UK Politics Thread 18-inch Mark VI: Witty Title Forthcoming

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

He's been in the white house for less than a month and he's already at breaking point. He's not going to take another term. Let's be honest.

The republicans are simply framing this as him fighting against the liberal establishment, and a lot of people love it. I honestly think that unless something terrible happens like another recession, there is a very real danger he will win a second time.

But the media is a leftist establishment (I won't endorse their propagandist appropriation of the honourable word "liberal"). What the left is facing with Trump's delegitimisaton, in the worst case, is just the world we experienced every day, having no legitimate propagandists on our side. Having your enemies in permanent positions of unaccountable power sucks. Smashing them is tremendously cathartic, apart from anything else. It also opens a path to actual victory which was lacking before. The left knows it can't complain about any of this because they did the same thing when they purged the institutions of their opponents. They're falling back on claims to be a special repository of truth and virtue and that is a lot of bunkum. Just look at the 20th century. Without their well-oiled propaganda machine these people would be about as socially acceptable as SS reenactors and for much the same reasons.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Anything interesting happen in the last two days? Not sure why I haven't been coming here as much lately.

You might have noticed that both May and Cameron campaigned against Brexit. Why don't you try to answer your own questions for a change before barfing them on others?

I fail to see the relevance of May and Cameron's position on the Brexit issue (and really, given her moves lately, I'd say that May's position was never particularly settled or adamant) to whether or not they would be "Thatcherites".

Vassenor said that [Cameron and] May were Thatcherites because Brexit was what Thatcher wanted. If that is true, it still doesn't make them Thatcherites because they both opposed Brexit.

[Frank Zipper]

But the media is a leftist establishment (I won't endorse their propagandist appropriation of the honourable word "liberal").

Like 'Red' Rupert Murdoch, that ole commie bastard.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

I think it's the other way around: people stopped believing in Christianity after being converted to favour homosexuality, because Christianity came to be seen as sinful against homosexuals. (among other issues of course)

Certainly fits the dates better. There was a 4-50 year time lag between legalisaton of male homosexuality and major drop-off of Anglican self-identification. Would expect the other way around according to your theory.

Religiosity doesn't decrease by people suddenly declaring themselves non Christian, and it also happens at different rates for different demographics. So it tends to happen by people becoming more and more moderate (and moderate Christians don't wish to criminalize homosexuality), and it tends to happen to the more well educated demographics first, who tend to include policymakers.

I am not sure what that has to do with what I said.

I think that a new religion took hold in the elite which says homosexuality is good and to be promoted. These people legalised homosexuality probably against popular disagreement (would be interested to see statistics but that is what they did with death penalty). In the next 40-50 years they then converted much of the population to that religion via the education system, criminal law, and straight social desirability bias. Much the same way this country converted from Paganism to Christianity or Catholicism to Anglicanism in the first place.

The difference between my theory and yours is that you think that Christianity died, probably as a result of some "inevitable" enlightenment no one specifically desired, and then all sorts of "obvious" moral changes only held back by Christianity happened, the general public leading the way. That doesn't fit the history. What happened is that elites who already didn't believe in Christian values removed them from law and two generations later the general public's view of Christianity caught up with that of 1960s elites.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

But the media is a leftist establishment (I won't endorse their propagandist appropriation of the honourable word "liberal").

Like 'Red' Rupert Murdoch, that ole commie bastard.

Murdoch's as centrist as they get; the fact he's viewed as some lunatic right wing fringe proves my point.

[Frank Zipper]

Like 'Red' Rupert Murdoch, that ole commie bastard.

Murdoch's as centrist as they get; the fact he's viewed as some lunatic right wing fringe proves my point.

Maybe you are just too close to the lunatic right wing fringe to see that he is not.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

I don't think it is just that this schism (or that this is a fair description of the moderates' views); it's that the moderates are substantially opposed to economic liberalism. It would be fairer to say that we are part way between market and state ownership.

then what is a fair description of the moderates views?

They believe in an enormous welfare state paid for by taxation of privately owned business. It's a hybrid system. There's certainly no principled commitment to economic liberalism from centrists - they just don't completely oppose markets and their support for markets is only about as great as their support for state transfers and regulation.

To put it another way Churchill said something like the free market is neither a wolf to be slaughtered nor a cow to be milked but a trusty plow horse to pull the wagon. Socialists think it's a wolf to be slaughtered, liberals that it's a trusty plow horse, and centrists that it's a cow to be milked.

Has the government actually done anything to you or directly threatened you?

There is a need to regulate, to safeguard the decency of society and for the protection of women

I am sure that both Houses will share my view that such images are wholly unacceptable and that it is right to close this gap in the law

Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing. Cruelty is uncivilized.

It is about the detrimental effects that this has on society as a whole. It is about trying to counter a climate where this sort of behaviour is condoned and seen as somehow normal. As she rightly said, exposure to this type of material leads young people to believe that that is the way to behave. There is quite clearly a societal imperative for us to take action on such material.

We are eager to work with the Government to help to ensure that we get this right and to stamp out such abhorrent images.

Just as the last Labour Government acted, we are ready to work with this Government to send a clear message that this is not acceptable.

I did not realise that there was such a genre, and I am not convinced that the Bill will capture it. Is there a way that we can incorporate it?

Clearly, this is an opportunity to fill a gap that some of us would say has existed for too long.

There will be those who say—they have already said it during the course of this Committee’s deliberations—that we have not gone far enough on the offence; others will say that we have gone too far. I do not think that there is a good argument that we have gone too far; we will certainly always consider whether there is further action that we can take.

Judge Tony Briggs told Hoque in court after his most recent conviction, "You are an intelligent man. You certainly should have been aware of the risk of indulging in accessing this material, and you acknowledge your foolishness and guilt. This is material that clearly society and the public can well do without. Its danger is that it obviously portrays, and the more it's portrayed, the more the ill-disposed may think it's acceptable."

no place in our society

We note the absence of empirical research on this subject, however, we believe that the prohibition of such material and the criminalisation of those in possession of it, is justified. Our view is predicated by the belief that any right minded member of society would find possession of such material abhorrent.

on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or a fine or both

on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or a fine, or both (this is not an accidental double paste)

they didn't come out and say I SMITE THEE, PERSONALLY, SOUSEISEKI but it's always been pretty clear that we are not friends and they constitute a persistent, visceral and deliberate threat

Or interacted with you in any way that suggests it knows what you're viewing or saying online?

that's the beauty of it. they don't need to actually watch everyone all the time, just cultivate an atmosphere where it's not possible to know whether or not you're being watched at any given time. people will start working under the assumption they're always being watched and will regulate themselves accordingly. we already know that mass surveillance has this kind of chilling effect.

Right and I am saying for that reason that is is a hybrid system. You live under some small probability of being persecuted but you haven't been so far and very likely never will.

I agree with your description of our system (and even agree to a great extent it's bad) but I would say it's part way between actual freedom and an actively and invasively repressive state like the USSR.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Murdoch's as centrist as they get; the fact he's viewed as some lunatic right wing fringe proves my point.

Maybe you are just too close to the lunatic right wing fringe to see that he is not.

If you really think Times in more biased than Guardian let alone Mirror then I don't know what to tell you. Times just advocates where we are. Guardian advocates where the left-establishment wants to take us. Also wonder why Guardian is by far the most influential broadsheet despite having the second smallest readership after Independent?

[Philjia]

Maybe you are just too close to the lunatic right wing fringe to see that he is not.

If you really think Times in more biased than Guardian let alone Mirror then I don't know what to tell you. Times just advocates where we are. Guardian advocates where the left-establishment wants to take us. Also wonder why Guardian is by far the most influential broadsheet despite having the second smallest readership after Independent?

Most of it's readers don't buy it.

[Frank Zipper]

Maybe you are just too close to the lunatic right wing fringe to see that he is not.

If you really think Times in more biased than Guardian let alone Mirror then I don't know what to tell you. Times just advocates where we are. Guardian advocates where the left-establishment wants to take us. Also wonder why Guardian is by far the most influential broadsheet despite having the second smallest readership after Independent?

Who is talking about "more biased"? Certainly not me. To say all media is on the left of the political spectrum is crazy talk.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

If you really think Times in more biased than Guardian let alone Mirror then I don't know what to tell you. Times just advocates where we are. Guardian advocates where the left-establishment wants to take us. Also wonder why Guardian is by far the most influential broadsheet despite having the second smallest readership after Independent?

Who is talking about "more biased"? Certainly not me. To say all media is on the left of the political spectrum is crazy talk.

You are. If Times is centrist and Guardian is way left, there is no right, and the mouth-frothing about Murdoch is not anger that we have a large and powerful right but anger that anyone other paid up party loyalists are even allowed to speak.

Look at the sort of thing the left itself says about Murdoch. In 1997 Murdoch endorsed Blair with whom he seems to remain friends. Blair went on to win a huge landslide victory for the Labour Party. The left sees this as a betrayal of... the left! Why? Because obviously if Murdoch weren't an evil baby-eating Nazi he wouldn't have merely endorsed the left wing party, but also endorsed a further left leader, and demanded even more leftward shift than what happened. Endorsing a left wing party and helping it win a massive victory was you see a right wing thing to do because he could have done something even more helpful to the left. Murdoch conspiracy theorists never stop to wonder why if Murdoch were both very right wing and very powerful, he didn't just give John Major another term. Or an even more right wing leader than Major.

How do I explain Murdoch's party flipping? He's a centrist with few ideological commitments and his friendships with powerful people are about business, not power, and mostly he is the one begging, not them. Murdoch isn't right and his papers aren't a right in the way Guardian (which is largely free of business impediments) is a left.

[Frank Zipper]

Who is talking about "more biased"? Certainly not me. To say all media is on the left of the political spectrum is crazy talk.

You are.

No I am not. You are conflating saying different media outlets aren't all in the same place on the political spectrum, with saying some media outlets are more biased than others. While the second maybe arguable, it is not what I am talking about.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

You are.

No I am not. You are conflating saying different media outlets aren't all in the same place on the political spectrum, with saying some media outlets are more biased than others. While the second maybe arguable, it is not what I am talking about.

I never said that all media outlets are at the same point on the spectrum, and nor did you say I was saying that until this post, so I hope you will forgive me not addressing that until now. My position is that although broadsheets occupy different positions, we only have a left and a centre. The only genuinely right wing mass media in this country are the Mail and the Express, sadly neither really competing for opinion-formers and governors.

[Frank Zipper]

No I am not. You are conflating saying different media outlets aren't all in the same place on the political spectrum, with saying some media outlets are more biased than others. While the second maybe arguable, it is not what I am talking about.

I never said that all media outlets are at the same point on the spectrum...

Just that they are all leftists. Which is nonsensical.

[Vassenor]

For the record "not reflecting my opinion" is not the same as biased.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

I never said that all media outlets are at the same point on the spectrum...

Just that they are all leftists. Which is nonsensical.

Putting words in someone's mouth works better if you just redact most of the post I guess.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

For the record "not reflecting my opinion" is not the same as biased.

I gave reasons for my views: Murdoch, identified by my opponents in this debate as the incarnation of Right, endorsed Blair in 1997 (for that matter so did the Sun!). This is your champion of the right. Now granting Blair was a moderate, what moderate would compel the Guardian to endorse the Tories? Hell would sooner free over. I say Murdoch is a centrist because he's willing to work with moderates on both sides. The Guardian isn't.

[Frank Zipper]

The republicans are simply framing this as him fighting against the liberal establishment, and a lot of people love it. I honestly think that unless something terrible happens like another recession, there is a very real danger he will win a second time.

But the media is a leftist establishment (I won't endorse their propagandist appropriation of the honourable word "liberal"). What the left is facing with Trump's delegitimisaton, in the worst case, is just the world we experienced every day, having no legitimate propagandists on our side. Having your enemies in permanent positions of unaccountable power sucks. Smashing them is tremendously cathartic, apart from anything else. It also opens a path to actual victory which was lacking before. The left knows it can't complain about any of this because they did the same thing when they purged the institutions of their opponents. They're falling back on claims to be a special repository of truth and virtue and that is a lot of bunkum. Just look at the 20th century. Without their well-oiled propaganda machine these people would be about as socially acceptable as SS reenactors and for much the same reasons.

Which part of this post isn't saying the media are leftists?

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

But the media is a leftist establishment (I won't endorse their propagandist appropriation of the honourable word "liberal"). What the left is facing with Trump's delegitimisaton, in the worst case, is just the world we experienced every day, having no legitimate propagandists on our side. Having your enemies in permanent positions of unaccountable power sucks. Smashing them is tremendously cathartic, apart from anything else. It also opens a path to actual victory which was lacking before. The left knows it can't complain about any of this because they did the same thing when they purged the institutions of their opponents. They're falling back on claims to be a special repository of truth and virtue and that is a lot of bunkum. Just look at the 20th century. Without their well-oiled propaganda machine these people would be about as socially acceptable as SS reenactors and for much the same reasons.

Which part of this post isn't saying the media are leftists?

In that post I was talking about the US and I don't think there's a US equivalent of the Mail or the Express. It is a weird corner case in which the UK is more intellectually and culturally free than the US.

[Frank Zipper]

Which part of this post isn't saying the media are leftists?

In that post I was talking about the US and I don't think there's a US equivalent of the Mail or the Express. It is a weird corner case in which the UK is more intellectually and culturally free than the US.

That makes the idea expressed even crazier.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

In that post I was talking about the US and I don't think there's a US equivalent of the Mail or the Express. It is a weird corner case in which the UK is more intellectually and culturally free than the US.

That makes the idea expressed even crazier.

So crazy your attempts to show it is crazy fell flat on their face.

[Ifreann]

So are there many Christians who don't believe in the Bible? That leaflet suggests there might be some.

I imagine the UK has quite a few Christians who don't believe in God or Jesus or any of those things.

[Philjia]

So are there many Christians who don't believe in the Bible? That leaflet suggests there might be some.

I imagine the UK has quite a few Christians who don't believe in God or Jesus or any of those things.

They're called clergymen.

[Eastfield Lodge]

The republicans are simply framing this as him fighting against the liberal establishment, and a lot of people love it. I honestly think that unless something terrible happens like another recession, there is a very real danger he will win a second time.

But the media is a leftist establishment (I won't endorse their propagandist appropriation of the honourable word "liberal"). What the left is facing with Trump's delegitimisaton, in the worst case, is just the world we experienced every day, having no legitimate propagandists on our side. Having your enemies in permanent positions of unaccountable power sucks. Smashing them is tremendously cathartic, apart from anything else. It also opens a path to actual victory which was lacking before. The left knows it can't complain about any of this because they did the same thing when they purged the institutions of their opponents. They're falling back on claims to be a special repository of truth and virtue and that is a lot of bunkum. Just look at the 20th century. Without their well-oiled propaganda machine these people would be about as socially acceptable as SS reenactors and for much the same reasons.

FOX is left-wing???

[Hydesland]

But the media is a leftist establishment (I won't endorse their propagandist appropriation of the honourable word "liberal").

US 'mainstream media', sans Fox News and WSJ, is roughly moderate, centre right by European standards and centre to centre left by US standards. How do I know this? Because while the right wing complain about the """""""""""""""""""""""""""""leftist"""""""""""""""""""""""" media, people on the left, such as Glenn Greenwald accuse the media of being systemically neoconservative, and apologists for US imperialism. Both can't be true, and usually when both sides are calling you biased to the opposite side, that's a good indication that such publication is leaning closer to centre.

having no legitimate propagandists on our side.

Fox News? Breitbart? Much of what WSJ prints? Daily Caller? Drudge Report? Countless others...