J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,673
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Oct 3, 2019 10:24:52 GMT
We know what we mean when we say things "Guy Fawkes had the right idea" and we know that we are not responsible if a handful of loons misinterpret it or do something stupid on the basis of that statement. The "blow up Parliament to nobble the Government" meme seems to be very deeply embedded, and I don't know how it's happened. When I saw the film V for Vendetta when V blew up the Houses of Parliament my thoughts were: what? you're destroying Parliament? the meeting place and symbol of the opposition to the fascist government that you're fighting? You've just given that government a freer hand.
Guy Fawkes was trying to destroy the government as the government was endowed in the body of the King and his ministers and they were assembling in Parliament. The current nutters are running with the misunderstood meme and advocating trying to destroy the opposition to the government by destroying that opposition in Parliament. If they were advocating repeating Fawkes they'd be advocating "The IRA has the right idea - bomb Downing Street".
|
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,354
|
Post by Tony Otim on Oct 3, 2019 11:19:08 GMT
I doubt even a non-lethal explosion would wake up any of the current government or members of parliament, from either side of the Brexit devide, into doing anything resembling representing their constituents.👽 And what does that actually mean? Given who his MP is, his view on this may not be unjustified or representative of the wider population...
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Oct 3, 2019 12:06:05 GMT
And what does that actually mean? Given who his MP is, his view on this may not be unjustified or representative of the wider population... ah yes,
"The unresigned" (could be a good film title...)
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Oct 3, 2019 15:01:49 GMT
We know what we mean when we say things "Guy Fawkes had the right idea" and we know that we are not responsible if a handful of loons misinterpret it or do something stupid on the basis of that statement. The "blow up Parliament to nobble the Government" meme seems to be very deeply embedded, and I don't know how it's happened. When I saw the film V for Vendetta when V blew up the Houses of Parliament my thoughts were: what? you're destroying Parliament? the meeting place and symbol of the opposition to the fascist government that you're fighting? You've just given that government a freer hand. Guy Fawkes was trying to destroy the government as the government was endowed in the body of the King and his ministers and they were assembling in Parliament. The current nutters are running with the misunderstood meme and advocating trying to destroy the opposition to the government by destroying that opposition in Parliament. If they were advocating repeating Fawkes they'd be advocating "The IRA has the right idea - bomb Downing Street".
You are overthinking it. It is a simple expression of deep dissatisfaction with politicians from all parties.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Oct 3, 2019 15:04:37 GMT
Like most on this forum you are part of the "educated political class" who are pitifully out of touch with the vast majority of people in this country. I am not a member of that awful group and neither are my family, friends or acquaintances. Frankly we don't give stuff if you and your ilk wet your pants due to a "dangerous phrase". We know what we mean when we say things "Guy Fawkes had the right idea" and we know that we are not responsible if a handful of loons misinterpret it or do something stupid on the basis of that statement. Yes you are responsible. That is a profoundly illiberal position.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Oct 3, 2019 15:18:24 GMT
That is a profoundly illiberal position. It's not illiberal if you don't want the law to change on the basis of that. You can believe that government works best by treating people as isolated units in some regards even when society as a whole does not reflect this. N.B. I don't think invoking Guy Fawkes encourages violence much, if at all. Even the anarchists he is most commonly associated with would completely disagree with his ideology, which wouldn't even get a fringe following these days.
|
|
|
Post by lbarnes on Oct 3, 2019 15:44:01 GMT
That is a profoundly illiberal position. Aren't those the kind you like best?
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Oct 3, 2019 16:23:47 GMT
That is a profoundly illiberal position. Aren't those the kind you like best? Yes of course, you have me bang to rights. My thousands of posts on this forum taking a broadly libertarian stance on a whole host of subjects were all a facade. I am actually a committed supporter of authoritarian rule. How exceptionally clever you must be to have worked it out.
|
|
|
Post by lbarnes on Oct 3, 2019 16:40:48 GMT
Aren't those the kind you like best? Yes of course, you have me bang to rights. My thousands of posts on this forum taking a broadly libertarian stance on a whole host of subjects were all a facade. I am actually a committed supporter of authoritarian rule. How exceptionally clever you must be to have worked it out. Cheers.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Oct 3, 2019 16:44:52 GMT
That is a profoundly illiberal position. It's not illiberal if you don't want the law to change on the basis of that. You can believe that government works best by treating people as isolated units in some regards even when society as a whole does not reflect this. N.B. I don't think invoking Guy Fawkes encourages violence much, if at all. Even the anarchists he is most commonly associated with would completely disagree with his ideology, which wouldn't even get a fringe following these days. I really don't see how the idea that ordinary members of the public invoking a fairly well understood analogy are thus responsible for someone else then committing an exceptionally serious crime is anything other than profoundly illiberal. If if you are not seeking to make them criminally responsible the position has a woeful lack of respect for freedom of speech.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Oct 3, 2019 16:53:34 GMT
It's not illiberal if you don't want the law to change on the basis of that. You can believe that government works best by treating people as isolated units in some regards even when society as a whole does not reflect this. N.B. I don't think invoking Guy Fawkes encourages violence much, if at all. Even the anarchists he is most commonly associated with would completely disagree with his ideology, which wouldn't even get a fringe following these days. I really don't see how the idea that ordinary members of the public invoking a fairly well understood analogy are thus responsible for someone else then committing an exceptionally serious crime is anything other than profoundly illiberal. If if you are not seeking to make them criminally responsible the position has a woeful lack of respect for freedom of speech. Making forms of speech illegal which are not inherently violent but perhaps inflame tensions (e.g. strongly worded sectarian invocations of contempt) would have an effect of its own - an almost universally worse one than the speech itself (there are edge cases where incitement to hatred laws are probably ok - e.g. in parts of northeastern Nigeria still hurting from the Boko Haram conflict). Laws do not exist above culture; the relationship is symbiotic. Edit: making such laws also depends on subjective value-judgements as to what threshold of 'likely to trigger violence' is acceptable and what sort of statement that does not call for violence is likely to cause it. These will always be so contentious as to encourage authoritarian overreach in limiting political speech and erode trust in the law, feeding into the above effect.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Oct 3, 2019 17:49:14 GMT
And what does that actually mean? Maybe representing is the wrong word. Working in the interests of their constituents may be better way of putting it. To me currently MPs seldom do this on a national level, this is the fault of our fptp executive dominated parliamentary system, it creates large parties which then whip policies through, irrespective of anything that constituents say to MPs. There are always MPs who do great work for their constituents, to help them in difficult situations, but no time in parliament is actually allowed to address any issues that arise and actually change policies in ways that are interest of their constituents rather than on a whipped line. Private members bills hardly ever succeed so don't count as governments usually ignore them. PR might help but is not the answer, the problem is the 'my party line above all else' and 'throw you out if you disagree' mentality of parties generally, something that brexit has exasibated. I don't just blame political parties for this mentality, if anything the press is more responsible for creating it, with their reporting of every split, like cackling witches. I don't think the underlying problems will be addressed anytime soon, so MPs and political parties will continue to gather the distrust of people at large. 👽 One part of the issue here is that representing the interests of their constituents and representing the views of their constituents are sometimes in conflict (e.g. a constituency where the plurality or majority want No Deal Brexit, but the constituency would be deeply damaged by the effects of it). An MP who acts in the constituency's interest, but not in line with its views, may gather more distrust than one who does the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Oct 3, 2019 18:11:15 GMT
That is a profoundly illiberal position. There is nothing illiberal in saying that you can say what you like but if there are consequences you have to take responsibility for that. Indeed I think that is exactly a good liberal position, and I absolutely stand by it.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Oct 3, 2019 18:15:20 GMT
That is a profoundly illiberal position. There is nothing illiberal in saying that you can say what you like but if there are consequences you have to take responsibility for that. Indeed I think that is exactly a good liberal position, and I absolutely stand by it. In fairness, there are some consequences one cannot reasonably predict. Responsibility and cause are not quite the same.
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Oct 3, 2019 18:33:00 GMT
And what does that actually mean? Maybe representing is the wrong word. Working in the interests of their constituents may be better way of putting it. To me currently MPs seldom do this on a national level, this is the fault of our fptp executive dominated parliamentary system, it creates large parties which then whip policies through, irrespective of anything that constituents say to MPs. There are always MPs who do great work for their constituents, to help them in difficult situations, but no time in parliament is actually allowed to address any issues that arise and actually change policies in ways that are interest of their constituents rather than on a whipped line. Private members bills hardly ever succeed so don't count as governments usually ignore them. PR might help but is not the answer, the problem is the 'my party line above all else' and 'throw you out if you disagree' mentality of parties generally, something that brexit has exasibated. I don't just blame political parties for this mentality, if anything the press is more responsible for creating it, with their reporting of every split, like cackling witches. I don't think the underlying problems will be addressed anytime soon, so MPs and political parties will continue to gather the distrust of people at large. 👽 It is all part of the adversarial attitude in this country which also affects our legal system, where the aim is to humiliate and discredit witnesses 😒. I do think there are plenty of MPs who genuinely care about their constituents, but they tend to forget that most of them have no idea who their MP is.. I think PR (especially STV) would help a lot though.
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Oct 3, 2019 19:31:31 GMT
I would definitely argue that, concerning Brexit, a large majority of Tory MPs are absolutely NOT representing the best interests of their constituents. I'm talking about those who voted Remain and can see the clear economic benefits of remaining in the EU [as shown in every set of government-produced data] but have chosen to ignore all the evidence and their own common-sense and vote in favour of a policy which will do genuine and tangible harm to the lives and ambitions of their constituents. I also throw the handful of Labour MPs into this pile too - Flint, Nandy, Snell etc if they now support this deal.
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Oct 3, 2019 19:38:38 GMT
I would definitely argue that, concerning Brexit, a large majority of Tory MPs are absolutely NOT representing the best interests of their constituents. I'm talking about those who voted Remain and can see the clear economic benefits of remaining in the EU [as shown in every set of government-produced data] but have chosen to ignore all the evidence and their own common-sense and vote in favour of a policy which will do genuine and tangible harm to the lives and ambitions of their constituents. I also throw the handful of Labour MPs into this pile too - Flint, Nandy, Snell etc if they now support this deal. This deal is not going to come to any meaningful vote and nor was it ever intended to.
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Oct 3, 2019 20:03:02 GMT
You're probably right. My initial/main point was about Brexit in general, I just threw in the point about Labour MPs potentially backing this deal for balance
|
|
|
Post by pragmaticidealist on Oct 31, 2019 11:40:26 GMT
[
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2019 11:53:42 GMT
It looks like polls are going to be more problematic than ever before in this election. I wonder whether YouGov or others will be repeating their modelling exercise from 2017, which proved eerily accurate?
|
|