One for those who never go on the News and Politics Forum

MerylStreep

I’d love to name names but there’s no point as we all know who we’re talking about.
Plus, they’d go running to miss proclaiming they’d been bullied.

Do we? And no we wouldn't.

Callistemon21

MaizieD

Callistemon21

But I must hold my hands up and admit that I can be more abrasive than I should be at times. 🙁

I'm still laughing about the Premium bond thread 😁

I wasn't at my best that day! In the first stages of covid...

I did do it to toss a cat into the pigeons....😇

Hope you feel better soon.

Ps It's a bit chilly, sitting here picketing HM Treasury.

I hope that you have a nip of something strong in your pocket.

I heard a spokesman for the Civil Service Union on LBC explaining that you're not all people in pin striped suits but many and various. He also said that several thousand were on the minimum wage which I found shocking.

Thank you Joseanne You're very kind.

On another note one of my posts was pulled . It was a few years ago and for the life of me I could not remember saying anything rude or nasty. Could I have asked the staff why?

Oreo

Obviously not nonsense as shown by most of the posts on this thread.
Everyone feels entitled to comment but are put off by a few know it alls.

Thanks Oreo for backing my point of view. I am not usually put off making a comment but I hold back when I see the sparks and the nastiness flying as it seems so do a lot of other posters.

Dinahmo

Callistemon21

MaizieD

Callistemon21

But I must hold my hands up and admit that I can be more abrasive than I should be at times. 🙁

I'm still laughing about the Premium bond thread 😁

I wasn't at my best that day! In the first stages of covid...

I did do it to toss a cat into the pigeons....😇

Hope you feel better soon.

Ps It's a bit chilly, sitting here picketing HM Treasury.

I hope that you have a nip of something strong in your pocket.

I heard a spokesman for the Civil Service Union on LBC explaining that you're not all people in pin striped suits but many and various. He also said that several thousand were on the minimum wage which I found shocking.

I never wore a pin-striped suit!

No, I'm picketing to get the money back which I lent to the Government!

Oreo

Obviously not nonsense as shown by most of the posts on this thread.
Everyone feels entitled to comment but are put off by a few know it alls.

Could you just explain please. Do you mean that only those who don't know anything about 'news and politics' should post?

No, I'm picketing to get the money back which I lent to the Government!

I think you just need to fill in a form to do that, Callistemon. Picketing is a bit OTT, you know😲🤣

Oh yes, duh, or I could do it online in the warm!

Oh Dinhamo- you might have to join the ‘ some posters’ whereas before I always thought your posts were informative and sensible. Either that or I will do my 100 lines to remain in this forum.

I assume you are referring to my post using capital punishment as an example. When I lived I Suffolk I had a friend who believed in it. We used to talk about sometimes on our way up to Norwich for a day out and I would put forward my point of view, with a few facts. I didn't brow beat her or anything like that and she would agree with what I said but I was unable to change her mind. She had a belief and that was that.

Fleurpepper

Oreo

Obviously not nonsense as shown by most of the posts on this thread.
Everyone feels entitled to comment but are put off by a few know it alls.

Could you just explain please. Do you mean that only those who don't know anything about 'news and politics' should post?

Would it not be fair to reply Oreo. In fact, my question is not just about 'news and politics' but any subject. Do you think only the ones who don't know about any subject should reply?

This is a very unpleasant thread, which is ironic, given that it is supposedly about Some People being mean on other threads.

It is. 'Some posters' will mention the 'usual suspects' soon enough and 'some people' will develop a persecution complex <me>

Do you think only the ones who don't know about any subject should reply?

No more than it would be right to think
only the ones who know all about any subject should reply

Whitewavemark2

As one who enjoys debating on the N&P thread, I am sorry to read that people are so put off by the challenging arguments.

I wish this was not the case as I’m sure that there would be some really good contributors.

But of course people make their own choice, which is just as it should be.

Challenging arguments are not a problem but there's no point arguing with points of view that are set in stone and whose holders resort to the scathing condescension I mentioned earlier. Some appear unable to comprehend the existence of an intelligent, educated, articulate person who disagrees with them. Rather, they seem to start from a viewpoint that only what they think is "correct", "moral", "proper", "well-meaning", etc.

Take the reaction today that Liz Truss is "unhinged" because she espouses actual conservative economics. That is why she was voted as leader of the Conservative Party by grassroots members. Disagree with her by all means but calling her unhinged is not an argument. It's not even a challenge. It's a condescending dismissal.

When faced with that – which often happens on GN N&P threads – is it any wonder people simply don't join in?

Fleurpepper

Fleurpepper

Oreo

Obviously not nonsense as shown by most of the posts on this thread.
Everyone feels entitled to comment but are put off by a few know it alls.

Could you just explain please. Do you mean that only those who don't know anything about 'news and politics' should post?

Would it not be fair to reply Oreo. In fact, my question is not just about 'news and politics' but any subject. Do you think only the ones who don't know about any subject should reply?

Give us a chance precious!😄
Am not on this forum day and night y’know.

Right, as to meaning, it’s obvious, but as I think you’re French you don’t know the meaning of a know it all? it really means people who have a little knowledge or maybe even none, (who knows,) but act as if they are all out experts on a given subject and are ready with a lecture to those they consider to be inferior at any time.😁
So now you know.

baggs I am sorry that you object so much to what many people have described as Truss’s tenure as PM as unhinged.

But I can happily put that word to one side if it makes you feel more able to converse about Truss’s economics.

I am interested to read your description of her economics as actual conservative economics

I am not sure that the majority of MPs would agree. However I would like to understand what you mean by that statement.

I do see what you mean, Baggs, if someone seems to start from a viewpoint that only what they think is "correct", "moral", "proper", "well-meaning", etc.

Intransigence is often a fault of politicians, looking from another viewpoint seems impossible for some and that is why we witness jeering and catcalling in the House of Commons.

We're not politicians, this isn't the House of Commons, it's a chat forum. We don't have to emulate them.

I guess you could see those who having developed their principles, moral standpoint and ideological standpoint over the decades of their life as intransigent if they appear unwilling to move from that standpoint. However, that is the point of the art of politics which is to debate one’s ideological standing.

Of course all contributors from whatever colour they support can be accused of being intransigent. For example baggs I can detect as much movement in your ideological standpoint, as you can in mine😄

That's the point, though.

People can have principles and a moral standpoint but may disagree on how to achieve their aims.

Some are prepared to listen to others, then politely say they still disagree anyway and why, others dismiss their views out of hand.

Isn't calling people 'know-alls' dismissing them out of hand?

At least if someone is being overtly rude they are being up front. Isn't vaguely accusing 'some people' of generalised unpleasantness rather . . . snide?

I don't like rudeness or dismissiveness either, but to me, the above is exactly that. We can agree to disagree about that by all means, but I am unlikely to change my mind. Should I stand in the rude know-all corner?

I am interested to read your description of her economics as actual conservative economics

I've always understood conservative economics to mean "Lower taxes; less regulation on businesses; reduced government spending; balanced budget." I got that from here: www.diffen.com/difference/Left_Wing_vs_Right_Wing
on a quick google search.

This agrees with what the left wing people in my life say too.

The government of Boris Johnson was not a conservative government and I don't get the impression we have a conservative government now even though it's still nominally Tory.

There is a very good essay by Kate Andrews in the Spectator about LT economics. It is critical. I'm happy to share it with anyone who'd like to read it but I don't think I'm supposed to quote the whole thing on GN.

A small point that seems to have been missed: I'm not defending LT economics, just comparing what I saw of them with what I have always been led to expect conservative economics to look like because of what both left and right leaning political discussions say about them. So far as I could see what she was trying to do looked right wing or, if you prefer, conservative. Radical, yes, but not left wing politically.

She never even pretended to be trying to "balance the books"

Hers was a very extreme Tory policy of making the rich richer and hoping there would be some "trickle down " effect on the economy.

This is an economic theory which has been totally discredited.

In recent years the rich have got richer at the expense of everyone else and the result has been 3ewconomic stagnation - NOT growth.

Would you like to give us an idea of Andrew's main economic arguments, Baggs.

Are you convinced by them? Or is this just an academic exercise?