Sendraks wrote:The Rees-Moggs would disappear into political irrelevance.

Beyond just this, your comment is a sharp one. However, the Rees-Moggs never disappear into political irrelevance. Look at the resurgence of the AfD in Germany. Look at what's happening in the US. I don't think you're implying that the UK is somehow special.

Why is that take so appealing (to enough people to matter)? It's the way most (not all) people really are, deep down, and all they need is a push. Why did Mexico elect a socialist? Is it because there aren't quite so many voters with fascist sympathies in Mexico? Why aren't there?

There's nothing wrong with expecting more of folks, but look out for disappointment. In the middle distance, be prepared for the fact that a billion and a half Chinese can't be wrong. There isn't enough sheer cleverness elsewhere to stem that tide, and I'm not as sure as Donald Trump is that it needs to be stemmed.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Beyond just this, your comment is a sharp one. However, the Rees-Moggs never disappear into political irrelevance. Look at the resurgence of the AfD in Germany. Look at what's happening in the US. I don't think you're implying that the UK is somehow special.

Indeed the UK is not special but, what's happened in the UK and elsewhere is simply the death throes of a political generation combined with the apathy of the younger generations who are still struggling to find a political party they can identify. The Rees-Moggs are a dying breed in politics, because the people who vote for them are a dying breed. Natural wastage is, as ever, the greatest driver of political change.

The Rees-Moggs are parasites surviving on the host of the Tory party. Its really the only way they have any political relevance at all.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Sendraks wrote:The Rees-Moggs would disappear into political irrelevance.

Beyond just this, your comment is a sharp one. However, the Rees-Moggs never disappear into political irrelevance. Look at the resurgence of the AfD in Germany. Look at what's happening in the US. I don't think you're implying that the UK is somehow special. Why did Mexico elect a socialist? Is it because there aren't quite so many voters with fascist sympathies in Mexico? Why aren't there?

Why is that take so appealing (to enough people to matter)? It's the way most (not all) people really are, deep down, and all they need is a push.

There's nothing wrong with expecting more of folks, but look out for disappointment. In the middle distance, be prepared for the fact that a billion and a half Chinese can't be wrong. There isn't enough sheer cleverness elsewhere to stem that tide.

Where is AfD? Another one looking for shadows? Never mind "commies under the beds" there are far too many looking for non-existent fascists under the beds. Stop interpreting non events as actual events. Where are the fascists in power? Almost or nearly means not. AfD, Le Pen, Wilders and Rees-Moggs are dodo's.

Sendraks wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
Beyond just this, your comment is a sharp one. However, the Rees-Moggs never disappear into political irrelevance. Look at the resurgence of the AfD in Germany. Look at what's happening in the US. I don't think you're implying that the UK is somehow special.

Indeed the UK is not special but, what's happened in the UK and elsewhere is simply the death throes of a political generation combined with the apathy of the younger generations who are still struggling to find a political party they can identify. The Rees-Moggs are a dying breed in politics, because the people who vote for them are a dying breed. Natural wastage is, as ever, the greatest driver of political change.

The Rees-Moggs are parasites surviving on the host of the Tory party. Its really the only way they have any political relevance at all.

I wish it were so. Every generation gets old and crotchety and conservative. Few there are who, like Robert Frost or whoever it was, were conservative in their youth so they could afford to be liberal in their old age.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Sendraks wrote:The Rees-Moggs would disappear into political irrelevance.

Beyond just this, your comment is a sharp one. However, the Rees-Moggs never disappear into political irrelevance. Look at the resurgence of the AfD in Germany. Look at what's happening in the US. I don't think you're implying that the UK is somehow special. Why did Mexico elect a socialist? Is it because there aren't quite so many voters with fascist sympathies in Mexico? Why aren't there?

Why is that take so appealing (to enough people to matter)? It's the way most (not all) people really are, deep down, and all they need is a push.

There's nothing wrong with expecting more of folks, but look out for disappointment. In the middle distance, be prepared for the fact that a billion and a half Chinese can't be wrong. There isn't enough sheer cleverness elsewhere to stem that tide.

Where is AfD? Another one looking for shadows? Never mind "commies under the beds" there are far too many looking for non-existent fascists under the beds. Stop interpreting non events as actual events. Where are the fascists in power? Almost or nearly means not. AfD, Le Pen, Wilders and Rees-Moggs are dodo's.

It's a good question, Scot, but my response is that they don't need to be in power. That's just the nightmare of some folks. All they have to do is push the body politic in a more conservative direction. They know some of their wishes are not realizable at present. That kind of shit is much more patient than you are.

Cito di Pense wrote:I wish it were so. Every generation gets old and crotchety and conservative.

Economically rather than socially. There's research which shows people don't become socially more conservative as they get older, which is where the death-knell of the Rees-Moggs is tolling.

Rees-Moggs like most Brexiteers is only interested in their money and they would wreck the country to protect it.

Sendraks wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:I wish it were so. Every generation gets old and crotchety and conservative.

Economically rather than socially. There's research which shows people don't become socially more conservative as they get older, which is where the death-knell of the Rees-Moggs is tolling.

What is it to be 'socially conservative'? We can depend on people's being ideologically inconsistent. I don't think the process is simply the business of getting rid of politicians whose sentiments or public pronouncements offend us.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:I wish it were so. Every generation gets old and crotchety and conservative.

Economically rather than socially. There's research which shows people don't become socially more conservative as they get older, which is where the death-knell of the Rees-Moggs is tolling.

What is it to be 'socially conservative'? We can depend on people's being ideologically inconsistent. I don't think the process is simply the business of getting rid of politicians whose sentiments or public pronouncements offend us.

We are unable to associate ourselves with later generations. For me today I have absolutely nothing in common socially with younger generations. There are two generations already after me. Socially to the younger ones I appear conservative.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:I wish it were so. Every generation gets old and crotchety and conservative.

Economically rather than socially. There's research which shows people don't become socially more conservative as they get older, which is where the death-knell of the Rees-Moggs is tolling.

What is it to be 'socially conservative'? We can depend on people's being ideologically inconsistent. I don't think the process is simply the business of getting rid of politicians whose sentiments or public pronouncements offend us.

We are unable to associate ourselves with later generations. For me today I have absolutely nothing in common socially with younger generations. There are two generations already after me. Socially to the younger ones I appear conservative.

You appear socially conservative to me, too, and I'm a lot closer to your age than to theirs. What politicians you say you support means nothing to me. The 'ayes' have it.

Sendraks wrote:

Hermit wrote:
Are you suggesting the internal bunfight among Tories about whether to have a hard Brexit or a pseudo-Brexit would not have happened had the Tories won a clear majority of seats?

Quite.
I think what May was hoping for with her little electoral gambit was having more pro-remain/soft brexit MPs on side, so she could push things through with a mandate.

The power of politicians within a party is not a function of election results. It is a function of of the power of the factions within the party they are members of. Had the previous election resulted in a Tory majority May would still be saddled with the likes of Davis, Johnson and Rees-Mogg and the ensuing Brexit debacle tearing the Tories apart.

And no, those troglodytes are not about to fade from the political scene any time soon. If there were such a trend you would not have a Tory government in the first place, the USA would not have Trump and Australia would not have Turnbull. And when was it the last time Germany's government was headed by a member of the SPD?

Western style democracies have been lurching to the right for quite some years. Eventually, this trend will probably reverse, but right now removing any one right wing nutter is akin to chopping off one of the Lernaean Hydra's heads. The responsibility for that lies ultimately at the feet of Fred and Beryl Nerks. They don't seem to die out any time soon.

Wow, an interview with a real, live, chess pigeon.

Government making plans to stockpile 'spam' in event of no deal.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6747231/ministers-plan-to-stockpile-processed-food/

Project fear no doubt. But at least our new ration books will be blue which will keep leavers happy.

Cito di Pense wrote:What is it to be 'socially conservative'?

Example would be Rees-Mogg's stance on abortion or marriage equality or trans people. People's attitudes on such things don't change as they get older.

Cito di Pense wrote: I don't think the process is simply the business of getting rid of politicians whose sentiments or public pronouncements offend us.

I wasn't aware there was such a business. Politicians fade out of fashion as the views of the public change and where they are so at odds with the main parties, they no longer have a platform to support them.

Sendraks wrote:

Thommo wrote: I do know a fair few Tory voters though, and if I were to sum them up as a group I'd suggest they mostly see the likely alternative as Jeremy Corbyn, and mostly strongly object to his complete rejection of even mixed market capitalism, if that helps.

Same here.
I also know a fair few Tory voters who, faced with the shambolic performance in that election, quit their party membership and joined the Lib Dems instead.

I'm surprised by that, there doesn't seem to have been all that much movement back to the Lib Dems in the polls or elections over the last few years. I think, given how the Lib Dems have laid out their stall entirely on one side of the Brexit issue it's going to only be appealing for remain leaning former Tories though.

Hermit wrote:

Thommo wrote:

CarlPierce wrote:I love the 'strong and stable' government we were promised. Who votes for these clowns ?

I believe the promise was that a larger majority Tory government would be strong and stable. Since we didn't get a majority Tory government at all, one wonders what the relevance of the question is. Or to put it another way, the electorate was asked to collectively empower a strong and stable government and refused (with potentially good reason reflecting meaningful underlying disagreement).

As I understand it a poor campaign and worse manifesto led to a minority government which is in no way strong. I do know a fair few Tory voters though, and if I were to sum them up as a group I'd suggest they mostly see the likely alternative as Jeremy Corbyn, and mostly strongly object to his complete rejection of even mixed market capitalism, if that helps.

Are you suggesting the internal bunfight among Tories about whether to have a hard Brexit or a pseudo-Brexit would not have happened had the Tories won a clear majority of seats?

It would have taken place in a very different way, I suspect, at the very least.

My point is though that we can't really evaluate the performance of a strong and stable government with a large majority when the electorate decided to go in a different direction. The electioneering was done on the basis that a Conservative landslide was expected (and it was expected quite widely, not just among the inner circle of the Conservative party), when that didn't materialise a lot of assumptions went out the window. It was never an election pledge of the "scrap tuition fees" sort.

Thommo wrote:I'm surprised by that, there doesn't seem to have been all that much movement back to the Lib Dems in the polls or elections over the last few years. I think, given how the Lib Dems have laid out their stall entirely on one side of the Brexit issue it's going to only be appealing for remain leaning former Tories though.

What's surprising about it and why would you expect to see that much movement back to the Lib dems based solely on the back of the people I know? I wasn't citing a trend of any sorts, just the behaviour of the Tory voters I know who were bitterly disappointed by the performance of the Tory party.

I don't know how these individuals voted on the referendum although, going over to the Lib Dems would suggest they voted remain.

They're also people who were Tory on economic grounds, rather than social grounds and didn't seek to defend Tory social policy.

Hermit wrote: Had the previous election resulted in a Tory majority May would still be saddled with the likes of Davis, Johnson and Rees-Mogg and the ensuing Brexit debacle tearing the Tories apart.

Yes I believe I said as much in the post you only partially quoted.

Hermit wrote: And no, those troglodytes are not about to fade from the political scene any time soon. If there were such a trend you would not have a Tory government in the first place, the USA would not have Trump and Australia would not have Turnbull. And when was it the last time Germany's government was headed by a member of the SPD?

1 - Define "soon."
2 - If there were no such trend, I doubt you'd have seen a Tory party supporting same sex marriages, as happened in 2013.
3 - I've already covered the rest of what you raise in my other posts.

Sendraks wrote:

Thommo wrote:I'm surprised by that, there doesn't seem to have been all that much movement back to the Lib Dems in the polls or elections over the last few years. I think, given how the Lib Dems have laid out their stall entirely on one side of the Brexit issue it's going to only be appealing for remain leaning former Tories though.

What's surprising about it and why would you expect to see that much movement back to the Lib dems based solely on the back of the people I know? I wasn't citing a trend of any sorts, just the behaviour of the Tory voters I know who were bitterly disappointed by the performance of the Tory party.

It's only surprising insofar as I generally expect people's behaviour to follow the trend.

Sendraks wrote:I don't know how these individuals voted on the referendum although, going over to the Lib Dems would suggest they voted remain.

They're also people who were Tory on economic grounds, rather than social grounds and didn't seek to defend Tory social policy.

Yeah, that figures.

Something seems to have gone awry with the various shenanigans. First, top tory boys leave their posts, Spanky attacks NATO and new secretary Hunt will ask for a people's vote. I don't know what is occurring but it's surely interesting times in which we live. Hunt video @ https://twitter.com/peoplesvote_uk/stat ... 4908824577