8 June

[nxjen]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> France respect intellectuals in general. Here it's

> almost seen as a mark of shame now to know what

> you're talking about.

There's a difference between an expert and an intellectual. Intellectuals often don't have a clue what they're talking about but the rest of us with our feet on the ground are in no position to judge. Besides, there's a vast gap between intellectual theory and working and workable practice.

[Jeremy]

jaywalker Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> See that Lib Dem membership is rising

> exponentially - there could be surprises yet.

Nature abhors a vacuum. The current directions of tory/labour mean that for many of us, there is no other realistic option.

Just think what they could achieve with a decent leader.

[Loz]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jenny1 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> > rendelharris Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > > As Frederic Raphael (I think) once said, England

> > > is the only country where being called clever (as

> > > in "too clever by half") is an insult.

> >

> > I wonder where this prejudice comes from? I bet

> > it's a relatively 'modern' thing - nineteenth

> > century maybe? Does it go with the birth of

> > schools for the elite that focused on creating

> > 'empire builders' on the sports field rather than

> > scientists ?

>

> I think it's a lot to do with the class system -

> in a society where high political and military

> position was more predicated on one's birth than

> one's abilities the clever person was seen as a

> pushy upstart trying to usurp the natural order.

One day we're going to find something 'bad' that nobody anywhere will try to blame on the class system.

[rendelharris]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Jenny1 Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > > rendelharris Wrote:

> > >

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> >

> > > > As Frederic Raphael (I think) once said,

> England

> > > > is the only country where being called

> clever (as

> > > > in "too clever by half") is an insult.

> > >

> > > I wonder where this prejudice comes from? I

> bet

> > > it's a relatively 'modern' thing - nineteenth

> > > century maybe? Does it go with the birth of

> > > schools for the elite that focused on

> creating

> > > 'empire builders' on the sports field rather

> than

> > > scientists ?

> >

> > I think it's a lot to do with the class system

> -

> > in a society where high political and military

> > position was more predicated on one's birth

> than

> > one's abilities the clever person was seen as a

> > pushy upstart trying to usurp the natural

> order.

>

> One day we're going to find something 'bad' that

> nobody anywhere will try to blame on the class

> system.

Why not offer a counter argument instead of a meaningless statement?

[nxjen]

A reflection contributes just as much as a counter argument and can progress the discussion. Why do you believe it's a "meaningless statement"?

[rendelharris]

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A reflection contributes just as much as a counter

> argument and can progress the discussion. Why do

> you believe it's a "meaningless statement"?

Because it implies that attributing anything to the class system (really, do you not believe that the class system played a part in shaping the intellectual and social life of the nineteenth century?) is simply a kneejerk reaction without validity, rather than refuting the specific point made. Without substantiation it's just a rather lazy attempt at a putdown.

[nxjen]

Nobody is under any obligation to merely refute specific points made, this isn't a university debating society or a court of law. It could be said that your comment about a "meaningless statement" was a rather lazy attempt at a putdown.

[rendelharris]

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Nobody is under any obligation to merely refute

> specific points made, this isn't a university

> debating society or a court of law. It could be

> said that your comment about a "meaningless

> statement" was a rather lazy attempt at a putdown.

You are quite entitled to say that if you wish if that's your opinion, just as I am allowed to express mine. Good, are we done now?

[nxjen]

Yes, I really must go and dry my hair

[JohnL]

So Labour announce they'll remove the 1% cap on NHS pay and immediately get asked for where the money is coming from.

Tories seem to never be asked this question (the triple lock (which i support)) probably costs a lot per year.

[????]

The Tories are expected to drop a commitment to the triple lock I think. All Labour has promised so far is free stuff isn't it but none of it's actually free so it's entirely legitimate to ask how it will be paid for? They are blowing away their already very limited economic competence with all these uncosted promises. It's noticeable how the Tories are giving Labour a free run on setting the agenda thus far - that's how rubbish they think they are - every 'policy' is another 1% swing to them (the tories). They haven't even started their 'dump' on Corbyn yet.

[red devil]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's noticeable

> how the Tories are giving Labour a free run on

> setting the agenda thus far - that's how rubbish

> they think they are - every 'policy' is another

> 1% swing to them (the tories). They haven't even

> started their 'dump' on Corbyn yet.

Also that May is canvassing in Labour strongholds rather than marginals tells you how confident the Tories are...

[nxjen]

With every proposal announced by Labour, I just think yeah whatever.

[JohnL]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The Tories are expected to drop a commitment to

> the triple lock I think. All Labour has promised

> so far is free stuff isn't it but none of it's

> actually free so it's entirely legitimate to ask

> how it will be paid for? They are blowing away

> their already very limited economic competence

> with all these uncosted promises. It's noticeable

> how the Tories are giving Labour a free run on

> setting the agenda thus far - that's how rubbish

> they think they are - every 'policy' is another

> 1% swing to them (the tories). They haven't even

> started their 'dump' on Corbyn yet.

I wouldn't say May has had a very good period this week -

it's just however bad she is - Corbyns on the other side.

She was talking about Tourists instead of Terrorists the

other day, she seems to always be talking to groups that

look robotic and uninterested and there were rumours of

tax increases.

Oh for a decent opposition.

Oh: and she'll be 'empty chaired' by the TV companies but

no doubt the opposition will score an own goal somehow :(

[JohnL]

OK Corbyn is back on his quotes this PMQs - Christopher, Andy

and Laura have contacted him with questions and he also says

"If I were you I'd listen to what Maureen says" rather ominously.

[JohnL]

May isn't even trying that hard - just repeating back the same phrases.

"A vote for any other party is a vote for wrecking the economy."

"A vote for Corbyn is a vote for a chaotic Brexit."

"A vote for her is for strong leadership. A vote for Corbyn is a vote for a ?coalition of chaos?.

"A vote for her is a vote for strong leadership."

She isn't gambling at all.

[Alan Medic]

I saw May on TV at a rally over the week-end in somewhere town. She was awful. Just repeating the same mantra what seemed like a million times. JC wouldn't have to be very good to be better than her.

Someone early in this thread predicted a very low turnout. I'd have thought the 48% of which I am one, would want to show they are still here by voting either Lib Dem or Labour.

[titch juicy]

It's almost like he wants to lose.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-tv-debates-wont-take-part-without-theresa-may-general-election-2017_uk_59009af2e4b081a5c0f9645a

[JohnL]

titch juicy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's almost like he wants to lose.

>

> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corby

> n-tv-debates-wont-take-part-without-theresa-may-ge

> neral-election-2017_uk_59009af2e4b081a5c0f9645a

Corbyn and May sitting in a tree ...

Edit: Too Risky - Corbyn have you looked at the polls you idiot

[????]

amazing to think that all the chaos in British politics in 2017 could arguably be pinned on THAT bacon sandwich

[????]

In reality I think the reason is McLusky - I think the other Milliband would have beaten Cameron, conjecture of course

[rendelharris]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In reality I think the reason is McLusky - I think

> the other Milliband would have beaten Cameron,

> conjecture of course

I doubt it - although I favoured David at the time, from a best-chance-to-win point of view - as I recall polls asking if people would vote Labour if it were David not Ed in charge only gave David a couple more points, and people are notoriously fickle: I well remember in the '90s people saying they'd vote Labour if only Blair was leader, then when John Smith died saying they'd been planning to vote for nice John Smith but they didn't trust Blair...

David, of course, would have been subjected to the same disgraceful Daily Mail "his dad was a communist traitor out to destroy Britain" stuff and his closer association with Blair would have been used against him as well. What I think really would have scuppered whichever of them had won was the fact that brother ran against brother - someone in the family should have knocked their heads together, whoever had won they were never going to look trustworthy after that. Cameron's "Of course we [him and Clegg] disagree, good lord, it's not like we're brothers or anything!" was one of the most effective jibes of the last parliament.

[nxjen]

"Mutton-headed mugwump". Is this why Teresa May has kept Boris close? He adds a bit of colour during a very dull process and can win elections.

[????]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ???? Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > In reality I think the reason is McLusky - I

> think

> > the other Milliband would have beaten Cameron,

> > conjecture of course

>

> I doubt it - although I favoured David at the

> time, from a best-chance-to-win point of view - as

> I recall polls asking if people would vote Labour

> if it were David not Ed in charge only gave David

> a couple more points, and people are notoriously

> fickle: I well remember in the '90s people saying

> they'd vote Labour if only Blair was leader, then

> when John Smith died saying they'd been planning

> to vote for nice John Smith but they didn't trust

> Blair...

>

> David, of course, would have been subjected to the

> same disgraceful Daily Mail "his dad was a

> communist traitor out to destroy Britain" stuff

> and his closer association with Blair would have

> been used against him as well. What I think

> really would have scuppered whichever of them had

> won was the fact that brother ran against brother

> - someone in the family should have knocked their

> heads together, whoever had won they were never

> going to look trustworthy after that. Cameron's

> "Of course we disagree, good lord, it's not like

> we're brothers or anything!" was one of the most

> effective jibes of the last parliament.

All true but David:

Cleverer

More experienced

Less Odd looking (unfortunate reality of presentational policies)

Less left wing

Not the union 'forced' candidate

All little incremental 'improvements' that may have made a difference

[JohnL]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> All true but David:

>

> Cleverer

> More experienced

> Less Odd looking (unfortunate reality of

> presentational policies)

> Less left wing

> Not the union 'forced' candidate

>

> All little incremental 'improvements' that may

> have made a difference

Thosse of us who are at the center (more or less

where Blair was politically without the wars) have

no real representation (maybe I still do the 80s

LibDem thing of seeing them as 'god squad' (to happy

to please)),

We need a Macron