Is this the last tory government
Discussion
NJH said:
Seriously. Look I am no fan of Hitchens, he is no doubt a professional whiner. He writes a lot and speaks a lot about the trashing of family values, respect for the law and destruction of our culture and communities through over immigration. How can that be anything else other than an old fashioned socially conservative viewpoint.
Hichens the younger is after one thing only; promoting Hitchens the younger. Read all his writings, or at least as much as you can stomach. read his diatribe on drugs. He's just published a book on the truth about something or other. I'll order it from the library but if it is anything like his previous books I'll have to fight against underlining parts of the text which are not supported by evidence, are contrary to experimental data and are just plain nasty.There's a lot in common with his dedication to what he thinks conservatism is to that of a religious convert who feels the need to be more gospel-centric than the vicars. He gives me the impression of trying to prove himself. He does not, and never will, fit in though.
It's as if he's looked down a list of popular themes for the right and gone for them. He believes in the death penalty. There's no evidence that it deters yet this is the basis for why he reckons it should be brought back. He feels an eye for an eye is the right way to go because of his version, a minority one, of a god.
He goes on about family values. This is from a bloke who refused to speak to his brother for years, possibly decades. Great family values. Even when they were reconciled it did not stop him from ranting on the TV against his brother.
I'm just some bloke. I know a bit about some stuff and little about other stuff. If I can pick massive holes in his logic in the stuff I know about, it generates doubts about the stuff that I don't know much about that he rants on.
He gives me the impression of being a left wing atheist who so wants to be impress as a right wing gods-fearing evangelist.
I always thought that Hitchens the elder and better was hiding some dark problem that moulded his adult life. Looking at the younger and not so personable Hitchens, I get the feeling that he has the same problem but more so.
I’ve had Sky News on in the background this morning while I’ve been doing the stuff that I put off during the week. At one point there was an interview of Mogg. He was rattling on about how he was going to do for the EU after some imagined affront. He threatened to disrupt the EU by imposing some esoteric financial burden. In other words, he was telling us that he was the man. This whilst having a hairstyle out of the 30s and 40s. (No names.)
I came back into the room about an hour later to find Jess Phillips being interviewed. The differences were obvious and so much in favour of Phillips that I wondered if it was a set up.
Instead of the posturing and intellectual muscle-stretching that the skinny Mogg failed to carry off, we saw a woman who smiled, chatted rather than preached, and admitted to making a mistake. She was hit by a comment she’d made when being interviewed by The Times. She said something like being at the end of her tether. Instead of the traditional political excuse of being misquoted/out of context, she nodded and said that was not quite what she had meant to say.
She talked of the ‘political elite’ running/ruining (perhaps both) the country. It wasn’t said in the whinging tone of a Mogg, but more of a ‘we’ll have to do something to counter it’ way.
She’s impressive to camera. She’s probably had a lot of coaching and plays to her strengths. It makes you wonder why Mogg hasn't opted for some similar assistance. Perhaps they couldn't find his 'to camera' strengths.
While Mogg seems to want to emphasise his differences to the general public – who can forget his ludicrous defence of using his nanny when campaigning – Phillips came over as someone who has an understanding of what is important to ‘us’. She continually spoke of the problems of others.
Mogg seems to see himself as the spokes-person for the tories. If labour pick Phillips against him, the tories are in trouble.
I came back into the room about an hour later to find Jess Phillips being interviewed. The differences were obvious and so much in favour of Phillips that I wondered if it was a set up.
Instead of the posturing and intellectual muscle-stretching that the skinny Mogg failed to carry off, we saw a woman who smiled, chatted rather than preached, and admitted to making a mistake. She was hit by a comment she’d made when being interviewed by The Times. She said something like being at the end of her tether. Instead of the traditional political excuse of being misquoted/out of context, she nodded and said that was not quite what she had meant to say.
She talked of the ‘political elite’ running/ruining (perhaps both) the country. It wasn’t said in the whinging tone of a Mogg, but more of a ‘we’ll have to do something to counter it’ way.
She’s impressive to camera. She’s probably had a lot of coaching and plays to her strengths. It makes you wonder why Mogg hasn't opted for some similar assistance. Perhaps they couldn't find his 'to camera' strengths.
While Mogg seems to want to emphasise his differences to the general public – who can forget his ludicrous defence of using his nanny when campaigning – Phillips came over as someone who has an understanding of what is important to ‘us’. She continually spoke of the problems of others.
Mogg seems to see himself as the spokes-person for the tories. If labour pick Phillips against him, the tories are in trouble.
Derek Smith said:
<snip>
I came back into the room about an hour later to find Jess Phillips being interviewed. The differences were obvious and so much in favour of Phillips that I wondered if it was a set up.
Instead of the posturing and intellectual muscle-stretching that the skinny Mogg failed to carry off, we saw a woman who smiled, chatted rather than preached, and admitted to making a mistake. She was hit by a comment she’d made when being interviewed by The Times. She said something like being at the end of her tether. Instead of the traditional political excuse of being misquoted/out of context, she nodded and said that was not quite what she had meant to say.
She talked of the ‘political elite’ running/ruining (perhaps both) the country. It wasn’t said in the whinging tone of a Mogg, but more of a ‘we’ll have to do something to counter it’ way.
She’s impressive to camera. She’s probably had a lot of coaching and plays to her strengths. It makes you wonder why Mogg hasn't opted for some similar assistance. Perhaps they couldn't find his 'to camera' strengths.
While Mogg seems to want to emphasise his differences to the general public – who can forget his ludicrous defence of using his nanny when campaigning – Phillips came over as someone who has an understanding of what is important to ‘us’. She continually spoke of the problems of others.
Mogg seems to see himself as the spokes-person for the tories. If labour pick Phillips against him, the tories are in trouble.
In every TV appearance I have seen her on she has come over in the same way - you don't have to agree with her politics to like the way she comes across - he biggest issue is that she will never have a chance to stand against any Con other than in her constituencyI came back into the room about an hour later to find Jess Phillips being interviewed. The differences were obvious and so much in favour of Phillips that I wondered if it was a set up.
Instead of the posturing and intellectual muscle-stretching that the skinny Mogg failed to carry off, we saw a woman who smiled, chatted rather than preached, and admitted to making a mistake. She was hit by a comment she’d made when being interviewed by The Times. She said something like being at the end of her tether. Instead of the traditional political excuse of being misquoted/out of context, she nodded and said that was not quite what she had meant to say.
She talked of the ‘political elite’ running/ruining (perhaps both) the country. It wasn’t said in the whinging tone of a Mogg, but more of a ‘we’ll have to do something to counter it’ way.
She’s impressive to camera. She’s probably had a lot of coaching and plays to her strengths. It makes you wonder why Mogg hasn't opted for some similar assistance. Perhaps they couldn't find his 'to camera' strengths.
While Mogg seems to want to emphasise his differences to the general public – who can forget his ludicrous defence of using his nanny when campaigning – Phillips came over as someone who has an understanding of what is important to ‘us’. She continually spoke of the problems of others.
Mogg seems to see himself as the spokes-person for the tories. If labour pick Phillips against him, the tories are in trouble.
I often think it would be interesting to do "blind auditions" of politicians and try to guess the party.
I suspect with quite a few you'd find people agreeing or disagreeing with things where, once they know the colour of the rosette, their view may miraculously change.
Most people are still way too tribal as is the system.
I suspect with quite a few you'd find people agreeing or disagreeing with things where, once they know the colour of the rosette, their view may miraculously change.
Most people are still way too tribal as is the system.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: I often think it would be interesting to do "blind auditions" of politicians and try to guess the party.
I suspect with quite a few you'd find people agreeing or disagreeing with things where, once they know the colour of the rosette, their view may miraculously change.
I agree - the majority of politicians who make good or sensible statements I agree with tend to be in the centre (left or right)I suspect with quite a few you'd find people agreeing or disagreeing with things where, once they know the colour of the rosette, their view may miraculously change.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Most people are still way too tribal as is the system.
And that is the problem for the whole of the HoC - the brexit question (or rather it's answer) did not fall in line with the tribal grouping Derek Smith said:
I’ve had Sky News on in the background this morning while I’ve been doing the stuff that I put off during the week. At one point there was an interview of Mogg. He was rattling on about how he was going to do for the EU after some imagined affront. He threatened to disrupt the EU by imposing some esoteric financial burden. In other words, he was telling us that he was the man. This whilst having a hairstyle out of the 30s and 40s. (No names.)
I came back into the room about an hour later to find Jess Phillips being interviewed. The differences were obvious and so much in favour of Phillips that I wondered if it was a set up.
Instead of the posturing and intellectual muscle-stretching that the skinny Mogg failed to carry off, we saw a woman who smiled, chatted rather than preached, and admitted to making a mistake. She was hit by a comment she’d made when being interviewed by The Times. She said something like being at the end of her tether. Instead of the traditional political excuse of being misquoted/out of context, she nodded and said that was not quite what she had meant to say.
She talked of the ‘political elite’ running/ruining (perhaps both) the country. It wasn’t said in the whinging tone of a Mogg, but more of a ‘we’ll have to do something to counter it’ way.
She’s impressive to camera. She’s probably had a lot of coaching and plays to her strengths. It makes you wonder why Mogg hasn't opted for some similar assistance. Perhaps they couldn't find his 'to camera' strengths.
While Mogg seems to want to emphasise his differences to the general public – who can forget his ludicrous defence of using his nanny when campaigning – Phillips came over as someone who has an understanding of what is important to ‘us’. She continually spoke of the problems of others.
Mogg seems to see himself as the spokes-person for the tories. If labour pick Phillips against him, the tories are in trouble.
You sound like an incredibly shallow person who makes judgements on appearance not on the content of their arguments. The sort of person who ends up paying twice as much for half as much because you fall for the good looking disingenuous salesperson. Who you think is really nice and friendly but who is really is having your pants down. I came back into the room about an hour later to find Jess Phillips being interviewed. The differences were obvious and so much in favour of Phillips that I wondered if it was a set up.
Instead of the posturing and intellectual muscle-stretching that the skinny Mogg failed to carry off, we saw a woman who smiled, chatted rather than preached, and admitted to making a mistake. She was hit by a comment she’d made when being interviewed by The Times. She said something like being at the end of her tether. Instead of the traditional political excuse of being misquoted/out of context, she nodded and said that was not quite what she had meant to say.
She talked of the ‘political elite’ running/ruining (perhaps both) the country. It wasn’t said in the whinging tone of a Mogg, but more of a ‘we’ll have to do something to counter it’ way.
She’s impressive to camera. She’s probably had a lot of coaching and plays to her strengths. It makes you wonder why Mogg hasn't opted for some similar assistance. Perhaps they couldn't find his 'to camera' strengths.
While Mogg seems to want to emphasise his differences to the general public – who can forget his ludicrous defence of using his nanny when campaigning – Phillips came over as someone who has an understanding of what is important to ‘us’. She continually spoke of the problems of others.
Mogg seems to see himself as the spokes-person for the tories. If labour pick Phillips against him, the tories are in trouble.
Some of us think that politics isn't a popularity contest of character but a popularity contest of ideas and argument. I don't give a crap what class someone is, what they look like or how in touch with the feelings they are.
It's because of people like you politics is becoming more like Britain's got talent where some sob story about their cat dying and how nice a smile they have is more important than what they actually say and do.
Not-The-Messiah said:
Derek Smith said:
I’ve had Sky News on in the background this morning while I’ve been doing the stuff that I put off during the week. At one point there was an interview of Mogg. He was rattling on about how he was going to do for the EU after some imagined affront. He threatened to disrupt the EU by imposing some esoteric financial burden. In other words, he was telling us that he was the man. This whilst having a hairstyle out of the 30s and 40s. (No names.)
I came back into the room about an hour later to find Jess Phillips being interviewed. The differences were obvious and so much in favour of Phillips that I wondered if it was a set up.
Instead of the posturing and intellectual muscle-stretching that the skinny Mogg failed to carry off, we saw a woman who smiled, chatted rather than preached, and admitted to making a mistake. She was hit by a comment she’d made when being interviewed by The Times. She said something like being at the end of her tether. Instead of the traditional political excuse of being misquoted/out of context, she nodded and said that was not quite what she had meant to say.
She talked of the ‘political elite’ running/ruining (perhaps both) the country. It wasn’t said in the whinging tone of a Mogg, but more of a ‘we’ll have to do something to counter it’ way.
She’s impressive to camera. She’s probably had a lot of coaching and plays to her strengths. It makes you wonder why Mogg hasn't opted for some similar assistance. Perhaps they couldn't find his 'to camera' strengths.
While Mogg seems to want to emphasise his differences to the general public – who can forget his ludicrous defence of using his nanny when campaigning – Phillips came over as someone who has an understanding of what is important to ‘us’. She continually spoke of the problems of others.
Mogg seems to see himself as the spokes-person for the tories. If labour pick Phillips against him, the tories are in trouble.
You sound like an incredibly shallow person who makes judgements on appearance not on the content of their arguments. The sort of person who ends up paying twice as much for half as much because you fall for the good looking disingenuous salesperson. Who you think is really nice and friendly but who is really is having your pants down. I came back into the room about an hour later to find Jess Phillips being interviewed. The differences were obvious and so much in favour of Phillips that I wondered if it was a set up.
Instead of the posturing and intellectual muscle-stretching that the skinny Mogg failed to carry off, we saw a woman who smiled, chatted rather than preached, and admitted to making a mistake. She was hit by a comment she’d made when being interviewed by The Times. She said something like being at the end of her tether. Instead of the traditional political excuse of being misquoted/out of context, she nodded and said that was not quite what she had meant to say.
She talked of the ‘political elite’ running/ruining (perhaps both) the country. It wasn’t said in the whinging tone of a Mogg, but more of a ‘we’ll have to do something to counter it’ way.
She’s impressive to camera. She’s probably had a lot of coaching and plays to her strengths. It makes you wonder why Mogg hasn't opted for some similar assistance. Perhaps they couldn't find his 'to camera' strengths.
While Mogg seems to want to emphasise his differences to the general public – who can forget his ludicrous defence of using his nanny when campaigning – Phillips came over as someone who has an understanding of what is important to ‘us’. She continually spoke of the problems of others.
Mogg seems to see himself as the spokes-person for the tories. If labour pick Phillips against him, the tories are in trouble.
Some of us think that politics isn't a popularity contest of character but a popularity contest of ideas and argument. I don't give a crap what class someone is, what they look like or how in touch with the feelings they are.
It's because of people like you politics is becoming more like Britain's got talent where some sob story about their cat dying and how nice a smile they have is more important than what they actually say and do.
turbobloke said:
Not-The-Messiah said:
You sound like an incredibly shallow person who makes judgements on appearance not on the content of their arguments. The sort of person who ends up paying twice as much for half as much because you fall for the good looking disingenuous salesperson. Who you think is really nice and friendly but who is really is having your pants down.
Some of us think that politics isn't a popularity contest of character but a popularity contest of ideas and argument. I don't give a crap what class someone is, what they look like or how in touch with the feelings they are.
It's because of people like you politics is becoming more like Britain's got talent where some sob story about their cat dying and how nice a smile they have is more important than what they actually say and do.
That's how things have been going for some time now. Shallow superficiality is a natural and lazy lowest common denominator these days. Anything resembling highest common factor has too many people reaching for the cheap personal insult catalogue. The post you replied to is a good example. Faced with this unabated we will get politicians and presenters at the same lowly level. Some of us think that politics isn't a popularity contest of character but a popularity contest of ideas and argument. I don't give a crap what class someone is, what they look like or how in touch with the feelings they are.
It's because of people like you politics is becoming more like Britain's got talent where some sob story about their cat dying and how nice a smile they have is more important than what they actually say and do.
Politicians have always had to be popular to win the public vote, and there are heaps of examples from history of potentially 'lesser' politicians entering parliament above potentially 'better' candidates because they were liked by those who voted for them. Hell, the Roman senators used to hold rival gladiator games to buy votes, and even in 20th Century British political history laws had to be introduced to prevent 'buying' of votes. More often than not those who became MPs were landowners who could afford the publicity campaign required.
To suggest that in the past we had great politicians who stood up for their principled beliefs and got voted in because the public thought they'd make the best law makers is either very naive or seen through rose tinted spes.
Empathy lacking automatons like Mogg, don’t make good politicians and certainly not leaders. They might be ok accountants or at working on their own, but not leading a team.
It’s obviously hard to explain the importance of eq and empathy to those lacking it.
Imagine trying to explain the importance of colour in a painting to the blind or music to the deaf.
The conservatives need a leader with EQ and empathy not a Victorian robot JRM type. Instead of uniting the party and appealing to a wider selection of the population, he would increase rifts and divisions in the party and only appeal to a tiny fraction of the population. He would be a complete disaster for the conservatives.
It’s obviously hard to explain the importance of eq and empathy to those lacking it.
Imagine trying to explain the importance of colour in a painting to the blind or music to the deaf.
The conservatives need a leader with EQ and empathy not a Victorian robot JRM type. Instead of uniting the party and appealing to a wider selection of the population, he would increase rifts and divisions in the party and only appeal to a tiny fraction of the population. He would be a complete disaster for the conservatives.
Not-The-Messiah said:
Derek Smith said:
I’ve had Sky News on in the background this morning while I’ve been doing the stuff that I put off during the week. At one point there was an interview of Mogg. He was rattling on about how he was going to do for the EU after some imagined affront. He threatened to disrupt the EU by imposing some esoteric financial burden. In other words, he was telling us that he was the man. This whilst having a hairstyle out of the 30s and 40s. (No names.)
I came back into the room about an hour later to find Jess Phillips being interviewed. The differences were obvious and so much in favour of Phillips that I wondered if it was a set up.
Instead of the posturing and intellectual muscle-stretching that the skinny Mogg failed to carry off, we saw a woman who smiled, chatted rather than preached, and admitted to making a mistake. She was hit by a comment she’d made when being interviewed by The Times. She said something like being at the end of her tether. Instead of the traditional political excuse of being misquoted/out of context, she nodded and said that was not quite what she had meant to say.
She talked of the ‘political elite’ running/ruining (perhaps both) the country. It wasn’t said in the whinging tone of a Mogg, but more of a ‘we’ll have to do something to counter it’ way.
She’s impressive to camera. She’s probably had a lot of coaching and plays to her strengths. It makes you wonder why Mogg hasn't opted for some similar assistance. Perhaps they couldn't find his 'to camera' strengths.
While Mogg seems to want to emphasise his differences to the general public – who can forget his ludicrous defence of using his nanny when campaigning – Phillips came over as someone who has an understanding of what is important to ‘us’. She continually spoke of the problems of others.
Mogg seems to see himself as the spokes-person for the tories. If labour pick Phillips against him, the tories are in trouble.
You sound like an incredibly shallow person who makes judgements on appearance not on the content of their arguments. The sort of person who ends up paying twice as much for half as much because you fall for the good looking disingenuous salesperson. Who you think is really nice and friendly but who is really is having your pants down. I came back into the room about an hour later to find Jess Phillips being interviewed. The differences were obvious and so much in favour of Phillips that I wondered if it was a set up.
Instead of the posturing and intellectual muscle-stretching that the skinny Mogg failed to carry off, we saw a woman who smiled, chatted rather than preached, and admitted to making a mistake. She was hit by a comment she’d made when being interviewed by The Times. She said something like being at the end of her tether. Instead of the traditional political excuse of being misquoted/out of context, she nodded and said that was not quite what she had meant to say.
She talked of the ‘political elite’ running/ruining (perhaps both) the country. It wasn’t said in the whinging tone of a Mogg, but more of a ‘we’ll have to do something to counter it’ way.
She’s impressive to camera. She’s probably had a lot of coaching and plays to her strengths. It makes you wonder why Mogg hasn't opted for some similar assistance. Perhaps they couldn't find his 'to camera' strengths.
While Mogg seems to want to emphasise his differences to the general public – who can forget his ludicrous defence of using his nanny when campaigning – Phillips came over as someone who has an understanding of what is important to ‘us’. She continually spoke of the problems of others.
Mogg seems to see himself as the spokes-person for the tories. If labour pick Phillips against him, the tories are in trouble.
Some of us think that politics isn't a popularity contest of character but a popularity contest of ideas and argument. I don't give a crap what class someone is, what they look like or how in touch with the feelings they are.
It's because of people like you politics is becoming more like Britain's got talent where some sob story about their cat dying and how nice a smile they have is more important than what they actually say and do.
If you think that politics isn't a popularity contest then where have you been for your life? It is all about popularity. Johnson's popularity and possibility of getting the PM's job is all about popularity as a bit of a card and cad. He has nothing else to support his quest to ruin the tory party. The same goes for Mogg but more so. He did nothing in the HoC before brexit.
I use to be in sales. Everyone, and that is you as well as me, is open to control by sales staff. I'm aware of some of the tricks, but that's no armour against them. We are all influenced by those pushing an agenda. However, what I compared the content of what they said as much as the way it was put over.
It's only recently that I've noticed Phillips but each time that I've seen her she's talked a lot of sense. Whether I like her or not is moot. I'd certainly prefer to sit next to her at a dinner than Mogg.
As I said, Phillips spoke about matters that concern many people. Mogg just went off into a recondrite threat. Who cares? I've always found that those who are going to, do. Those who aren't, threaten. I don't know if you've ever played rugby, but one can more or less ignore those who say, 'If you do that again . . .'
You blame me for the current state of politicians but I'd disagree. It has been a popularity contest ever since I can remember.
(I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with the paying twice the price for something. I have a reputation for being a bit tight, but I put this down to having very little 'spare' money at times in my life. Habits such as waiting for the price to come down die hard. I have a technique with subscribing to email marketing lists that can save anyone money.)
NJH said:
This article by Peter Hitchens is probably a good start:
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2010/01/...
"Fox hunting" ???https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2010/01/...
Condi said:
What an odd pair of posts?
Politicians have always had to be popular to win the public vote, and there are heaps of examples from history of potentially 'lesser' politicians entering parliament above potentially 'better' candidates because they were liked by those who voted for them. Hell, the Roman senators used to hold rival gladiator games to buy votes, and even in 20th Century British political history laws had to be introduced to prevent 'buying' of votes. More often than not those who became MPs were landowners who could afford the publicity campaign required.
To suggest that in the past we had great politicians who stood up for their principled beliefs and got voted in because the public thought they'd make the best law makers is either very naive or seen through rose tinted spes.
Some truth in that, but explain Thatcher.Politicians have always had to be popular to win the public vote, and there are heaps of examples from history of potentially 'lesser' politicians entering parliament above potentially 'better' candidates because they were liked by those who voted for them. Hell, the Roman senators used to hold rival gladiator games to buy votes, and even in 20th Century British political history laws had to be introduced to prevent 'buying' of votes. More often than not those who became MPs were landowners who could afford the publicity campaign required.
To suggest that in the past we had great politicians who stood up for their principled beliefs and got voted in because the public thought they'd make the best law makers is either very naive or seen through rose tinted spes.
NJH said:
Seriously. Look I am no fan of Hitchens, he is no doubt a professional whiner. He writes a lot and speaks a lot about the trashing of family values, respect for the law and destruction of our culture and communities through over immigration. How can that be anything else other than an old fashioned socially conservative viewpoint.
I went onto Wiki to see the name of the new Hitchens the younger book. What was remarkable was that his brother, Hitchens the elder and more likeable, was mentioned a number of times and there was even a picture of him below the personal column.There was a fair bit about the falling out between them – it came much later than I remembered, so it wasn’t for decades that Hitchens the nasty ignored family values, although they were supposed to be mates again during an all-out argument on TV I remember.
I went onto the Hitchens page, and the comparison with the other Hitchens one was remarkable. The younger was mentioned perhaps twice, there was no photo of the sibling, and it was all about Chris.
Now that’s got to hurt, hasn’t it?
El stovey said:
Is this the difference between EQ and IQ?
Mogg is intelligent but lacking in empathy, people that support him are often similar personality types.
I'm not sure he's that intelligent, his image gives that impression but there isn't much evidence of anything behind the image.Mogg is intelligent but lacking in empathy, people that support him are often similar personality types.
It's a shame, Brexit could have been a success with an intelligent, charismatic leader but instead we all have to suffer under moron May.
s2art said:
Some truth in that, but explain Thatcher.
Thatcher was the most unpopular PM, according to polls, in her early days. She got in because of the floating voters, the ones who have little or no tribal affiliations. We had the great Saatchi poster of 'Britain isn't working', where there was the implied promise of a reduction in the unemployment rate. When this was doubled, there was a wee bit of resentment. But the Argentinians came to her aide. Labour were in a right mess at the time. They were internal fights for power, with various groups criticising the other. Rather like the tories today, but at about 60% as bad.
Condi said:
What an odd pair of posts?
Politicians have always had to be popular to win the public vote, and there are heaps of examples from history of potentially 'lesser' politicians entering parliament above potentially 'better' candidates because they were liked by those who voted for them. Hell, the Roman senators used to hold rival gladiator games to buy votes, and even in 20th Century British political history laws had to be introduced to prevent 'buying' of votes. More often than not those who became MPs were landowners who could afford the publicity campaign required.
To suggest that in the past we had great politicians who stood up for their principled beliefs and got voted in because the public thought they'd make the best law makers is either very naive or seen through rose tinted spes.
Of cause there will always be a quite substantial influence of people opinion on superficial things like looks and personality it's just how we work. Politicians have always had to be popular to win the public vote, and there are heaps of examples from history of potentially 'lesser' politicians entering parliament above potentially 'better' candidates because they were liked by those who voted for them. Hell, the Roman senators used to hold rival gladiator games to buy votes, and even in 20th Century British political history laws had to be introduced to prevent 'buying' of votes. More often than not those who became MPs were landowners who could afford the publicity campaign required.
To suggest that in the past we had great politicians who stood up for their principled beliefs and got voted in because the public thought they'd make the best law makers is either very naive or seen through rose tinted spes.
We all like to think we could treat everyone the same no matter what they look like but we don't and will never do so.
It's a fact if you are lucky enough to be attractive then many things in life are just easier.
But when someone isn't so attractive and as some characteristic traits some would find unusual but are successful and popular. It's like any other form of public popularity contest if they aren't good looking they tend to be good at what they do.
Not-The-Messiah said:
But when someone isn't so attractive and as some characteristic traits some would find unusual but are successful and popular. It's like any other form of public popularity contest if they aren't good looking they tend to be good at what they do.
Fascinating. So recruiters (or voters) should be selecting the ugliest candidates as they “tend to be good at what they do”? Derek Smith said:
I was commenting on the TV appearance of two politicians. I did not comment on the political side of what they said, merely the presentation. I'm sorry if that wasn't apparent to you. I didn't mention class, other than Phillips' comment about the political elite which, probably, means those good old boys going to Eton and its ilk.
If you think that politics isn't a popularity contest then where have you been for your life? It is all about popularity. Johnson's popularity and possibility of getting the PM's job is all about popularity as a bit of a card and cad. He has nothing else to support his quest to ruin the tory party. The same goes for Mogg but more so. He did nothing in the HoC before brexit.
I use to be in sales. Everyone, and that is you as well as me, is open to control by sales staff. I'm aware of some of the tricks, but that's no armour against them. We are all influenced by those pushing an agenda. However, what I compared the content of what they said as much as the way it was put over.
It's only recently that I've noticed Phillips but each time that I've seen her she's talked a lot of sense. Whether I like her or not is moot. I'd certainly prefer to sit next to her at a dinner than Mogg.
As I said, Phillips spoke about matters that concern many people. Mogg just went off into a recondrite threat. Who cares? I've always found that those who are going to, do. Those who aren't, threaten. I don't know if you've ever played rugby, but one can more or less ignore those who say, 'If you do that again . . .'
You blame me for the current state of politicians but I'd disagree. It has been a popularity contest ever since I can remember.
(I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with the paying twice the price for something. I have a reputation for being a bit tight, but I put this down to having very little 'spare' money at times in my life. Habits such as waiting for the price to come down die hard. I have a technique with subscribing to email marketing lists that can save anyone money.)
both are working to appeal to their target audience, if one seems to you to be more agreeable then that's just your own bias; many find the carefully managed image typical of the left something instinctively untrustworthy and prefer something more seemingly transparent and/or straightforward (even if they don't wholly agree with what's being sold, something those on the left can't seem to understand)If you think that politics isn't a popularity contest then where have you been for your life? It is all about popularity. Johnson's popularity and possibility of getting the PM's job is all about popularity as a bit of a card and cad. He has nothing else to support his quest to ruin the tory party. The same goes for Mogg but more so. He did nothing in the HoC before brexit.
I use to be in sales. Everyone, and that is you as well as me, is open to control by sales staff. I'm aware of some of the tricks, but that's no armour against them. We are all influenced by those pushing an agenda. However, what I compared the content of what they said as much as the way it was put over.
It's only recently that I've noticed Phillips but each time that I've seen her she's talked a lot of sense. Whether I like her or not is moot. I'd certainly prefer to sit next to her at a dinner than Mogg.
As I said, Phillips spoke about matters that concern many people. Mogg just went off into a recondrite threat. Who cares? I've always found that those who are going to, do. Those who aren't, threaten. I don't know if you've ever played rugby, but one can more or less ignore those who say, 'If you do that again . . .'
You blame me for the current state of politicians but I'd disagree. It has been a popularity contest ever since I can remember.
(I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with the paying twice the price for something. I have a reputation for being a bit tight, but I put this down to having very little 'spare' money at times in my life. Habits such as waiting for the price to come down die hard. I have a technique with subscribing to email marketing lists that can save anyone money.)
Teddy Lop said:
both are working to appeal to their target audience, if one seems to you to be more agreeable then that's just your own bias; many find the carefully managed image typical of the left something instinctively untrustworthy and prefer something more seemingly transparent and/or straightforward (even if they don't wholly agree with what's being sold, something those on the left can't seem to understand)
If you're suggesting that Mogg's image is not carefully managed and that he's more transparent and straightforward, then you seem to know more about bias than me. I've merely said - well go back and look. I'm happy to have a discussion, that's the reason I post. So read what I said and then bring up any points on that.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff