free school" in our ANOB. The local consensus of opinion was that it really wasn't necessary. Planning permission was refused, an appeal was refused by the Planning Inspectorate but Gove called it in and approved it.

This white elephant has now been built. We understand that the site alone cost £3m but, even using FOI we have been unable to find out construction costs. They are rumoured at £50m but that may be conjecture. Once operational it failed it's first few Ofsted's, was put into special measures, the Governors, largely the people who instigated the project, resigned and the school is now run by LA. It's been a complete blot on the landscape waste of money. Imagine how better spent that money could've been spent maintaining existing local schools many of which desperately require repair and replacement.

 

[StJabbo1]

How much discussion really is there on this one though. Is the underfunding over 13 years really excusable in any way? Is there any justification for the highest tax rate in decades but it not seemingly going where it needs to go? Or how when the schools were empty in covid the funding that wen to the fake PPE companies could have gone into improvements

Maybe it comes across as puffed up but there doesn’t seem to be much of a debate or discussion on this one. But I’m open to hearing a potential defence of the conservatives here

Edit : unless the discussion is about where funding is going to come from when it eventually has to be spent. No doubt by a labour government

It was Tony Blair's Gordon Brown's and Jeremy Corbyn's fault along with woke lefty lawyers, people who voted remain and bearded Guardian readers in sandals and kaftans.

 

[StJabbo1]

Near me in N. Devon, a few years ago some people embarked on a vanity project to build an (ironically named) "free school" in our ANOB. The local consensus of opinion was that it really wasn't necessary. Planning permission was refused, an appeal was refused by the Planning Inspectorate but Gove called it in and approved it.

This white elephant has now been built. We understand that the site alone cost £3m but, even using FOI we have been unable to find out construction costs. They are rumoured at £50m but that may be conjecture. Once operational it failed it's first few Ofsted's, was put into special measures, the Governors, largely the people who instigated the project, resigned and the school is now run by LA. It's been a complete blot on the landscape waste of money. Imagine how better spent that money could've been spent maintaining existing local schools many of which desperately require repair and replacement.

I don't suppose for one minute that the above is an isolated case the catalogue of incompetence and corruption further cements the unelectability of the conservatives.

 

[......loading......]

Everything began to fall apart in 2010. Except it didn't. It had been crumbling my whole life. From 1979 when I was born until 1997 when Labour got in, all I remember is poverty. That may be because my family were poor and I lived in one of Southampton's inner city estates, but the world felt very grey. The education system that I was a part of as a student was total pot luck. Teachers with few skills. No real checking up on what schools were doing. In 1993 the Tories did something right. They created Ofsted. Most teachers would hate me for saying that, and I agree the way it works is pretty shocking, but the introduction of league tables and systematic checking of schools needed to happen.

Sadly, Ofsted was created in the Private School, old boys vision of education. It judged way too much on its perception of good students being taught well by good teachers. League tables were all about numbers and numbers mean grades. More and more tests were introduced and teaching - which had been way too airy fairy - was in danger of becoming an exercise in shovelling information into students.

I got into teaching in 2004. It was halfway through the Blair years and you could feel the investment. The crop of trainee teachers I was in - most of whom are still teaching now - were some of the brightest in their academic years. They were driven and motivated by cash incentives and the Education, Education, Education dynamic. For 6 years it felt like there was always innovation and encouragement. Local Authorities did a huge amount to centralise training and make sure all schools had access to new innovations. A seemingly bright idea to academise some failing schools was instigated - giving them more freedom to change in ways that suited them.

Then Labour were ousted and immediately the academy system was made central to Conservative policy. All centralised help and cooperation were destroyed in a five year spell. My union fought hard against academies, telling schools they would be poorer in the long run, but short term cash incentives meant most changed over. They are all suffering for it now. The quality of people coming into education isn't what it was. The national conversation about education is depressing. The buildings are falling down. The country is falling to pieces.

And Labour will have to spend to fix it. Which will lead to another 15 years of depressing Tory government as the people cannot understand that they have to spend if they want to get richer.

 

[Onionman]

I've said this a hundred times but the biggest con ever perpetrated on the British public is that you can have better public services without increasing taxes.

Vin

 

[......loading......]

I've said this a hundred times but the biggest con ever perpetrated on the British public is that you can have better public services without increasing taxes.

Vin

The second biggest is that taxes are a bad thing. Properly structured taxes are society’s protection against economic abuse.

 

[Schad]

The second biggest is that taxes are a bad thing. Properly structured taxes are society’s protection against economic abuse.

Also society's failsafe in the event of economic downturns. The reasons Germany weathers recessions better than most: a resilient manufacturing sector that produces goods needed even in lean years, and a really robust social safety net that ensures that the bottom doesn't drop out on demand every time the economy takes a hit. Prevents the austerity death spiral that has become so familiar for people in the UK in the past 20 years.

 

[Gregm1988]

Also society's failsafe in the event of economic downturns. The reasons Germany weathers recessions better than most: a resilient manufacturing sector that produces goods needed even in lean years, and a really robust social safety net that ensures that the bottom doesn't drop out on demand every time the economy takes a hit. Prevents the austerity death spiral that has become so familiar for people in the UK in the past 20 years.

I think what many seem to miss is that if you abandon people at the bottom they don’t contribute to the economy. Notably they don’t make the purchases required to boost the economy. That is before we even consider any contributions in the form of work

 

[......loading......]

I think what many seem to miss is that if you abandon people at the bottom they don’t contribute to the economy. Notably they don’t make the purchases required to boost the economy. That is before we even consider any contributions in the form of work

People don't miss that. People misconstrue it and repurpose it.

How do we construct self-worth? We attach it to our contribution to society.

How do we measure our contribution to society? Through wealth acquisition, through output and through comparison.

How does comparison work? Well, we look at what others do and how others live and we position our worth accordingly?

Who sets the standards of worth? In the UK, the press and media are the prime setters of worth. In Iran it is the church. In an Amazonian tribe it is the village elders.

So, we label the weakest in society as worthless as this empowers us. The press realise this and amplify the messaging. A populace empowered by hatred of weakness and otherness buys more papers and ensures taxation and policy primarily values wealth as strength and worth.

The more we value wealth as strength and worth, the less care we apply to the weak, the more we blame the weak for their situation, the less we are willing to help them. Therefore, they have less to contribute, as a society we become weaker, but our perception of self is hardened and affirmed.

The outcome? The rich are not held accountable. Why would they be? Wealth validates them. The populace are not held accountable as they work and have money. The poor are accountable for their poverty as they are weak and undeserving. They probably drink. They are probably illegal immigrants. The very act of depriving the weak from aid perversely justifies my middle earning existence. I don't need to question my place when there are people beneath me.

So, we understand we could help the poor. We understand that a wealthier bottom end of society enriches us all. We just choose to ignore it as it gives us an outlet for our anger and frustration.

Edit: Anger and frustration are also a form of sedation. Why act when I can enjoy my moral rage quietly in front of the television?

 

[shoot_spiderman]

People don't miss that. People misconstrue it and repurpose it.

How do we construct self-worth? We attach it to our contribution to society.

How do we measure our contribution to society? Through wealth acquisition, through output and through comparison.

How does comparison work? Well, we look at what others do and how others live and we position our worth accordingly?

Who sets the standards of worth? In the UK, the press and media are the prime setters of worth. In Iran it is the church. In an Amazonian tribe it is the village elders.

So, we label the weakest in society as worthless as this empowers us. The press realise this and amplify the messaging. A populace empowered by hatred of weakness and otherness buys more papers and ensures taxation and policy primarily values wealth as strength and worth.

The more we value wealth as strength and worth, the less care we apply to the weak, the more we blame the weak for their situation, the less we are willing to help them. Therefore, they have less to contribute, as a society we become weaker, but our perception of self is hardened and affirmed.

The outcome? The rich are not held accountable. Why would they be? Wealth validates them. The populace are not held accountable as they work and have money. The poor are accountable for their poverty as they are weak and undeserving. They probably drink. They are probably illegal immigrants. The very act of depriving the weak from aid perversely justifies my middle earning existence. I don't need to question my place when there are people beneath me.

So, we understand we could help the poor. We understand that a wealthier bottom end of society enriches us all. We just choose to ignore it as it gives us an outlet for our anger and frustration.

Edit: Anger and frustration are also a form of sedation. Why act when I can enjoy my moral rage quietly in front of the television?

I, and probably a few of you on here, we’re lucky to become adults at a time of social mobility

My friends and I were largely from council estates and were able to get apprenticeships and traineeships and decent, productive and reasonably paid jobs/careers

There’s currently a shocking waste of talent that resides in deprived areas of this country