Castle Aching

[Compound2632]

8 minutes ago, Regularity said:

I suppose I am saying that supporting these clowns, as people, is moronic. As supporters of current right-wing free-market parties, then their supporter are unfortunate as the leaders and flag bearers are deeply deficient in the humility and compassion required of a good leader, but just because the flag bearer is a moron, that doesn’t make them morons.

 

Hate the sin, love the sinner.

[St Enodoc]

7 minutes ago, Regularity said:

Fair enough.
 

Well, Boris Johnson tried to call a new session of Parliament, and has shown contempt not only for Parliament but also the rule of law. I think that makes supporting him somewhat questionable, and him possibly a moron, but that may or may not extend to his supporters.

Unlike the USA, where the popular vote is cast in each state to direct their electoral college to vote for a particular candidate, in the UK, we supposedly vote for a local MP, who is usually a member of a party which, if it has a majority of seats in the House of Commons, will become the party of government with it’s leader as First Lord of the Treasury. Except in his own seat, people don’t actually vote for that leader.

you know all this, I know, but the distinctions are important, because...

...in both systems, there tends to be a fairly tribal pattern of voting, but the right or wrong leader can sway things one way or another. 
My personal feeling is that the UK electorate seems (as a single entity) to deliver quite sophisticated messages to the House of Commons, but the latter is incapable of grasping this. Thus:

2010: the Electorate was unhappy with Gordon Brown as PM, but didn’t want a Conservative government. Rather, it wanted a coalition between Labour and primarily the Liberals. Nick Clegg didn’t get this, and the Liberals were rounded upon at the next GE.

2015: the Electorate doesn’t like left-wing windbags, and Labour had chosen the “wrong” Milliband brother, so failed to capitalise on the punishment doled out to the Liberals, resulting in a Conservative majority that had he realised it was coming, I doubt David Cameron would have promised a referendum.

2017: the Electorate wanted a coalition to sort out EU withdrawal. Unfortunately, Maybot didn’t get this, and neither did Labour, thinking instead that they were building momentum towards a victory at the next GE.
2019: yet again, Labour was led by a left-wing windbag who had become to believe his own publicity, and they were deserted in droves.

Boris became PM because whoever was leading the Conservative party wasn’t Jeremy Corbyn. I don’t know of any Tory voters - which includes my parents who are lifelong Conservative Party supporters  - who don’t think him to be a self-aggrandising moron. They wish he, and most of his cabinet, would go, but they don’t see many decent alternatives in the parliamentary party.

I also have quite a few friends in the USA, and none of them voted for Trump. Unfortunately, some of them told me that they couldn’t bring themselves to vote for H. R. Clinton, either, do effectively let Trump in. They similarly think he is a self-aggrandising moron.

I have no real knowledge of Tony Abbot, but what little has been mentioned here is less than favourable.

 

I think that anyone supporting genuine free-market economics is not a moron, even though I have a different interpretation of the role and purpose of government to them. But it is possible to support that viewpoint, typified by the “small government” rhetoric of the USA Republican Party, whilst still accepting that its current flag-bearers are moronic buffoons.

 

I suppose I am saying that supporting these clowns, as people, is moronic. As supporters of current right-wing free-market parties, then their supporter are unfortunate as the leaders and flag bearers are deeply deficient in the humility and compassion required of a good leader, but just because the flag bearer is a moron, that doesn’t make them morons. 
 

Probably makes them embarrassed, though.

Thanks Simon. That is a well-reasoned post, even though I would not necessarily agree with all of your conclusions. One very salient point concerns the binary system (usually) for electing the US President. I am of the view that, for better or worse, in 2016 the ABHs (Anyone but Hillary) carried the day.

[Regularity]

23 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Thanks Simon. That is a well-reasoned post, even though I would not necessarily agree with all of your conclusions.

Luckily we live in a society where disagreement is tolerated, even encouraged. I love reasoned debate: I may find stronger arguments in favour of my point of view, or indeed have them shattered completely. Doesn’t matter: we live and learn.

I am also constantly amazed that not only do we break the forum rules about political discussions on this thread, but we demonstrate why the rules are not always necessary: if things get a bit heated, we have ways of signalling disquiet, and someone usually picks it up.

 

Quote

One very salient point concerns the binary system (usually) for electing the US President. I am of the view that, for better or worse, in 2016 the ABHs (Anyone but Hillary) carried the day.

 

Yes, very much so. She seems to generate visceral dislike in large swathes of the US. A late friend actually met her when she was First Lady, and had an hour or so in her company (nothing ribald, entirely legit), and told me that she was one of the warmest and most genuine people he had ever met, inside or outside of politics. (And boy, he had met some big-wigs in his time!) 

[Buhar]

Hi @St Enodoc,

There is possibly a liberal, anti-populist, anti-simplistic bias in the posts here that finds a focus in Trump and Boris (Tony Abbott's appearance is really a side-show).  I don't think either truly represent the views of many of those who voted for them and I most certainly would not characterise those who did as "morons".  I think Simon @Regularity sums things up well in considering voting patterns and votes against something or someone count as much as votes for.  One of the things I value in a functioning democracy is respect for alternative views (with the exception of conspiracy theories) .  BTW I don't think you're alone in the parish in holding a view that differs from that I outlined at the top and it's quite likely such folk skip over the posts they find annoying or one-sided.  

 

Alan

[nick_bastable]

I would like to bring the chamber to order

 

I question Mr Mayor what is the situation regarding  the purchase of suitable fishplates ?

 

(slumping back to his chair)

 

Nick B

 

 

[Regularity]

49 minutes ago, Buhar said:

with the exception of conspiracy theories

Never, ever, attribute a conspiracy where a simple c0ck-up can be ascribed!

[brianusa]

While not of much interest to those on the right hand side of the pond, depending how you look at it, comments on the left hand side are getting to be down right nasty.  Not that they haven't been these last four years but the animosity between both parties is reaching a crescendo as the election approaches.  One has only to see the televised oratory to sense  the demise of the GOP led by its leader while all the time the Democratic leader keeps his remarks and his face muffled by covid19.  The big question is why elect anyone on a short term basis given the ages of the participants but I suppose thats all there is.  At least one or the other will have a state funeral at taxpayers cost, should he shuffle of this mortal coil while on the job!

     Brian.

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

5 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

I will be frank. I object to the continual insinuation that anyone who supports Boris Johnson, Tony Abbott or Donald Trump is a moron. That's all.

 

G'day Frank - let me say that as a supporter of the democratic process a person is entitled to their views and to vote accordingly, but when the results of that vote demonstrate an ill choice was made then this might indicate that some review of one's initial opinion might well be in order.  

[St Enodoc]

4 minutes ago, Malcolm 0-6-0 said:

 

G'day Frank - let me say that as a supporter of the democratic process a person is entitled to their views and to vote accordingly, but when the results of that vote demonstrate an ill choice was made then this might indicate that some review of one's initial opinion might well be in order.  

One may well review one's own individual opinion based on both perception and persuasion. That might lead to a revision of that opinion but equally it might not - and others might make that revision in the other direction. That's how the democratic process works. For someone to say, however, that their opinion, or view, is right and therefore that others' must be wrong undermines the "reasoned debate" as Simon put it earlier. It strays into "I'm the only one in step" territory.

 

Incidentally, my view (or opinion) is that the rule of law controls what I am allowed to do but has no role in what I am allowed to think.

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

7 hours ago, nick_bastable said:

I would like to bring the chamber to order

 

I question Mr Mayor what is the situation regarding  the purchase of suitable fishplates ?

 

 

 

Whatever the fish, could I have double chips .......... 

[RedGemAlchemist]

1 hour ago, Malcolm 0-6-0 said:

 

Whatever the fish, could I have double chips .......... 

Is it cod? Because I ordered plaice. 

[Compound2632]

25 minutes ago, RedGemAlchemist said:

Is it cod? Because I ordered plaice. 

 

In Small Talk at Wreyland, Cecil Torr recounts an incident at an hotel in Penzance. On finding the breakfast room crowded: "Waiter, can you find me a place?" "I'm sorry sir, only sole and whiting this morning."

Edited October 12, 2020 by Compound2632

[Penlan]

11 hours ago, RedGemAlchemist said:

I assume that's meant to say "them", in which case you and I are some of the lucky ones then to have known at least one of our great-grandparents.

My father was always keen to get a photo of the family with 4 generations on it, I have one of me at 2 years old and my Father, Grandfather and Great Grand father in it.
We also managed to get one of my Father, Me, my Daughter and my new born Grand Daughter on it, my Father died a few months later.
Our family seems to be slow in getting generations started, I was 27 and my daughter 30, before our 'first born', so we are not holding our breath for the next 4 generations photo, which will probably be lost on a hard drive some where, sometime  
We use to have 'proper' photo's to keep and cherish.

Edited October 12, 2020 by Penlan

[Penlan]

29 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

In Small Talk at Wreyland, Cecil Torr recounts an incident at an hotel in Penzance. On finding the breakfast room crowded: "Waiter, can you find me a place?" "I'm sorry sir, only sole and whiting this morning."

I think you'll find there's more Haddock than any other fish available in PZ, at present
Don't worry Stephen, I do get the joke........
Some 15 years ago I was up in Arbroath for a family funeral and went into a Chippies and asked for 'Cod & Chips', the look on the shop staff's faces was enough for me to quickly change the order to Haddock & Chips. 
Apparently there had been some jibe's in the press about Fisherman saying "... we don't need to be told how to conserve fish stocks", followed by "..so why is there no Cod? then".

Cod 'Way down West' is from Iceland (the Country).
I can recall Arbroath being a bustling fishing port in the late 40's early 50's, but once all the Cod was gone, well all they have now, is a Marina. 

 

[Compound2632]

Arbroath smokies are still a thing though - with protected geographical indication, at least to the end of the year*. But maybe the haddock comes in for smoking from elsewhere these days.

 

*Sorry, can't keep the consequences of popular folly out of it.

Edited October 12, 2020 by Compound2632

[RedGemAlchemist]

1 hour ago, Penlan said:

My father was always keen to get a photo of the family with 4 generations on it, I have one of me at 2 years old and my Father, Grandfather and Great Grand father in it.
We also managed to get one of my Father, Me, my Daughter and my new born Grand Daughter on it, my Father died a few months later.
Our family seems to be slow in getting generations started, I was 27 and my daughter 30, before our 'first born', so we are not holding our breath for the next 4 generations photo, which will probably be lost on a hard drive some where, sometime  
We use to have 'proper' photo's to keep and cherish.

Thankfully I got to know my great grandfather very well. He lived with my grandparents during his later years, and died in 2005 at the ripe old age of 95 (I was 13 at the time.) He was a platelayer for the LNER during WW2, and was the man who got me into trains. My No.5 Geoffrey Lake is named after him. 

Edited October 12, 2020 by RedGemAlchemist

[Edwardian]

14 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

 

 

I will be frank. I object to the continual insinuation that anyone who supports Boris Johnson, Tony Abbott or Donald Trump is a moron. That's all.

 

I sympathise with that view, and am glad you gave it.

 

I was tempted to quip that it is those leaders, not the people who vote for them, that are the morons; as Simon has summarised, there are many differing reasons why people like that get voted in, not least sometimes for lack of a palatable alternative.

 

But, however much some may dislike these leaders, I doubt any of them are morons (though sometimes his tweets make that a very hard conclusion to avoid in one case). 

 

Here, in the interests of full disclosure, I will say that I do not think of myself as remotely left-wing or socialist, pace those here who are, but, as I have hinted, I am one of those who, in such times of polarisation find myself rather exposed, alone and unheard upon the blasted heath of the centre ground and unrepresented by either major party.  I say this because I have no axe to grind against the parties of the leaders mentioned, though I suspect in the case of the UK, and possibly the others, the party in question has its least attractive wing to the fore and there seem to be very few grown ups in the room as a result.

 

The thing that I suspect most people here, on CA, coalesce around is a deep suspicion of populist politics and its results. That is often a thing of the right, but not necessarily so. If there had been a Corbyn-Momentum regime in the UK, I suspect I'd have quite a bit there to concern me. Another point worth making is that the Left has been very successful in dominating the moral high-ground as the only People of Conscience in politics. The ruthless commissar politics of purist movements such as Militant Tendency and Momentum exposes this as not necessarily true, while there are many very moderate, sensible, compassionate people in right of centre UK politics.  That even looks odd as I type, which shows how pervasive is the myth that all good people are on the left and the only reason to vote for the Nasty Party is hard-headed pragmatism.  I add this not to Labour-bash, but because I think there is a an imbalance in our perceptions that is worth mentioning.

 

Returning to populists. I do have a problem with them.  There are a number of things that come with populist politics that we've seen here in the UK that concern me.  Things that bother me are:

 

- Undermining mainstream media and giving a false equivalence between things that are properly reported and verified to the standards of reputable journalism on the one hand, and any emotive or statistically questionable garbage I, Great Leader, and my cronies, choose to spout.  Thus, it is a matter of concern that the wing of the Conservative Party now in charge clearly is in the process of breaking the BBC.  This makes it much harder for voters to evaluate the situation.

 

- Refusing to engage with mainstream media in a traditional way and thus being less accountable. In between elections,  and elsewhere than the floor of the House, politicians need to be interrogated on what they are doing and saying in a public forum.  At difficult (for him) times, the present Prime Minister has had sustained periods of simply hiding from the media and indeed Parliament.  Minsters are seldom available for what might be problem interviews and I believe this government boycotted R4's flagship World at One.  This all breaks the unwritten rule and convention that Ministers make themselves available to face the public. Yes, we still see them, but the government is attempting to constrain and dictate the terms of its engagement with the more reputable media platforms.      

 

- Tribalism.  Always a problem in British politics.  Here it is no longer strictly down party divisions, as many Labour 'Redwall' MPs recently discovered to their cost (echoes of 'Democrats for Regan', perhaps?).  The divide is more that of the 'culture war' in such cases. But tribal it is. This means that people on both sides of the divide tend to accept what is said by those they support. This is a gift for a populist, because you only have to say something, anything, in answer to a damning point - any falsely equivalent garbage seems to do - and you've rebutted the opposition in the eyes of your supporters.  Thus tribalism and polarisation suits populists, so my third problem with them is that they encourage division.

 

- Populists like a narrative whereby they are trying to give the people what they want but there are vested interests in the way; the shadowy elite who would deny the people. Skulduggery is often hinted at. Classic populist reliance on a Fifth Column or Enemy Within that justifies extreme measures. In the UK the thing the People are said to want is BREXIT, though I tend to think of this rather as the obsession of a particularly virulent wing of one political party.  Whether you think BREXIT was a good idea or not is not the point. It's irrelevant now because it's happened.  The point, the only point, is about what damage the government was prepared to inflict upon our constitution and the rule of law to get there.   Such legal and constitutional issues are often complex and not easy to follow and are certainly not exciting for most people.  Populists mock the 'lefty' lawyers that do understand them and who express concern. Yet the ramifications may be profound. In order to give effect to the "Will of the People" there appeared to be absolutely no limit or sense of restraint in what this government was prepared to do.  We have seen:

 

1. Aforesaid undermining of a national broadcasting service which has a strict duty of independence and is in effect part of our evolved constitution

 

2. Failure to engage with Parliament or allow votes leading to a prorogation that was held by the courts to be unlawful.  Lying to Parliament and putting the role of the our constitutional monarch and head of state in a dangerous position. 

 

3. Hence, complicity in attacks against Judges (who cannot answer back by the way) and thus undermining the independent judiciary and public confidence in it. We are not like the States, judges here are very much above politics.

 

4. Complicit in attacks on the independent electoral commission, which had investigated BREXIT campaign funding.  Another often overlooked and unglamorous facet of the system that is nevertheless a vital safeguard.

 

5. Preparedness to breach an international treaty obligation (see below).

 

There are more examples, but surely that should suffice.

 

-  The independence of the civil service is also under attack.  This, again, I suspect is another area where there might be some differences with the States.  Our higher civil service is genuinely neutral. The combination of Government wishing to dilute civil service influence with advisers who are their ideological fellow travellers and the, no doubt, lack of enthusiasm of civil servants for measures of questionable constitutional propriety, has led to an unprecedented spate of senior civil service resignations.

 

- Populists like the concept of "the other", some scapegoats representing an existential threat like the hordes of "invading" migrants poised to come over in droves to man our NHS and pick our potatoes for us. It's all about exploiting fear beyond the level of any rational concern.  This justifies them in doing the things they want to do, things that in more sober and moderate times we would rightly shrink from doing as a society.

 

- What they do with the power they have?  Well, we are starting to see questionable actions, like the Licence to Kill Bill* and a very broad hint (actually in the last manifesto) that we would disengage from the European Convention on Human Rights, that, in my view as a practitioner, has proved to be a vital safeguard in the context of an unwritten UK constitution, particularly when governments of all hues use large majorities to flout constitutional conventions or enact draconian legislation. The excuse, of course, is to stop those lefty activist lawyers from continuing to insist that the treatment of those who seek asylum in Britain conforms to the rule of law and respects their human rights. Still, that's scumbag lawyers for you. If you question the need for that, remember the 'hostile environment' and the Windrush debacle.  

 

- Populists tend to behave as if they are above the law, because their claimed popular mandate trumps (no pun intended) any of the boring rules and safeguards. Hence the unprecedented step of legislation that foresees HMG breaching an international treaty obligation entered into by the same government and on which the ink was barely dry. Remind me, how are we now, for example, supposed to tax China regarding its treaty obligation to allow Hong Kong as one country-two systems?

 

- In the context of Covid-19 and even allowing for the needs of an emergency and the passing of emergency legislation, there is growing concern, both on the part of UK regional politicians and Parliamentarians including the Government's own back benchers, at the rather authoritarian way the Government is going about things. Take the two World Wars, there was national Government and every effort made to build consensus in Parliament, despite the wartime powers. This may be seen as a further instance of this administration failing to respect constitutional norms and expectations, once more eroding the role of the democratically elected House.

 

So, all I would say is, when you vote for guys like these, understand the implications. May you all live long and happy lives and avoid the Daily Mail!

 

*Explain to me why we have draft legislation that if passed would actually allow HMG to do many of the really nasty things that we lay at President Putin's door?  Is it enough to tell ourselves that, of course, we wouldn't, as we're jolly good chaps and he's just some dodgy foreign dictator?  It seems to me I've just catalogued a bunch of stuff that a good chap in government would not have done. 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 12, 2020 by Edwardian
spelling!

[Compound2632]

I was very fortunate to see Tom Stoppard's Leopoldstadt before lockdown. Those comfortable turn-of-the-century middle-class assimilated Viennese Jews were confident that "it couldn't happen here". It did. It can. It will if we let it.

 

 

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

*Explain to me why we have draft legislation that if passed would actually allow HMG to do many of the really nasty things that we lay at President Putin's door?

It's "salami" tactics aimed at reducing the respect for law and basic civilisation. (Aka "human rights".) 

There is no way such a law could have even been considered a few years ago, but by a process of gradual erosion, "we" (or our elected representatives who should have been voting not along party lines but as their conscience dictates, assuming they have a conscience, of course) are prepared to sanction laws against unknown future targets, "just in case". We end up potentially in a situation where a dictatorship can be proclaimed using nothing more than existing legislation, all of which was approved "democratically" by preceding regimes.

 

Despite some of what I said earlier, I don't think BJ is a moron, and the buffoonery is an act. He is just the populist front man for some much nastier people. President Trump, on the other hand, may be slightly unaware of his exact role in such.

 

"Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you." Curt Cobain, and may others.

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

I was very fortunate to see Tom Stoppard's Leopoldstadt before lockdown. Those comfortable turn-of-the-century middle-class assimilated Viennese Jews were confident that "it couldn't happen here". It did. It can. It will if we let it.

Which nicely ties in the discussion to the pre-grouping era. 

 

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing." - Edmund Burke.

(Which is very pre-grouping!)

[Nearholmer]

There is a small danger in having too much politics in an RMWeb thread that hasn’t been mentioned: The thread getting locked.

 

It only takes one deliberate act of trolling, or one accidental outburst of hot-headedness by perhaps a casual visitor, to spark major trouble, and The Mods’ tolerance then has to be withdrawn for the sake of good order.
 

Better to debate here-and-now politics in threads that aren’t so ancient and treasured as this one. Maybe CA should spawn a sub-thread The Parish Pump.

 

 

Edited October 12, 2020 by Nearholmer

[Caley Jim]

6 hours ago, Malcolm 0-6-0 said:

 

Whatever the fish, could I have double chips .......... 

To get back on topic (well nearly), in that case you'll need a bigger fishplate!

 

BTW it's haddock every time for me, though I can't see the point in mushy peas.  Oh! and if you're in that city in the East which we from the West hesitate to name, they'll ask if you want salt and sauce rather than salt and vinegar.  Funny folk in E..... Oops, nearly did it then!

 

Jim

[Regularity]

1 minute ago, Caley Jim said:

Oh! and if you're in that city in the East which we from the West hesitate to name, they'll ask if you want salt and sauce rather than salt and vinegar.

Always wondered what that was about.

But yes, haddock is much better, unless it’s a bad haddock, in which case you need to lie down in a quiet plaice until you don’t feel so down at eel.

[Caley Jim]

8 minutes ago, Regularity said:

.....in which case you need to lie down in a quiet plaice until you don’t feel so down at eel.

What did the one sole say to the other sole?

 

Don't look now, but there's a couple of eels following us.  

 

Jim (hat & coat on and windae picked.)

[rocor]

58 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

There is a small danger in having too much politics in an RMWeb thread that hasn’t been mentioned: The thread getting locked.

 

It only takes one deliberate act of trolling, or one accidental outburst of hot-headedness by perhaps a casual visitor, to spark major trouble, and The Mods’ tolerance then has to be withdrawn for the sake of good order.
 

Better to debate here-and-now politics in threads that aren’t so ancient and treasured as this one. Maybe CA should spawn a sub-thread The Parish Pump.

 

 

 

 

You have got the situation completely battened down. For as long as the discourse flows along with no ripples in the water it will not present calls for moderation. It just requires for one agent provocateur to slip in under the antisubmarine nets to set a charge in the harbour and blow the vessel sky high.

 

p.s. One of my other hobbies is mixing up metaphors and then tying knots in them.

 

 

[sem34090]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

There is a small danger in having too much politics in an RMWeb thread that hasn’t been mentioned: The thread getting locked.

 

It only takes one deliberate act of trolling, or one accidental outburst of hot-headedness by perhaps a casual visitor, to spark major trouble, and The Mods’ tolerance then has to be withdrawn for the sake of good order.
 

Better to debate here-and-now politics in threads that aren’t so ancient and treasured as this one. Maybe CA should spawn a sub-thread The Parish Pump.

 

 

May I draw the attention of the council to this notice;

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/158850-the-jubilee-assembly-hall-castle-aching-norfolk/

No obligation to use that thread but I thought I'd create it anyway.