|
|
Post by robert on Jan 14, 2022 11:34:00 GMT
Who gets to define, 'moral'? John Major had a go in 1994/5 but that didn't go too well, did it? The problem is, it means different things to different people. What might be moral to an agnostic, might be immoral to a Catholic and an abomination to a Northern Ireland Presbyterian. One definition to satisfy everyone is impossible.
|
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Jan 14, 2022 11:36:00 GMT
It's been an abiding perception for as long as I can remember, but 2008 gave it a push. Anent threads leading to new parties: Conspiracy theory party Tories for rejoin party Music/footie/cricket/tennis party Blair/Iraq party Maggie bring back the poll tax party Cost of living party Hastings first in everything party Tom Tugenhat for monarch party Andrew Windsor for PM party Some parties might offend those of a sensitive nature. We apologise deeply in such circumstances that you found this site and are offended. |
|
|
|
Post by robert on Jan 14, 2022 11:36:51 GMT
"The polling situation for the Conservatives is worse than you think" The Apathy Party? Now that's a party I could get used to. Change nothing. Try nothing. Harm no one. Con no one.  Hmmm. Can't see much enthusiasm for an Apathy party, myself. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on Jan 14, 2022 11:38:15 GMT
Who gets to define, 'moral'? John Major had a go in 1994/5 but that didn't go too well, did it? The problem is, it means different things to different people. What might be moral to an agnostic, might be immoral to a Catholic and an abomination to a Northern Ireland Presbyterian. One definition to satisfy everyone is impossible. common decency and courtesy experienced with those we interact with in everyday life? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2022 11:38:57 GMT
Redfield and Wilton When it comes to managing the economy, 31% of Britons most trust the Conservative Party and 30% most trust the Labour Party—the greatest proportion to trust Labour in this regard that we have recorded since the 2019 GE. pic.twitter.com/9W7cJObQrw 14/01/2022, 11:00 JJ - Superficially good for Labour but when they are 10% ish ahead in VI on Economic competence they are more or less only level pegging. Way ahead on Starmer v Johnson of course but that will be irrelevant sooner or later. In the euphoria of another Tory meltdown it's easy for us lefties to get carried away. Emotional, flighty types that we are. So your wise caution is always welcome JJ. My heart hopes this is an ERM moment that discredits them for a generation but my head says there is a still a long way to go. Maybe the coming cost of living crisis piled on a lack of trust and credability will be the final straw this time. |
|
|
|
Post by robert on Jan 14, 2022 11:43:17 GMT
Who gets to define, 'moral'? John Major had a go in 1994/5 but that didn't go too well, did it? The problem is, it means different things to different people. What might be moral to an agnostic, might be immoral to a Catholic and an abomination to a Northern Ireland Presbyterian. One definition to satisfy everyone is impossible. common decency and courtesy experienced with those we interact with in everyday life? Courtesy and politeness I agree with you. Common decency? What that? Much of the product of modern day TV offends against that in my view. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2022 11:45:03 GMT
Who gets to define, 'moral'? John Major had a go in 1994/5 but that didn't go too well, did it? The problem is, it means different things to different people. What might be moral to an agnostic, might be immoral to a Catholic and an abomination to a Northern Ireland Presbyterian. One definition to satisfy everyone is impossible. Moral means little more than what is generally accepted as good behaviour really. That shifts and twists over geography and generations. The moral high ground, like being alone, is a nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there. |
|
|
|
Post by James E on Jan 14, 2022 11:45:30 GMT
James - Thanks for extracting - your input on polls is appreciated. Forgive my pedantry but the swing is half the movement so 2.6% and as mentioned in the past my view is that Labour need this at around 3% (or 6% closing) to get near to vote share parity with differential turnout and demographic drift closing the rest of the gap. It's roughly 5% of those saying they would vote who are switching from Con>Lab [ (45%x 0.13) - (33%x0.02) ] This (alone) creates movement of around 10%, and constitutes a 5% swing. By way of illustration, the overall VI figures show 23% movement on GE2019 (Con lead of 12 to Lab lead of 11), which is an 11.5% swing. Per YG's figures, just under half of that (or 5.2%) is due to direct switching. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on Jan 14, 2022 11:48:19 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-w Starmer? Come on don't be silly. Blair, he may have been misguided but at least believed he was doing good. Clegg, fair point but still none of them come close to the amoral narcissism of Johnson. I’m not sure the Iraqis who died would necessarily buy that. and Starmer hasn’t been in power yet. But a lot of people could suffer for a continuation of policies where they pretend to be left wing to get elected but then tack right. Agreed. Blair had a strong moral compass though even if it was heavily skewed by the magnet that was GW. Johnson doesn't possess one. "a lot of people could suffer for a continuation of policies where they pretend to be left wing to get elected but then tack right" - You mean like hollow levelling up promises for example? You read the Telegraph right? |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Jan 14, 2022 11:52:51 GMT
Who gets to define, 'moral'? John Major had a go in 1994/5 but that didn't go too well, did it? The problem is, it means different things to different people. What might be moral to an agnostic, might be immoral to a Catholic and an abomination to a Northern Ireland Presbyterian. One definition to satisfy everyone is impossible. One thing is Christian morality and another is Marxist morality, otherwise known as 'wokeness'. Most Christian denominations agree on what is moral and what isn't. Islam has a far harsher and unforgiving definition of morality. |
|
|
|
Post by pete on Jan 14, 2022 11:52:58 GMT
Hi Danny However, I have to mention that you yourself just made a covid post. Yes on the Covid thread - I don't think reminding posters that there is a separate thread for covid counts as posting about covid, and commenting on partygate is different to discussions about SA/herd immunity etc. Such post distract us from the primary function of this thread which is to lampoon our ridiculous PM till he see the light and resigns.  ☮ Perhaps you and Alex should seek satisfaction in a duel? Posts at dawn? It doesn’t seem fair that you guys don’t have your own thread, and in the interests of the non-partisan thing, l just took a few moments to create a thread for if you have issues with the Government or whichever party ails you. You are welcome. Don't suppose there's any chance you could do a American politics thread? |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Jan 14, 2022 11:57:09 GMT
In the euphoria of another Tory meltdown it's easy for us lefties to get carried away. Emotional, flighty types that we are. So your wise caution is always welcome JJ. My heart hopes this is an ERM moment that discredits them for a generation but my head says there is a still a long way to go. Maybe the coming cost of living crisis piled on a lack of trust and credability will be the final straw this time. You are right not get carried away. Many Tory MPs are browning their trousers with fear and panic right now, but once Boris is turfed out, which now seems inevitable, everything could be reset. Time will tell, over two years until the next general election. |
|
|
|
Post by moby on Jan 14, 2022 11:58:06 GMT
Who gets to define, 'moral'? John Major had a go in 1994/5 but that didn't go too well, did it? The problem is, it means different things to different people. What might be moral to an agnostic, might be immoral to a Catholic and an abomination to a Northern Ireland Presbyterian. One definition to satisfy everyone is impossible. common decency and courtesy experienced with those we interact with in everyday life? ...and telling the truth....instead of waiting to see if you are found out and then making a mealy mouthed apology to save your own skin. |
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Jan 14, 2022 11:58:57 GMT
Thanks James yes 5.2% direct swing - my bad as the young used to say a decade or so ago!
This alone would be enough to get Labour with a point or 2 or the Tories and other churn and LTV would probably take them over even with a 50% DK return rate.
Of course some unwind, especially with a new Tory PM is probable but still encouraging for Labour.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,703
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jan 14, 2022 12:01:18 GMT
It doesn’t seem fair that you guys don’t have your own thread, and in the interests of the non-partisan thing, l just took a few moments to create a thread for if you have issues with the Government or whichever party ails you. You are welcome. Don't suppose there's any chance you could do a American politics thread? That’s Edge of Reason’s gig I think? |
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Jan 14, 2022 12:08:05 GMT
Robert,
My take was that John Major was misunderstood, maybe his fault, but back to basics was about sound money and the like, focusing on peoples concerns etc.
It was never a moral crusade but the press presented it as such so that when the Mellor thing and other incidents occurred they used as a tool to beat him with.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,703
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jan 14, 2022 12:09:01 GMT
I’m not sure the Iraqis who died would necessarily buy that. and Starmer hasn’t been in power yet. But a lot of people could suffer for a continuation of policies where they pretend to be left wing to get elected but then tack right. Agreed. Blair had a strong moral compass though even if it was heavily skewed by the magnet that was GW. Johnson doesn't possess one. "a lot of people could suffer for a continuation of policies where they pretend to be left wing to get elected but then tack right" - You mean like hollow levelling up promises for example? You read the Telegraph right? Yes, like those. With respect to Labour, we are sometimes told that the left have to be realistic, that they need to accept more “centrist” policies to get elected, but once in power, then they can do more of the left wing stuff. whereas what tends to happen in practice, is that appearing a bit more left wing is what the right do to get elected, and once in power they tack right. The Tories didn’t used to need to do this, while the Lib Dems were splitting Labour’s vote. Since people found out about the Lib Dems though, it possibly put more pressure on Tories to at least “appear” a bit more left wing. (Though to be honest, they have possibly moved left in terms of ditching Austerity. As you say, not sure about levelling up though) |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on Jan 14, 2022 12:14:53 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-w Agreed. Blair had a strong moral compass though even if it was heavily skewed by the magnet that was GW. Johnson doesn't possess one. "a lot of people could suffer for a continuation of policies where they pretend to be left wing to get elected but then tack right" - You mean like hollow levelling up promises for example? You read the Telegraph right? Yes, like those. With respect to Labour, we are sometimes told that the left have to be realistic, that they need to accept more “centrist” policies to get elected, but once in power, then they can do more of the left wing stuff. whereas what tends to happen in practice, is that appearing a bit more left wing is what the right do to get elected, and once in power they tack right. The Tories didn’t used to need to do this, while the Lib Dems were splitting Labour’s vote. Since people found out about the Lib Dems though, it possibly put more pressure on Tories to at least “appear” a bit more left wing. (Though to be honest, they have possibly moved left in terms of ditching Austerity. As you say, not sure about levelling up though) I guess the problem then is the English electorate. I wouldn't call ditching austerity moving left, austerity of one kind or another was a common policy everywhere in the west in the years following the crash. It isn't anywhere now. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,703
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jan 14, 2022 12:21:16 GMT
Yes, like those. With respect to Labour, we are sometimes told that the left have to be realistic, that they need to accept more “centrist” policies to get elected, but once in power, then they can do more of the left wing stuff. whereas what tends to happen in practice, is that appearing a bit more left wing is what the right do to get elected, and once in power they tack right. The Tories didn’t used to need to do this, while the Lib Dems were splitting Labour’s vote. Since people found out about the Lib Dems though, it possibly put more pressure on Tories to at least “appear” a bit more left wing. (Though to be honest, they have possibly moved left in terms of ditching Austerity. As you say, not sure about levelling up though) I guess the problem then is the English electorate. I wouldn't call ditching austerity moving left, austerity of one kind or another was a common policy everywhere in the west in the years following the crash. It isn't anywhere now. Something being commonplace doesn’t mean it isn’t right wing. Post-war, economically things were a lot more left wing in many countries than now. And Austerity wasn’t necessarily as quite as common as you might think. It was a Eurozone policy, which naturally made it common in those countries. Though many might have wished otherwise. But we rejected it originally and persuaded the Americans to follow our lead. The comparative success of it pulled the EU our way eventually. Not sure how much to blame the electorate. There’s a lot of disinformation and much is hidden. Not only that but right wing policies like austerity leave people struggling so much they may not have much energy spare to investigate the politics. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on Jan 14, 2022 12:25:54 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-w I guess the problem then is the English electorate. I wouldn't call ditching austerity moving left, austerity of one kind or another was a common policy everywhere in the west in the years following the crash. It isn't anywhere now. Something being commonplace doesn’t mean it isn’t right wing. Post-war, economically things were a lot more left wing in many countries than now. And Austerity wasn’t necessarily as quite as common as you might think. It was a Eurozone policy, which naturally made it common in those countries. Though many might have wished otherwise. But we rejected it originally and persuaded the Americans to follow our lead. The comparative success of it pulled the EU our way eventually. Agree, austerity in the way it was implemented in this country was definitely right wing small state ideological and un-necessary as thanks to Mr Gordon we weren't actually in such a bad place in 2010. The crash was used as an excuse. Today though no-one even on the right advocates austerity anymore as an option (openly at least). |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Jan 14, 2022 12:27:39 GMT
James E "Lab are still a poor 3rd in Scotland" Quite true, but the vagaries of wee crossbreaks of c.145 do have to be taken with a modicum of salt. Yesterday's YG Scots crossbreak SNP 55% : SCon 18% : SLab 17% : SLD 6% Today's YG Scots crossbreak SNP 53% : SCon 21% : SLab 10% : SLD 10% (LDs seem a little high - as many have said before. ) |
|
|
|
Post by pete on Jan 14, 2022 12:28:04 GMT
Don't suppose there's any chance you could do a American politics thread? That’s Edge of Reason’s gig I think? Well he (he/she?) definitely knows his American politics. Surprised with all that's going on over in USA EOR hasn't started one.Maybe (like me) EOR hasn't posted enough to start a thread? Mid terms battles are in Nov. It's bound to get interesting/nasty after Jan 6th. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2022 12:30:35 GMT
So in Nov 21 we got back to Mar 2020 levels (whatever measure of level that is) - and then of course Omicron struck! Not going to help much unless people's wages keep up with costs. I am quite suspicious of the interpretation of the data (not the data) . The largest contributor to the growth was health and social care followed by retail. Those sectors that "normally" contribute to growth were either neutral or actually reduced growth. |
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Jan 14, 2022 12:31:20 GMT
Who gets to define, 'moral'? John Major had a go in 1994/5 but that didn't go too well, did it? The problem is, it means different things to different people. What might be moral to an agnostic, might be immoral to a Catholic and an abomination to a Northern Ireland Presbyterian. One definition to satisfy everyone is impossible. I agree with you but most people have THEIR own moral code (which might differ depending on some of factors you listed) that they try to live by and when they don't most feel at least a twinge of guilt. Johnson isn't IMmoral. That suggests he chooses not to behave in a way that is moral by his own code. Johnson is Amoral - he simply doesn't recognise any moral code. Therefore he feels no guilt. We've seen that time and time again. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,703
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jan 14, 2022 12:36:21 GMT
Something being commonplace doesn’t mean it isn’t right wing. Post-war, economically things were a lot more left wing in many countries than now. And Austerity wasn’t necessarily as quite as common as you might think. It was a Eurozone policy, which naturally made it common in those countries. Though many might have wished otherwise. But we rejected it originally and persuaded the Americans to follow our lead. The comparative success of it pulled the EU our way eventually. Agree, austerity in the way it was implemented in this country was definitely right wing small state ideological and un-necessary as thanks to Mr Gordon we weren't actually in such a bad place in 2010. The crash was used as an excuse. Today though no-one even on the right advocates austerity anymore as an option (openly at least). Yes, one wonders how many might really wish to return to it if they could! But currently maybe the debate is now over how much governments should be proactive rather than reactive in investing, and how much they should be pro-capital vs pro-state. For example, Brown was Keynesian. Would do a big stimulus to protect capital (e.g. banks) in a downturn. But in the good times, not so much. People say we had to have PFI to afford hospitals etc., but it isn’t so much the case. We have borrowed enormous sums to deal with the banking crisis and Pandemic, and effectively printed a load more. We could have done that before the economic disasters to create state assets and reduce costs on things like housing. Even now debt is only a bit more than one times GDP. After the war it peaked at THREE times GDP. And we fixed up a ravaged economy and had three decades of relative prosperity till the oil crisis. PFI was a right wing ideological choice, to favour capital over state socialism. (Though for some things there is the caveat of how much the EU might have let us). |
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Jan 14, 2022 12:36:52 GMT
Just because we've spent several sheds of money on covid doesn't mean austerity has gone away though. Maybe the spending limitations aren't so restrictive but are all the facilities and services reduced and cut under austerity back up and running as they were beforehand? You can argue austerity is no longer policy but its effects are still with us and will be for generations, both in things we no longer have and in things that we would've had that were never developed. |
|
|
|
Post by mandolinist on Jan 14, 2022 12:37:29 GMT
Who gets to define, 'moral'? John Major had a go in 1994/5 but that didn't go too well, did it? The problem is, it means different things to different people. What might be moral to an agnostic, might be immoral to a Catholic and an abomination to a Northern Ireland Presbyterian. One definition to satisfy everyone is impossible. I agree with you but most people have THEIR own moral code (which might differ depending on some of factors you listed) that they try to live by and when they don't most feel at least a twinge of guilt. Johnson isn't IMmoral. That suggests he chooses not to behave in a way that is moral by his own code. Johnson is Amoral - he simply doesn't recognise any moral code. Therefore he feels no guilt. We've seen that time and time again. To be fair Barbara, many people who seek power could be defined as amoral. Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and David Cameron spring to mind. Whilst I think Theresa May and Gordon Brown had some sort of moral compass which they sometimes failed to live by, as most of us do. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on Jan 14, 2022 12:43:38 GMT
Just because we've spent several sheds of money on covid doesn't mean austerity has gone away though. Maybe the spending limitations aren't so restrictive but are all the facilities and services reduced and cut under austerity back up and running as they were beforehand? You can argue austerity is no longer policy but its effects are still with us and will be for generations, both in things we no longer have and in things that we would've had that were never developed. "its effects are still with us and will be for generations, both in things we no longer have and in things that we would've had that were never developed" First the Tories gave us austerity then they gave us Brexit both of which lead to the result you so eloquently describe above! God bless 'em.. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on Jan 14, 2022 12:47:54 GMT
I agree with you but most people have THEIR own moral code (which might differ depending on some of factors you listed) that they try to live by and when they don't most feel at least a twinge of guilt. Johnson isn't IMmoral. That suggests he chooses not to behave in a way that is moral by his own code. Johnson is Amoral - he simply doesn't recognise any moral code. Therefore he feels no guilt. We've seen that time and time again. To be fair Barbara, many people who seek power could be defined as amoral. Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and David Cameron spring to mind. Whilst I think Theresa May and Gordon Brown had some sort of moral compass which they sometimes failed to live by, as most of us do. They may have had gaping self-deluding blind spots but I don't believe either Bill Clinton or Tony Blair or even box-set Cameron (he treated being PM as just another senior corporate post) were amoral (Osborne maybe..). Clinton was passionate about social policy and Blair had a strong morality (and ego) derived from his Christianity even if it was open to being rerouted. Johnson really is one of a kind I think. Even Gove appears diligent and is invested in policies. Maybe Raab not so much but if it weren't for Johnson Raab wouldn't have got to where he did |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 14, 2022 12:48:23 GMT
Who gets to define, 'moral'? John Major had a go in 1994/5 but that didn't go too well, did it? The problem is, it means different things to different people. What might be moral to an agnostic, might be immoral to a Catholic and an abomination to a Northern Ireland Presbyterian. One definition to satisfy everyone is impossible.  |
|
☮ Perhaps you and Alex should seek satisfaction in a duel? Posts at dawn?
