Be Excellent To Each Other

Re: Corbyn and trains, this nails it for me. It's a stupid idea, but the reaction to it has also been stupid.



http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/08 ... -shows-why

We should pay women less than men so they would be less inclined to work and then not be able to afford train travel.

I think that's good reasoning.

However, one aspect that I would add is that the hysterical reaction comes from the non Corbyn supporting end of the spectrum, and the more reasoned response comes from his supporters.

In a parallel universe, where Cameron was asked the same question and provided a response that was word for word, and tonally exactly the same, the backlash would have been even more virulent about patronising and condescending Tories who want to hide rather than deal with the problem because they hate women, and derived primarily from those self same Corbyn supporters.

Its not that a politician isn't allowed to express opinions that you may disagree with, its that a politician who you don't support isn't allowed to express opinions that you disagree with. And if said politician does say something that you find reasonable, tribalism means you must either pretend you didn't hear it, or rip a new arse out of the tiny aspect that wasn't expressed how you would.

That's definitely true however the reaction from one side is massively amplified in the minds of the public by the overwhelmingly right-wing press.

We should stamp this out by lowering literacy levels.

Absolutely agree that it's a bipartisan issue, and indeed as the OP quote says, extends beyond politics and into public figures of all walks of life.

The obvious counter example from the other side of the pond is Trump, and what popularity he is enjoying from a select nunber of US voters is because he is diametrically opposed to the inspid speech patterns of someone who is afraid of offending anyone. I think that's at the root of what people pick up on when they say things like "outside the Westminster bubble" or "a breath of fresh air." Farage has a bit of that about him too.

Sure, but there's always going to be a vehement, vocal number of the other side's base doing that. That's a given. What isn't a given is: how much attention does the media pay to these views, and how much attention do the politicians pay to it? There's a stereotype at play here of the career politician, the professional vote-winner, never taking a clear stand that could cost them even one vote - which is any stand at all, of course. Like many stereotypes, it's an exaggeration but there's a kernel of truth there, regardless of what colour tie they're wearing.

The fact of the matter, though, whilst I find myself much in agreement with what Corbyn says, having him as leader would be a terrible idea for the party. It would be unsavoury for the electorate, poor for the PLP and banish the country to at least another decade of Tory rule.

As much as I hate to say it, I am going to have to be pragmatic about it all and doing what is right for the country as a whole is not supporting Corbyn.

I am pleased the White House and HilCli is taking a bit more of a stance on guns in the US than previously. Although the former has less to lose. It is time America grew up on this. Roanoke has a good railway museum, if memory serves.

For better or worse, I'm pretty sure that ship has sailed.

Frankie Boyle's turned out to be a pretty decent political columnist:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ip-contest

Hmm, well, "hysteria" would seem a little strong, personally I'd go with "utter incredulity" (certainly as far as any of his detractors' comments here, and elsewhere that I've personally read, though I can't speak for the Daily Mail brigade).

Speaking for myself, as I said to Mimi earlier, I think it's entirely right that we should criticise him for floating what almost everyone agrees, including here (and the article you quote), is a totally stupid idea, howsoever caveated re. "consulting women's groups" or whatever. Fundamentally, if an idea is stupid and unworkable in any practical terms, it shouldn't even get past the first hurdle, let alone put out there in the public domain as this has been, and proposed for further consultation.



Oh, I agree with that sentiment entirely, though you should note, of course, that no single political party has done more to promote the PR-managed/obsessed drone than Labour, from the Blair/Campbell era onwards, "sofa government" and all the rest, with the vast rump of their parliamentary party treated with contempt. That they now find themselves so desperate for an ideology - any ideology - and political identity/soul, after decades of this kind of vapid pursuit of power for its own sake (as I've been saying for years), is precisely why they are listening with such rapt attention and adulation to some 32-year served backbencher who's been overlooked in all of that time, doubtless with good reason - now belming cheerfully away, with half-arsed, unthinking, simplistic crap like this.

The women-only carriage thing may well be as mad as a box of frogs for sure, but not half as bad as some of the other stuff he's saying re. the economy, QE for the people, taxation, defence etc. etc. But, Corbyn at least DOES have a coherent, earnest, identifiable ideology (even if it is swivel-eyed), and that distinguishes him from the other three (who don't). In this near-perfect vacuum where the bar is surely so, so low, this alone lends him an air of authenticity that the others don't have, at least in the eyes of their collective, long-suffering electorate.

The point about just speaking plainly is that this is very, very risky - great men and women of politics, far greater than any of this sorry shower of would-be Labour leaders - have come a cropper over the years doing just that. It's HARD; so much easier just to trot out the same old platitudes, cliches, the dodged answers to questions, the inoffensive party line that someone's told you to say and sticking rigidly to it for dear life. So whilst New Labour was very much all about controlling what people in the parliamentary party said and no-one could be "off message", actually there are very few, if any within the Labour Party who have/had the requisite belief, conviction, properly formed ideology and intellectual horsepower to have done any different, even if they were allowed to and/or had the inclination to do it anyway.

"Decent"? Not read the article, but going off your quote, what the hell else was she supposed to say about Ed Miliband (her leader), as within her position in the Shadow Cabinet serving under him, and in the final few months leading up to a GE? That they were going to lose?

Fuck me, honestly. With such sparkling insights such as these, I dread to think what else he's had to say. Typical Guardian luvvie tosh, then. Heard enough of this kind of shite from the likes of Russell Brand.

I thought it was a funny piece making a serious point, that's all.

OT

Apparently, the Latin for "swivel-eyed loon" is Gavia articulata oculos, which sounds awesome.

How come Corbyn is a swivel-eyed loon but Tony Benn was some hallowed figure whom you discussed in a reverential tone? They were close colleagues and seem pretty similar except for the fact that Corbyn is not dead and didn't used to be on telly as much.

I respected Tony Benn for his long years of service at the top of British politics, as an intellectual, great author (including his diaries and tapes, whose serialisation I very much enjoyed). He was also, it should be noted, a man of his time, i.e. the 1960s and 1970s and early 80s (at such time when the world did not yet,fully realise the utter folly of Socialism, as compared to now when this is empirically demonstrated. Tony Benn didn't have the benefit of hindsight, by and large, whereas Corbyn does)

Corbyn might have long(ish) service on his side but even then, only within the policial wilderness - and bugger all else. Seriously, just what exactly has he achieved in 32 years in parliament? Does it not make you wonder why the likes of Foot, Smith and Kinnock, all well before the New Labour era, totally passed him over even to serve as a junior shadow minister, if he's so brilliant according to you?

It's perfectly possible to respect someone you fundamentally and diametrically disagree with, on just about every level. I hardly think I've ever said or claimed that I regard Benn as some "hallowed figure", but certainly I respected and admired him as the considerable intellect and radical thinker that he was, as well as for his bravery, good intentions and integrity, and powerful oratory right to the end.

I don't think I've ever said he is brilliant, just that they shared very similar views. The fact that he supported Benn in his opposition to much of the rest of the party and doesn't vote how he is told to seems a more ready explanation of his being "overlooked" for jobs in government or the shadow cabinet. He seems to be a capable MP if nothing else.

Just out of curiosity, how would folks here go about tackling the harassment of women on public transport, if at all?

If Corbyn is wrong to have said that he'd consult women's groups on the matter, what should his response have been, in aid to lead to what action, if any?

Who was that lady on Radio 4 this morning who said she objected to a special carriage and that there should be a campaign and posters and sexism and assault tackled until it was, presumably, eradicated?

Just like racism and all the other isms and the (rising) number of assaults that don't exist because of public campaigns.

This is what I am asking for, really. Raising awareness is good, and something that should be done at every opportunity. Unfortunately it does not 'solve' the issue, and I think that most people who had been harassed would agree that what they want is a solution to the harassment rather than just awareness being raised about it.

So, as far as practical solutions are concerned, I can only think that measures need to be put in place to stop it happening, or properly punish those that inflict it when it does happen.

So do we massively increase the staff and police presence on the transport network? This would be a great solution, but who is going to pay for that to happen when they are cutting police numbers? Or can you think of a way of protecting those at most risk of teh harassment? Or do you just ignore it and not see it as a problem?

Of course the only real solutions to sexual harassment are long term ones. Starting from early childhood, teach boys that girls aren't objects and teach girls not to act like objects. And hey, modern world, vice versa

I'm pretty sure that anyone of our generation were taught pretty vehemently that racism and sexism were bad when we were growing up. Sadly it doesn't mean that our generation is free from racists and sexists.

The best thing in the world would be to simply have better people in it, but even in my flowery version of the world I cannot see this happening for many generations, if ever. Humans are too focussed on our differences for there to ever not be tension and harassment based on those differences.

From my POV, as a total non-expert, if seems to me that there is already near-total consensus that public spaces, wherever they are, be that a city centre, a public building, in a train or whatever, are policed and expected to be safe for the general public. We don't say "we're only going to police [a given area] if it's cheap to do so", so actually, all this talk about the supposed cost shouldn't even arise.

So, simplistically at least, we need to do whatever it is that needs to be done in order to make all of our public spaces, including trains, and for all members of society regardless of gender, creed, age or colour, reasonably safe, whilst maintaining our personal freedoms, liberties and British values.

This does not mean, of course, that we must have police officer sitting on every train, on every carriage, any more than we need a police officer standing on every street corner in every town in order to maintain order and safety.

So first off, then, we surely need a sufficiently and reasonably resourced British Transport Police, intelligently focused and prioritised, with poster campaigns. We need to analyse where the hot spots are, presumably certain late evening/night trains, after football matches or whatever. Sack some of the totally unnecessary and uncalled for Tube staff in tumbleweed, unused ticket offices and spend the cash on extra train guardians, doing something that actually is needed.

We also need to have modern CCTV systems in conjunction with a means whereby passengers can alert the train driver (or control centre) of anything untoward, so that action can be taken at the next station or whatever. Cultural change can only come about through persistent, consistent, visible and harsh treatment of offenders, such that social unacceptability of certain behaviors can be cemented (drink driving, casual racism, overt homophobia including on BBC programmes have all been wholly acceptable within easy living memory for me, someone only in their mid to late 40s afterall).

We need to (re)educate young people; get into schools, colleges, get the message out there.

We need the train companies to play their part - you won't get onto an aircraft if you're pissed and abusive, why should a train be any different? Of course, it's not possible to stop this in the many cases where there is no human intervention, but there are plenty of other cases where you have to walk onto train platform via ticket inspectors and the like. The number of times I've sat on a train with roaring football supporters swearing/foul language, with cans of beer etc., and the ticket inspector has done precisely nowt (and they've been able to buy a shedload more booze from the train's buffet carriage).

Segregating men and women is precisely sending the WRONG message; it's saying (all) men are effectively unfit to travel with women and/or women have to be boxed in one place away from men... so regressive and defeatist.

By the way Mimi, no-one is saying Corbyn was "wrong to consult with women's groups", but "wrong to consult with anyone, women's groups or anyone else, when he clearly hasn't even remotely thought through the practicality of his idea". Just lazily putting something out there that almost everyone agrees is unworkable, is surely a rather crass and naive thing to do. Certainly, it's not done him any favours from where I'm sitting (sadly); people are only now getting an inkling of what he's actually about, and what he's like.

If we need more police to tackle harassment on public transport, why don't we have them? Why is this something that doesn't already happen?

By the way, I don't think we should have women-only train carriages. I don't think we should need them. I think it's horrible that we live in a society where this is ever proposed as a solution to rectify something that is such an issue to so many people. That women should ever feel the need to hide away to avoid harassment is horrid. But, if the carriage existed, I'd use it. Because I've been there on the receiving side.

Would people be so opposed to 'family' carriages, by the way? Just a safe, friendly space on the train for those travelling with children?

On the contrary, we do exactly that. Today's reality is that austerity cuts mean the police are trying out blue sky ideas like only investigating burglaries at even numbered houses: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-le ... e-33788264 How do we know it's successful? Because it "had no adverse effect on public satisfaction or crime rates." So if we think market forces are all we need to guide society by, clearly this works.

edit -

Fair point Doc, but I'm not sure this (admittedly appalling) example means that we, as a society, have given up on adequate policing of public spaces and maintaining the safety of the public.

On the other hand, (reported) crime levels are significantly decreasing over time, in stark contrast to the specific example of verbal/physical assaults, and abuse, of women on trains. Perhaps, then, could this be little more than a matter of intelligent re-prioritisation of largely existing resources?

It rather depends on the trains, I suggest. A great big intercity train that's all allocated seating? No problem at all. A 6 carriage commuter train where 99% of people won't have children and are already crammed into too small a space? I can see taking a whole carriage out of action for a couple of people with kids being hugely unpopular (and frankly unworkable).

Is there a problem there that you're actually looking to solve? I travel on trains with families with children all the time. I don't think I've once seen a family, or a parent with child, harassed or abused in the process. Indeed, I think for families train travel is probably the least stressful of all available public transport options, from my limited experience.

I just get taxis everywhere.

Why's that?

Because there is a reduced risk of Ben getting an infection when he's neutropenic.

But I...then you were...and....

You win this round, Moriarty.

I don't know how widespread a problem it is or might be. I just had a couple of bad experiences with the twins when they were small. I think they must have been about 3 years old at the time, so I would have been about 18. I Can't remember where we were off to on one occasion, but it must have been a Virgin train as it was the summer holidays and tge staff had given them little backpacks with activities and snacks in (colouring books, etc) and two lads came over, picked up one of the books that my brother was scribbling in and started being a dick. He drew something crude and was just being loud and leery, saying things to me, made Paul cry which then made everything worse. I do t know if they were drunk or just arseholes, and I don't know if it was because of the kids or me, but it was intimidating, and nobody helped, and I didn't handle it very well as I couldn't really speak up.

I know the second time we were on our way to Bournemouth, and at the time both boys, a couple of years older, were in speech therapy, and there were four lads who on hearing that one of them was struggling to speak absolutely mercilessly and as loud as they could, ripped the piss out of him. They kept on shouting at him to say particular things, so he clammed up, then they were shouting at him to try and get him to say swear words. We got up and tried to move carriages, but they followed us through.

I don't know. They are anecdotal personal examples, and I've had worse alone on public transport when I was younger and alone, including two physical horrible things on tubes, and also one I guess you'd say a 'flasher' or someone who Exposed himself to me and was and touching himself on a tube carriage... I don't know... It's difficult to know what the extent is when you've had a few instances that have scared you. I must have travelled on public transport a lot and had many, many completely uneventful journeys, but I suppose those few experiences stick with you I would have welcomed anything that would have avoided even one of those. There would have been many people, I am sure, who could have dealt with things like that better, but I was always very fearful of repercussions and quite naive I suppose, so it might partly be my inability to confront it that made it worse as I think people then knew they had a target they were affecting, but then I'm just close to victim blaming myself.

Dunno. Too tired to really fathom it xxx

Same reason Harriet is given an allowance for transport.

Some good economic news, UK plc "steady as she goes" with 0.7% growth last quarter:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34084759

Excellent, excellent. Long may it continue I say.

Goodness, I just read how rambling my reply was last night. I think current tiredness is getting to me now.

I thought it was pretty powerful stuff, and a bit upsetting Meems, didn't really know what to say.

People like that deserve a good hoof to the nether regions, bloody scumbag bullies. Sorry to hear of these experiences.

Cavey

It would probably have been more powerful if I were still able to string a sentence together coherently. I fear this may get worse before it gets better

I went there back in March. I got the feeling it hadn't changed in the quarter-century since my last visit.

I went there too.

It was empty apart from some shit carved into a tree!

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... are_btn_tw

I agree with a lot of this

Ahhh yes, the lying millionaire warmonger who takes guidance from the bearded fairy in the sky, I'm convinced.

Seriously, with every piece like that Blair writes, he makes Corbyn stronger. (Maybe that's the plan, and he's actually on the Tory payroll, as some folks have suspected all along.)

I think you just crossed the conspiracy theory streams. Why would someone on the Tory payroll have a plan to make Corbyn stronger? Or is it a long-con double bluff predicated on the idea that Corbyn really will be disastrous for the party? In which case, aren't you actually agreeing with Blair?

Meh, interesting...





Yes, precisely what I've been saying; Blair politely refers to 'a politics of parallel reality in which reason is an irritation, evidence a distraction and emotional impact is king', whereas I, with considerably less tact but with precisely the same basic message refer to 'swivel-eyed loons'. This latest 'movement', if we can call it that, whereby the whole pesky, inconvenient business of empirical efficacy, truth and demonstrable folly of the absurd 'policies' being pursued - whether that be the SNP's White Paper that disintegrated utterly and laughably before the ink was even permitted to dry (man, if ever a document needed to be printed on perforated, absorbent paper...) or Syriza's empty, vapid "anti austerity" rhetoric (or SNP's for that matter) - is just completely ignored.



Indeed, indeed.



Heh! The guy must be hopping mad, but I guess you (eventually) reap what you sow. Michael Foot may well have been swivel-eyed and unelectable in the extreme, but he was, at least, intellectually honest.

As an aside, amusing to think that Blair can regard himself as anything other than the most loathed man in Britain, and therefore his interventions as anything less than entirely helpful to his opponents...? A rather chronic lack of self-awareness, there.


I think the watershed moment for me was when our own Doc G posted Stu C's latest bustup with pre-GCSE physics in that other thread, apparently some 5-6 years after the original debacle. It occurred to me when I read that, that these types are just never, ever going to give an inch, not ever, and no matter how perfectly persuasive an argument presented to them may be, no matter how objective and compelling the evidence - it will make NO difference. You cannot get a more black-and-white case of being plainly and absolutely wrong than this; it would be impossible to have this degree of certainty in an argument about politics, political concepts and suchlike. Me? Even as someone who's been proven wrong many times, I cannot for the life of me imagine sticking to my guns (and coming back years later to do the same), when having been shown to be unequivocally and absolutely wrong.

I'm not particularly picking on Stu here; there are many, many others like him who've been saying the same old crap, unaltered, since they were 18 or whatever, or for at least as long as I've known them. The point is, there is NO point in trying to argue with people having such a, ahem, mentality/mindset, because it's clearly an impossibility to change their mind even if you could present the most powerful, optimally researched argument with every conceivable citation and corroborative evidence. It seems to me that it is these types people who are the swivel-eyed demographic for the likes of Corbyn, the SNP and Syriza et al and the drivers of this reality-free 'new politics'.

Thank goodness they're outnumbered by sensible, rather more discerning and cerebral small-'c' Tories, or at least in terms of those who can be bothered to turn up at polling booths. Well, in England at least.

You might be right, but hey, don't look at me.
*I* didn't vote for him or his party, unlike some I suspect.



Yup, sure Blair is in the employ of Tory HQ; perhaps they meet in Waitrose to exchange vital snippets and instructions over vol au vents.

Or you know, it could just be that Blair's a bit pissed at the total and absolute unravelling of pretty much his life's work, the New Labour project he and Brown started with the trashing of Clause 4 back in '95.

Don't disagree with all of that, but political consensus can change. Blair was adamant that Scotland would remain Labour, and thought that a move slightly to the left would potentially harm them there; witness instead the absolute landslide victory for the SNP in Scotland.

Oh I agree political consensus can change, most certainly, and there can be little doubt that this has indeed occurred in Scotland which, from my POV, is an entirely good thing because the resurgence of the SNP and the spectre of a minority Labour govt being propped up by it was more than sufficient to ensure great swathes of the English constituencies turned blue (none moreso than the beautiful southwest).

To me, as I've said, it seems utterly irrational. By any sane analysis, the SNP got pretty much every single thing wrong in their bid for independence (and long before then too - remember Salmond's keenness of the Euro and fellow bankers etc.); their White Paper was predicated on an oil price that's three times higher than reality and all this talk about "Scotland's Oil", like it can be the next Saudi Arabia or Norway, was all just so much bullshit as great swathes of people much more knowledgeable than oiks like me were saying all along (most of them were, of course, branded as "Quislings" and "Unionist Trolls", as you do).

You would have thought, then, that given the failure to even get close to a yes vote (I'm sorry, but to lose by over 10 points during years of the worst austerity for three generations and a sitting Tory government is pretty shit), would've spelled disintegration for the SNP, but not a bit of it. Results? Sane analysis and evaluation? Nope, who cares, as Blair notes - it feels good to make the previous 'by default' incumbents in power - Labour - feel the heat.

Can't say I'm particularly impressed by this 'resurgence' by the SNP - it means nowt without having won Indyref, as the people who elected them well know. Especially since it has precipitated an outright majority Tory government.

Rebekah Brooks back as UK chief exec of the newspaper operations division of News Corp; not bad considering she reputedly got a £16 million "payoff" when she left in 2011.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34131605

Proof that criminality is awesome!

Or, by her story, abject incompetence is awesome!

When a single photo makes you really sad.

No 'political agenda' here and this isn't aimed at anyone, so what we do about this? MIGRANT INVASION scream the headlines, but they're human beings the same as the rest of us. Surely we have enough resources, enough space, enough room for everyone? If we can have billionaires with yachts that cost hundreds of millions of pounds, can't we not have children drowning as their parents try to escape the horrors in their own country?

It's easy to forget how fucking blessed we are living in the UK.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/s ... f-refugees

*graphic picture contained within the spoiler*
[

Oh come on, at least put it in a NSFW spoiler tag or something. That is horrendous.