Discussion of article from the Mail's columnists and RightMinds contributors
100 %
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By Safe_Timber_Man
Membership Days Posts
#524751
Some pretty desperate stuff from Lawson. It comes across as one of the 'pleading' propaganda pieces, similar to Sun editorials. "Please believe us. It's all fine. Don't listen to anyone else, I beg you."




Mrs May is more popular than Corbyn, most had never heard of Patel or Fallon and it's Europe's governments that are in crisis: DOMINIC LAWSON offers some REAL news for the drama queens...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... ueens.html

Among the more admirable characteristics of the British people is a refusal to panic. Phlegmatic might be the word that best describes us.

Would that that were true of the parliamentary Conservative Party, which, if countless reports in the Press and in the broadcasting media are even halfway correct, is undergoing a self-generated nervous breakdown.

Their constant text is: Theresa May doesn’t know what she’s doing on Brexit, the EU is triumphant and our Government is collapsing.

This theme has been enthusiastically taken up by newspapers on the Continent and by EU politicians charged with negotiating the terms of Britain’s exit from the institutions of Brussels.

The headline on the front page of last Thursday’s Times was: ‘Brussels braced for fall of Theresa May’s government.’ This seemed largely based on the fact that in the previous fortnight, two Cabinet ministers — Michael Fallon and Priti Patel — had resigned.

Here’s some real news for the drama queens of Westminster and Brussels.

Outside the circles of the politically obsessed, no one cares or even knows much about Michael Fallon and Priti Patel: still less about whatever precipitated their exit from the Cabinet.

Security

For the record, Fallon left because he had made lewd remarks to female colleagues sometime in the past, and Patel because when on ‘holiday’ in Israel she had held discussions with Israeli politicians without telling the Foreign Office.

Is there anyone — anyone normal, that is — who thinks this means the Government is done for? Who believes, either, that what Fallon and Patel did is unforgivably damaging to voters, or that they are such towering figures as to be irreplaceable?

I repeat: no one outside the self-inflating Westminster bubble could possibly believe either proposition.

And to the extent that the Fallon resignation was connected to the similarly over-puffed issue of unwanted slap and tickle in the corridors of Parliament (‘Pestminster’): who really thinks that this storm in a Westminster teacup has the slightest effect on the well-being and security of the British people?

This didn’t stop the BBC running as its main story on the 10 o’clock news last Thursday, a report from Brussels breathlessly declaring that European leaders viewed what was happening to the British Government ‘with incredulity’.

We were told they couldn’t believe the level of chaotic dysfunctionality in the May administration.

I don’t think that our negotiating partners in the EU can teach us much about political stability.

The Germans are still, months after their general election, struggling to establish a workable governing coalition (it will have to involve three parties, which is a mess). And after that election, the Bundestag has, for the first time, a significant body of MPs — in the shape of Alternative für Deutschland — some of whom are close to neo-Nazi, and all of whom want to disrupt the cosy pro-EU consensus in Berlin.

Spain is facing the biggest constitutional crisis since it returned to democracy, with the threatened secession of its most economically vibrant region, Catalonia. Meanwhile, across the Pyrenees, Emmanuel Macron’s poll ratings have fallen with a speed and depth never before witnessed in a recently elected French President.

By contrast, Theresa May’s post-election standing in the polls (and that of her party) has remained unaffected by all the alleged chaos in her Cabinet or in the Brexit negotiations: proof, if it were needed, that the public can tell a real crisis from a phoney one generated by backbenchers angry at lack of promotion or by media sound and fury signifying nothing.

Thus a YouGov survey last week showed that support for Mrs May as the public’s preferred choice as PM rose by one point over the month to 34 per cent.

The proportion of those saying they’d prefer Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn as PM had fallen by two points to 31 per cent. Meanwhile, the parties themselves were running neck-and-neck, with Labour leading the Conservatives by 43 per cent to 40 per cent.

The former PM Tony Blair observed of this, in his characteristic chat-show tone: ‘Come on guys, we should be 15, 20 points ahead at this stage.’ And that great election-winner for Labour had the right to make this point.

Exhausted

When John Major was facing internal challenges to his own leadership of the Conservative Party in the mid-1990s, the party was more than 40 per cent behind Labour in the polls.

And towards the end of Gordon Brown’s period of office, his own polling ratings were so far behind the then Opposition leader David Cameron’s that, if it were a boxing match, the referee would have stopped the bout. Indeed, Brown had looked every inch a beaten man, a grey and exhausted shadow.

The same description might also have been levelled at Major as his government became ever more embattled: perhaps unfairly, both he and Brown were portrayed as men on the edge of complete nervous collapse.

As it happened, I met Theresa May last week and had a chat with her (not least about the glittering Remembrance poppy brooch she was wearing — it came from M&S, she assured me). Now, I’m no doctor, but she looked strong and well — far from someone crushed by adversity.

It’s true that she had a deep crisis of confidence in the immediate aftermath of June’s General Election, when, as much as anything because of her own awkwardness and leadenness as a campaigner, the Conservatives lost their parliamentary majority.

But, disastrous as that was, she is now coping dutifully with the consequences — and this commands more respect from her fellow leaders in the EU than you might imagine from the headlines.

And while those in this country who don’t accept the result of the 2016 referendum take a most unseemly delight in what they see as her and the UK’s weakness in our divorce negotiations with the EU, Mrs May has not been deflected from her original objectives (departure from membership of the Single Market and Customs Union, and from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice).
Meanwhile, as Paul Goodman, the highly respected editor of the website Conservative Home, pointed out yesterday: ‘Our media is not set up to probe the differences and divisions among our negotiating partners, which are no less real for not being adequately covered.’

Buoyant

Obviously, if the economy were in the tank, then Mrs May and her administration really would be in the terminal trouble that so much of the media describe as fact (rather than their own lurid anticipation). And it would be if the claims of the Remain campaign had been vindicated: that a vote for Leave would in and of itself lead to an immediate surge in unemployment and a recession.

But their forecasts were no more than black propaganda.

Last week brought the latest batch of figures refuting those politically manipulated prophesies of doom.

In October, Britain’s industrial production grew for the sixth month in a row, the first time that has happened in almost a quarter of a century. And the Bank of England said that it expected average wages in the UK to increase by between 2.5 and 3.5 per cent next year.

If this is one of the Bank’s forecasts that actually becomes true, there really would be an improvement in the popular mood.

But the public’s attitude is in any case much more buoyant than that of the vast majority of pundits — and certainly of the anti-Brexit claque who believe their own propaganda that Britain can’t cope with life outside the EU.

Figures released last week by the Office for National Statistics show that ‘average happiness levels’ in the year to June 2017 rose to more than 7.5 (out of ten), the highest since this form of data was first collected in 2011.

I am not a great believer in ‘the happiness index’, but the fact that it has moved upwards over the past year does put the self-indulgent panic of Conservative MPs (and those who encourage them) into sharp perspective.

Of course, it’s good sport for the media to create a sense that the Government will collapse at any moment. But if that’s wrong, then it is not Theresa May, but they and the rent-a-quote disaffected politicians who will deserve to be treated with contempt.



Careful, whodareswins is onto us...

whodareswins, manchester, United Kingdom, 6 hours ago
Most of us normal folks know what is going on, we see all these Scandals as just the polititical smoke screen it is to try and undermind the goverment with the bbc at the forfront of its bias to us leaving the EU, The only way the EU can get what it wants or for the referendum stoped is to oust may cause another election and try and get labour in as they will roll over for anything the EU wants. And in the EU media its good for them to say that our goverment looks weak ect it takes away the attention of whats going on all over the EU and are not reporting hardly any of it.because the EU knows its in trouble and dont know how to stop whats happening and they keep making things worst with saying that they want more intergration and more EU ha ha
+299 -18

mayday80, Vaud, Switzerland, 2 hours ago
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. WE ARE MADE OF A STRONG BACK BONE AS WAS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR IN REMEMBRANCE DAY CELEBRATIONS AND WE WILL NOT BE KOWTOWING TO ANY LITTLE JUNKET BUNCH. WE VOTED OUT. AND WE WILL BE OUT NO MATTER HOW MANY JOURNALISTS CHOSE TO WRITE THEIR LIES.
+100 -7



May is a lion:
James Bondi, England, United Kingdom, 2 hours ago
Compared to Cameron who waltzed off the minute things got tricky, May is a lion. She has survived everything the propaganda machine has thrown at her.
+96 -8
 
By youngian
Membership Days Posts
#524759
Lawson has made some points worth discussing which Labour have in the light of Blair's question as to why Labour aren't 15 points ahead and the worse government still polling over 40 per cent?

We're in different times and you won't see mid-term opposition spikes but the even-stevens polls are reflecting real voting patterns. The Tory baseline is about 30 percent and the other 10 percent contain a lot of nativist BlueKIP voters who hate Blair or Clegg as much as Corbyn. They are not going to shift unless Frank Field became Labour leader. I also think Labour is still benefitting from centrists and Remainers lending their vote to Corbyn but real enthusiasm.

A more interesting question is why the LDs, Plaid and SNP aren't polling better.
 
By youngian
Membership Days Posts
#524771
James Bondi, England, United Kingdom, 2 hours ago
Compared to Cameron who waltzed off the minute things got tricky, May is a lion. She has survived everything the propaganda machine has thrown at her.


He is referring to lionfish on Blueplanet last night that were grabbed by what appeared to be bottom feeder sock puppets? It also featured clownfish who eerily looked like Boris Johnson.
 
By Safe_Timber_Man
Membership Days Posts
#532698
I can't remember which thread I put it in but at least a week or so ago there was an article about a "scientific study" which found Right wingers are better looking than Left wingers.




Are some Lefties consumed by the politics of envy because they're no oil paintings, asks DOMINIC LAWSON
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... tings.html
Apparently, there is an ugly truth about socialism. Literally. Last week, the American journal Politics and the Life Sciences published a paper claiming to have established a clear link between how good-looking we are and our political outlook.

According to its lead author, Professor Rolfe Peterson, the more attractive you are, the more you are likely to be on the Right. The unfortunate corollary is that the ... er ... plainer you are, the more likely you are to be on the Left.

I won’t burden readers too much with the methodology of the surveys on which Professor Peterson based his conclusions, except to say that it involved studying the photos of people in high-school yearbooks, rating them for attractiveness, and then finding out their political views.

And in this American study the good-lookers were disproportionately likely to identify with what those behind the survey defined as Right-wing opinions.

On one interpretation of the survey, being good-looking means you have a more attractive personality, too. Or, as Peterson put it: ‘Attractive children have been shown to experience warmer treatment from their parents as well as strangers. Over a lifetime, these patterns of treatment appear to have a pronounced effect on the personality traits more attractive individuals exhibit, appearing to be more confident, extroverted, happier and heathier as they reached adulthood.’

But Peterson’s hypothesis is actually a criticism of such happy, extrovert, handsome people: their own life experiences make them less empathetic with those less favoured, ‘having not faced the challenges of other citizens’.

Perhaps we should dismiss this as just another example of dodgy social science designed to trigger newspaper headlines. Attractiveness is a highly subjective attribute: and many people who might appear beautiful to the outside world may be riven by personal insecurities and deeply unhappy.

On the other hand, perhaps Professor Peterson (of Susquehanna University, no less) is on to something. George Orwell, the greatest British observational journalist of the last century, would certainly have thought so. A socialist himself, Orwell was greatly pained by what he saw as the wilfully unappealing appearance of so many of his fellow Left-wingers.

In terms which would nowadays be almost unpublishable, he felt this particularly about the female activists of the British Left. To some extent this might have been misogyny on his part, or what we would today call ‘sexism’. But there was also a good political reason for Orwell’s concern: he felt if such activists paid more attention to their dress and appearance, they would be more likely to win the support of the British working man.

But Orwell did not apply this criticism only to female Left-wing campaigners. Far from it, as this passage from The Road To Wigan Pier, published in 1937, makes comically clear: ‘One day this summer I was riding through Letchworth when the bus stopped and two dreadful-looking old men got on to it. They were both about 60, both very short, pink and chubby, and both hatless. One of them was obscenely bald, the other had long grey hair bobbed in the Lloyd George style. They were dressed in pistachio-coloured shirts and khaki shorts into which their huge bottoms were crammed so tightly that you could study every dimple.

‘Their appearance created a mild stir of horror on top of the bus. The man next to me, a commercial traveller I should say, glanced at me, at them, and back again to me, and murmured “Socialists” … He was probably right — the Independent Labour Party were holding their summer school at Letchworth.’

When, elsewhere in The Road To Wigan Pier, Orwell bemoans ‘that dreary tribe of high-minded women and sandal-wearers and bearded fruit-juice drinkers who come flocking toward the smell of “progress” like bluebottles to a dead cat’, the modern reader can immediately identify the figure of Jeremy Corbyn as the living embodiment of the sort of socialist Orwell feared would repel the British voter on aesthetic grounds alone.

But there remains, in parts of the Left, a deep distaste for conventional ideas of attractiveness. This is perhaps allied to the belief that they are designed purely to appeal to male ideas of beauty. To a great extent, that is true. Men are much more likely to give a job to a woman who is elegant, which might well be unfair to another no less qualified female applicant for the position, but who happened to tip the scales at twice the weight of her rival.

The same, however, works the other way around between men and women — and in politics, too. For example, Margaret Thatcher had a weakness for tall, trim, good-looking men — perhaps the most notable of such men she rapidly promoted was the late Cecil Parkinson. And the first thing she said to my father, Nigel Lawson, when she appointed him Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1983, was that he should get his hair cut. Still, at least she didn’t demand that he go on a diet.

As I am neither good-looking nor ill-favoured by nature, and of exactly average height (5ft 10in), I regard myself as dispassionate in such matters. And from that position of neutral referee, I observe that while it’s true that the most naturally beautiful benefit from their chance inheritance, it is equally true that such people are also subject to nasty resentment from those less fortunate (especially, though not only, by women against other women).

This may be nothing more than sexual rivalry, but there is a parallel with politics. Many on the Left claim to be motivated purely by their love for the least fortunate in society. But, actually, their principal driving force is a visceral hatred for those who have got the most (regardless of whether those possessions were earned by hard work or not).

This link between ‘undeserved wealth’ and beauty was made by one of the Left’s most prolific polemicists, Will Hutton, in his 2010 book, Them And Us: Changing Britain — Why We Need A Fair Society. Hutton wrote: ‘In what sense is it remotely fair to talk about due rewards for discretionary effort when so much of society’s rewards fall to people who had the luck to be born with a particular talent, skill or beauty?’

On this analysis, supermodels should pay super-tax because they were simply lucky to have had the genetic inheritance which made them worth millions on the catwalk. Actually, such women punish themselves with horrific diets, work extremely hard and are in ruthless competition with a seemingly endless supply of younger models. But Hutton’s critique sees them only as benefiting unfairly from genetic inheritance (and his belief that you can be ‘born with a skill’ is bunk).

Novelists have anticipated where such political ideas might lead. In his 1961 short story Harrison Bergeron, Kurt Vonnegut described a society which had taken concerns about unfairness to a logical conclusion: the 211th, 212th and 213th amendments to the U.S. Constitution demand that no American shall be made to feel inferior to another.

The U.S. Handicapper-General, Diana Moon-Glampers, has the job of deciding the various impediments which must be imposed on the most ‘unfairly’ intelligent or beautiful, in order to comply with the notions of equality in the Constitution.

The year before Vonnegut’s tale, an even darker dystopia on the same theme was produced by the British author L.P. Hartley. His novel Facial Justice was based on the idea that in a society in which everything appeared to have been done to produce equality, envy remains as the sole cause of social friction.

Hartley conjured up a horrifying institution called ‘The Equalisation (Faces) Centre’. Its surgeons addressed with scalpels the resentment the public continued to feel towards those they felt to have been unduly rewarded by good fortune.

Both those books might be described as libertarian satires on the Left’s dislike for any sort of innate advantage, even in appearance. But Orwell was a socialist. And still his point was: why can’t the Left scrub up well? Eighty years on, his question remains unanswered.


stormofsteel, LONDON, United Kingdom, 1 hour ago
very true, but basically they are a bunch of raving loonies who hate the british way of life...
+312 -54
Minor1018, Sheffield, United Kingdom, 1 hour ago
The majority of the extreme left including momentum are mainly single cell beings who are knuckle dragging simpletons who want everything for nothing by taxing and stealing from those who work hard to earn a crust
+262 -46
Brian in France, Gillingham., United Kingdom, 1 hour ago
The only "Lefties" I see are those protesters on the TV or press. They do look & sound like the dregs of the earth.
+222 -35
Katieconker, Hornchurch Essex, United Kingdom, 1 hour ago
Lefties are either young people who do not remember the seventies, poor people who think they will be better off or rich people who are possibly luvvies who feel guilty because they have made a fortune for doing practically nothing. Anyone with something to protect or earn a decent wage are far more likely to vote Tory because they are the ones who would have to fund Labour¿s overspending.
+211 -20
Rogue Johnny, Manchester, United Kingdom, 1 hour ago
Lefties are always miserable and banging on about victim groups, 'communities', and hating people who don't agree with them. People on the right enjoy life and like a good laugh.
+130 -16
Chief Angry Bear, Aberdeen, 1 hour ago
Thornberry and Abbott, could there be any better proof for this theory?
+121 -17
 
By Bones McCoy
Membership Days Posts
#532724
Watchman wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:43 pm
Are some Lefties consumed by the politics of envy because they're no oil paintings, asks DOMINIC LAWSON
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... tings.html

Christ, what a nasty shit stirring article
Yep personal insults, and a bunch of stuff dredged up from the 1930s
Standards of beauty have changed since then

Image

Apparently.
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Posts
#532730
It used to be so much easier in the good old days in the Fatherland. In the classroom you had big poster of the ugly Jew, sorry Leftie, and you could indoctrinate the kids no prob.
 
By D.C. Harrison
Membership Days Posts
#532738
I'm sure you are all fine looking fellows, which makes me feel a tad bad for letting the side down and being both a leftie and ugly as sin.

On the other hand, I'm not Dominic Lawson, so it all measures out fine.
Boiler, Cyclist liked this
 
By Messianic Trees
Membership Days Posts
#534206
I greatly admire the academics who've come out for Brexit but they'll need thick skins and courage

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... bsite.html
Lars Blichfeldt, Copenhagen, Denmark

Anyone speaking against the result of a democratic referendum is an enemy of democracy and should be treated as such.
chadderton, Chorley, United Kingdom

The arrogance of some remainers is unbelievable. If they talked about minorities like they talk about people who excercised their right to vote in any way they choose they would be classed as r.a cis ts.
Pragmatic61, Worthing, United Kingdom

It is the remoaners who are knuckle dragging sheep. Democracy inevitably means one side does not always win, they lost, but want to keep having a replay until they win. To the older generations credit those of us who were against in the first referendum to join were decent law abiding people who respected democracy and faced up to their defeat without hating the winners. Today's losers, predominantly those under 40 who voted remain need to accept the result and move on.
By Andy McDandy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#534207
They may have accepted the result of the 1975 referendum but they still banged on about it for the next 40-odd years. So yeah, Dominic you fat fuck son of a fat fuck, do you think you'd have this gig if it wasn't for your fat fuck of a father and your fucking surname, I'll respect your fucking result, I'll just take every opportunity to talk it down and undermine it that the next 45 years offer. You fat fuck.
Boiler, Watchman, youngian and 1 others liked this
 
By Arnold
Membership Days Posts
#534213
A group of 38 leading academics and ex-academics across a range of disciplines has launched a website called Briefings for Brexit.
I wonder what that is as a percentage of leading academics?
And any academic supporting Brexit is probably a leading one in the Mail's eyes.

Nick Collins ‏ @proudlibtar He should eat a[…]

Jeremy Corbyn.

Who is that twerp who nearly lost the news? […]

The Sun

So much to enjoy there a dig at the lefty BBC for […]

Have a go Heroes

Standard thing, appeal to the core audience. Hence[…]