|
|
Post by islington on Dec 20, 2023 17:30:20 GMT
Well, I must respectfully disagree with the words in bold.
If a doctor, or politician, or priest wants to tell me what I may eat or drink, how I should conduct my business, what I may get up to between the sheets and with whom, then fair enough. But this person should damn well be complying with the same standards in his or her own life - and if not, then these sanctimonious strictures are no more than humbug and cant and in that case, I'd like to know about it.
The exposure of hypocrisy in public life is one of the noblest callings of a free press and it goes far to extenuate the excesses in which the media sometimes indulge.
To say nothing of the stern joy one feels when some public person of a moralizing bent is exposed as a liar and a cheat. Jimmy Swaggart and Iris Robinson are two particularly gratifying examples that spring to mind. Indeed, when Iris Robinson's sexual and financial transgressions came to light I recall asking my wife to pinch me because it seemed too good to be true.
Would you deny me this simple pleasure?
And, Oh! How well you express that very British attitude. I am sure it is a majority position on this Forum as well. And, Yes. I would tend to deny you that simple pleasure because it comes from the wrong part of your heart or soul. I could not give a puff-of-air about hypocrisy and have long wondered why it ranks so high in Britain. I think it must come from the joy at seeing people that tend to cause a feeling of guilt or inadequacy brought low within the very areas they have moralized about. It also interests me that my own reactions are so very different from that of so many of my peers. But the argument that you advance so vehemently that moral strictures and sound advice are miraculously transformed into 'cant and humbug' merely because the advisor/moralizer fails to live up to their own precepts, is to me quite obviously wildly absurd. I can fully accept the rejection outright of the advice and the moralizing, but the act of transgression by the advisor/moralizer is immaterial to the facts and the value (or lack of value) in such strictures and advice. It is sound and acceptable or it is not. The value of it is quite independent of the conduct of the messenger. I place zero value on hypocrisy but take a dim view of those who cannot see the divide between the message conveyed and the conduct of said messenger. Now that is worthy of my censure but the hypocrisy is not. How is it that we have such a different view? My Father would have liked my position and the fact I was making it in the face of opposition but might not have been fully on my side. My Mother would have been 100% with you and given me a dressing down over it. These views like all of my views are my own and come by after much thought and self reflection. Well, I agree that sound advice is what it is, and it remains sound even if the person giving it doesn't practise what he preaches.
But in that case, I'd question not the advice itself, which stands or falls on its own merits, but the qualifications of the advisor.
So if you're a married man, pursuing adulterous affairs with half the women you meet, then you're not the best person to pontificate about the importance of faithfulness in marriage, good advice though this doubtless is. You should take a good hard look in the mirror, recognize yourself for what you are, try to summon up a little humility, and avoid sounding off on the subject.
But instead, we see the unctuous air assumed by so many moralizers, preening themselves on their lofty superiority over the rest of us poor sinners. Who wouldn't want to see such an attitude well and truly punctured?
|
|
|
|
Post by stodge on Dec 20, 2023 18:10:29 GMT
Part of me thinks if we want a truly representative Parliament, we have to have our share of sinners as well as saints.
In terms of Wellingborough, the question for me is whether the Conservative strength in the East Northamptonshire part of the constituency will offset the move to Labour in Wellingborough itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Dec 20, 2023 18:51:13 GMT
A point we are skirting around is that the allegation around Mr Bone is that he was a gay sex pest. I am beginning to wonder if we have a great enough sample size to examine the question of 1/Are gay men in positions of power more likely to be sex pests? 2/Are gay men in positions of power more likely to be the target of false accusations of sex pestery? i fear that the answer is that gay men are more likely to be called out if they are also sex pests. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Dec 20, 2023 19:07:30 GMT
I'm intrigued: I get why you support Bone, and all your antipathy to the current Conservative Party . What is your objection to Reform? Previously you have spoken quite warmly of Farage, who is its eminence gris. I posted with intemperance yesterday and have consequently re-written a few posts and deleted two altogether. I am no longer a supporter of the Conservative Party or of Farage. I was never a very convinced Reform supporter and am unsure what exactly that party does support now. Reclaim suited me but was never going anywhere and was a one-man-band with all the difficulties that can pose. I am distanced from politics and effectively homeless as such. I need a british form of AfD to be really a bit more happy. I am not expecting anything to shift my way in the time left to me. I know insufficient about the Bone case to make a judgement, but suppose him to have been fitted up by elements who do that sort of thing, either as part of a political 'sting' or a financial one. There must be something behind the allegations for all this to have happened, but I don't imagine it amounts to 'a hill of beans'! My liking of Bone has not been enhanced by the revelations, such as they are. My gripe is with the Recall Act but even more with the toxic and acidic turn of mind that would ever contemplate such an idea. The election cycle is quite good enough. Take care whom one selects and votes for in first instance. The HOC has the power to expel serious miscreants and that should be good enough. We expect far too much of representatives these days. They are human beings with all the baggage most of us have in rudeness, slackness, incompetence, odd habits, nasty practices, stupid actions, silly conduct and things better not said : Because they are Human! It was always thus but earlier we often didn't know. The media was less of a muck-raking, intrusive toad upon us all. This act is made to satisfy malcontents and malign little people who are tribal in their opposition and drool over the prospect of a by-election and doing-down the other side. They love to see an MP brought low and humiliated, with life, career, marriage and assets stripped and destroyed. It panders to the worst elements in society and rights no wrongs and does no good at all. It just reinforces the general view that all MPs are no good and doing bad things. It is a wholly bad idea with a trigger point that is absurdly low. Nothing would convince me to tolerate such an act let alone support it; but in the meantime a trigger of at least 33% should be in place. If not even a third of the electorate can be bothered to sign a simple petition, then there is NO demand amonst them for a removal is there? Thankyou, that helps to clarify. |
|
|
|
Post by michaelarden on Dec 20, 2023 20:14:20 GMT
Worth remembering that recall petitions were introduced by a Conservative Government and some of its main proponents were Douglas Carswell and Zac Goldsmith before people label the system as a far Left conspiracy. I had the impression that the original idea pushed by some people was more like the Californian (for example) system, where it would be possible to set up a recall petition against any MP, without a particular defined set of triggers, and that if enough people (presumably quite a high threshold) signed it then there would be a by-election. Whereas what we actually have ended up with is a rather cumbersome way of getting public input to the process of getting MPs who have broken certain rules sacked. Goldsmith's proposals would have been better than the current and give more power to voters: sites.google.com/site/thepoliticsteacherorg/recall-of-mps-act-2015Clearly the Westminster old boys' network got their claws into Clegg who's compromise kept all the real power at Westminster. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Dec 20, 2023 20:44:38 GMT
I would still take a reputable doctor's advice seriously even if he or she drinks or smokes. They are human beings not just medical professionals.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,914
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Dec 20, 2023 21:01:22 GMT
I had the impression that the original idea pushed by some people was more like the Californian (for example) system, where it would be possible to set up a recall petition against any MP, without a particular defined set of triggers, and that if enough people (presumably quite a high threshold) signed it then there would be a by-election. Whereas what we actually have ended up with is a rather cumbersome way of getting public input to the process of getting MPs who have broken certain rules sacked. Goldsmith's proposals would have been better than the current and give more power to voters: sites.google.com/site/thepoliticsteacherorg/recall-of-mps-act-2015Clearly the Westminster old boys' network got their claws into Clegg who's compromise kept all the real power at Westminster. Clegg might have had the likely developments in his own seat in mind. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Dec 20, 2023 22:01:03 GMT
In terms of Wellingborough, the question for me is whether the Conservative strength in the East Northamptonshire part of the constituency will offset the move to Labour in Wellingborough itself. The East Northamptonshire parts aren't that different from Wellingborough - Rushden is less Labour-inclined than Wellingborough (and Higham Ferrers less so again) but it's a fairly average place and I'd expect it to move towards Labour at about the same rate Wellingborough does, just from a lower base. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Dec 20, 2023 22:09:49 GMT
yes that's right, I'm sure Rushden would have voted Labour in 1997 & 2001, but quite likely Higham Ferrers voted Conservative. I used to know people in the tiny village of Melchbourne, over the county boundary into Bedfordshire, and had cause to go to Rushden sometimes as it was the nearest Chinese takeaway. I remember Higham Ferrers being quite a bit more middle-class than Rushden
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,748
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Dec 20, 2023 22:22:44 GMT
It's hard to say. The Wellingborough constituency was historically larger than it is now, but most of the territory it has lost over the years consisted of small towns rather than genuinely rural areas. The original Wellingborough (as created in 1918) included all of the current seat as well as Earls Barton, Raunds, and Irthlingborough. This remained the situation until 1974 when a genuinely rural area was added - East Northamptonshire around Thrapston and Raunds. Then in 1983, the creation of a Corby constituency meant that this area was lost, as well as the more long standing territory around Raunds and Irthlingborough. Finally, in 2010 Earls Barton left the seat. Other than the 1974-1983 boundaries (which would have been a fair bit more favourable for the Conservatives), most of these changes aren't likely to have shifted the seat's behaviour that much. Earls Barton, Irthlingborough, and Raunds are fairly typical Northamptonshire small towns and all have traditionally been quite marginal politically. Interesting. I suppose in the immediate postwar period the seat would have had some agricultural labourers which would have helped the Labour vote. Where do people in Wellingborough tend to work or commute to? Is it quite self sufficient or do people tend to drive to Northampton or Leicester for work? Peterborough and MK are also possibilities. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Dec 20, 2023 22:56:17 GMT
Interesting. I suppose in the immediate postwar period the seat would have had some agricultural labourers which would have helped the Labour vote. Where do people in Wellingborough tend to work or commute to? Is it quite self sufficient or do people tend to drive to Northampton or Leicester for work? Peterborough and MK are also possibilities. I always forget that Wellingborough is actually closer to London than say Peterborough and is about the same distance from London as Milton Keynes. But it keeps a low profile and Thameslink trains don’t go any further than Bedford, so it feels very East Midlands. That said I understand that demand on the relatively recently electrified half hourly St Pancras - Corby train service is building up, which may bring Wellingborough closer to the orbit of London and the South East. In addition there are no longer any direct trains from Wellingborough to Leicester. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,967 
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 20, 2023 23:02:33 GMT
And, Oh! How well you express that very British attitude. I am sure it is a majority position on this Forum as well. And, Yes. I would tend to deny you that simple pleasure because it comes from the wrong part of your heart or soul. I could not give a puff-of-air about hypocrisy and have long wondered why it ranks so high in Britain. I think it must come from the joy at seeing people that tend to cause a feeling of guilt or inadequacy brought low within the very areas they have moralized about. It also interests me that my own reactions are so very different from that of so many of my peers. But the argument that you advance so vehemently that moral strictures and sound advice are miraculously transformed into 'cant and humbug' merely because the advisor/moralizer fails to live up to their own precepts, is to me quite obviously wildly absurd. I can fully accept the rejection outright of the advice and the moralizing, but the act of transgression by the advisor/moralizer is immaterial to the facts and the value (or lack of value) in such strictures and advice. It is sound and acceptable or it is not. The value of it is quite independent of the conduct of the messenger. I place zero value on hypocrisy but take a dim view of those who cannot see the divide between the message conveyed and the conduct of said messenger. Now that is worthy of my censure but the hypocrisy is not. How is it that we have such a different view? My Father would have liked my position and the fact I was making it in the face of opposition but might not have been fully on my side. My Mother would have been 100% with you and given me a dressing down over it. These views like all of my views are my own and come by after much thought and self reflection. Well, I agree that sound advice is what it is, and it remains sound even if the person giving it doesn't practise what he preaches.
But in that case, I'd question not the advice itself, which stands or falls on its own merits, but the qualifications of the advisor.
So if you're a married man, pursuing adulterous affairs with half the women you meet, then you're not the best person to pontificate about the importance of faithfulness in marriage, good advice though this doubtless is. You should take a good hard look in the mirror, recognize yourself for what you are, try to summon up a little humility, and avoid sounding off on the subject.
But instead, we see the unctuous air assumed by so many moralizers, preening themselves on their lofty superiority over the rest of us poor sinners. Who wouldn't want to see such an attitude well and truly punctured?
We must just agree to differ. Your use of language and your citing of extreme cases shows there can be little common ground. I hope you appreciate my position is not to forgive all such cases but to be less hard on the failures all we humans make. My strictures and moralism are structural and abstract as a basis, for a good life and a good community, and I hope we strive towards them. Yours is less strict on the structure but very censorious on those who try to improve us all but fail occasionally themselves. It is about nuance and emphasis. I am no defender of the Sharia police, the Hellfire preacher or the duplicitous evangelist: And I think you will know that. |
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,348
|
Post by graham on Dec 21, 2023 0:31:26 GMT
There are quite a few people who have no wish to vote for an adulterer - indeed some would withhold support from candidates who are known to be cohabiting - aka 'living in sin.'
|
|
|
|
Post by batman on Dec 21, 2023 6:52:06 GMT
There are quite a few people who have no wish to vote for an adulterer - indeed some would withhold support from candidates who are known to be cohabiting - aka 'living in sin.' I doubt there is more than a tiny number of such voters nowadays. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Dec 21, 2023 9:15:18 GMT
There are quite a few people who have no wish to vote for an adulterer - indeed some would withhold support from candidates who are known to be cohabiting - aka 'living in sin.' I doubt there is more than a tiny number of such voters nowadays. Their geographical spread would make for an interesting study! |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Dec 21, 2023 10:11:13 GMT
Wellingborough is on the A45, which means it's an easy drive to Northampton and beyond that you're on the M1. Rushden is also on the A45, and via the A6 you can quickly be in Bedford, though it's not as rapid as the A45. Peterborough is not the easiest commute, as north of Rushden the A45 is mostly single-carriageway and you're often held up by slower traffic. This applies even more to the A605. Locally the logistics sector is a big employer because of the number of trunk roads nearby and there's also a decent amount of light engineering. Wellingborough itself and Kettering would be the major draws there. Rushden also has a large retail park (Rushden Lakes) which must have a workforce in four figures. I know people who have commuted by train from Wellingborough to London, but that says more about how expensive more convenient commuting towns than anything else (and most of them I know because they then moved to Northampton for an easier commute.) In terms of Travel to Work Areas, I recommend this helpful map: ons.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=397ccae5d5c7472e87cf0ca766386cc2. Wellingborough and Rushden are in the same TTWA as Kettering and Kettering's dormitory villages up to the Leicestershire border. If you break it up by age, the under-50s are in the Northampton TTWA, where the over-50s are still with Kettering. Full-time workers are in a TTWA with Northampton (and not Kettering) whilst for part-time workers Wellingborough and Rushden are on their own. I'm going to ignore the breakdown by mode of transport, because I don't think it's that useful. High qualification workers are in a TTWA with Northampton and MK; medium and low qualification workers are with Kettering. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,967
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 21, 2023 11:55:25 GMT
There are quite a few people who have no wish to vote for an adulterer - indeed some would withhold support from candidates who are known to be cohabiting - aka 'living in sin.' I doubt there is more than a tiny number of such voters nowadays. Agreed. But when I last campaigned in Wester Ross I frequently got questioned about the religious standpoint of our candidate and was openly told that there would be no vote unless they were sincere and committed Christians. Sometimes they had to be assured as to the denomination and that they attended church regularly to even be considered for a vote. In other places I have come across a reluctance to vote for black or asian candidates but that fell off a couple of decades ago, more I think for caution in their responses rather than they had changed their opinion. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,967
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 21, 2023 12:54:31 GMT
I doubt there is more than a tiny number of such voters nowadays. Agreed. But when I last campaigned in Wester Ross I frequently got questioned about the religious standpoint of our candidate and was openly told that there would be no vote unless they were sincere and committed Christians. Sometimes they had to be assured as to the denomination and that they attended church regularly to even be considered for a vote. In other places I have come across a reluctance to vote for black or asian candidates but that fell off a couple of decades ago, more I think for caution in their responses rather than they had changed their opinion.Both are the case in my view, such sentiments have indeed become less "sayable" but there are also genuinely fewer people who espouse them. |
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,847
Member is Online
|
Post by Crimson King on Dec 21, 2023 12:56:37 GMT
let he who is without sin (not) cast the first ballot
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,967
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 21, 2023 13:02:48 GMT
Agreed. But when I last campaigned in Wester Ross I frequently got questioned about the religious standpoint of our candidate and was openly told that there would be no vote unless they were sincere and committed Christians. Sometimes they had to be assured as to the denomination and that they attended church regularly to even be considered for a vote. In other places I have come across a reluctance to vote for black or asian candidates but that fell off a couple of decades ago, more I think for caution in their responses rather than they had changed their opinion.Both are the case in my view, such things have indeed become less "sayable" but there are also genuinely fewer people who espouse them. Oh undoubtedly true. When I was campaigning in the 60s and 70s in the Medway towns and the Thames coastal corridor, some of the very overt racism was stark and widespread. That has morphed and become subdued, suppressed and held by fewer people. |
|
