Trevor Phillips - Tory mouthpiece or just thick?

Also, I have commented on this thread a few times already on the subject😃

I was simply answering what you posted directly above mine where you claim that ‘we’ will not miss posters who don’t like long comments.🤔

It sounds like you're feeling frustrated with the way the conversation has been unfolding and have deflected off to discuss how people post rather than the topic Oreo.

It’s important, in discussions, to maintain an open dialogue and ensure that all perspectives are considered or you close them down. But maybe that's exactly your intention? If you’d like to share more about your thoughts on the actual topic, I’m happy to engage and discuss!

Well, it’s all subjective isn’t it? Long rambling posts tend to turn posters off and maybe you wouldn’t miss them but I would kind of thing.The other thing I find with over long posts is that the meaning often gets lost somewhere.

Allira

PoliticsNerd

If people try to tell me what I'm thinking/trying to say my answers tend to get longer and more detailed. I'm sorry about that.

The problem with that is posters will then tend to ignore the posts.

It can be tough to capture some people's attention these days, Allira But if they're not interested will we actually miss them?

Allira

PoliticsNerd

If people try to tell me what I'm thinking/trying to say my answers tend to get longer and more detailed. I'm sorry about that.

The problem with that is posters will then tend to ignore the posts.

I think that as with most things, it's different strokes for different folks. As long as they include paragraphs, I don't mind long posts - I certainly don't ignore them. I've been accused of writing long posts, which I often do; but some topics just don't lend themselves to soundbites, and I work on the assumption that posters have an attention span longer than that of a goldfish .

Also, when I know that someone is likely to respond with a Gotcha, or the equivalent of 'I know you are, but what am I?' it is more important to spell things out so they can't be deliberately misconstrued.

PoliticsNerd

If people try to tell me what I'm thinking/trying to say my answers tend to get longer and more detailed. I'm sorry about that.

The problem with that is posters will then tend to ignore the posts.

Try putting your own point of view about the interview Allira, instead of attacking me personally. That is clearly a waste of time and effort.

His insistence on reframing and repeating the same question suggests either a deeper motive or an he finds it impossible to accept the answer.

So you know more about what Mr Phillips means when he speaks than he does?

If people try to tell me what I'm thinking/trying to say my answers tend to get longer and more detailed. I'm sorry about that.

Thank you Monica, for explaining that you know more about what I mean when I write than I do.

I presume you saw the interview we are discussing. I repeat, there’s a significant communication gap between the two of them. His insistence on reframing and repeating the same question suggests either a deeper motive or an he finds it impossible to accept the answer.

This raises questions about his understanding or willingness to engage honestly. He appears to be seeking validation or an alternative perspective to justify his own beliefs. I'm surprised that isn't obvious to you. I don't think it could be more obvious that he believes it's advantageous for him to maintain this stance, despite how it makes him appear to others.

He is obviously choosing to navigate the conversation in a specific way to serve his own interests, even if that means sacrificing clarity or appearing foolish.

What do you think his true motivations might be when he does that?

Was Ms Rayner giving a 'politician's answer'?

Jeremy Paxman might have done the same, persisting until he got a clear, straightforward answer in plain English, but in a more acerbic manner than Trevor Phillips.
No-one would have called him thick, just persistent.

Galaxy

I would say not calling people thick because they hold a different view might be a start to having a more balanced political discourse.

To be fair to the OP, I don't read the post as calling TP 'thick' because of the view he holds. It's because he didn't appear to understand the answer Rayner gave.

If I understood what she told him - several times over as he repeatedly reframed the same question - then why couldn't/wouldn't he?

Which could well elicit the question 'Is he thick, or what?'

PoliticsNerd

I do admire how well Angela Rayner has grown into the job. She has obviously understood Phillips unwillingness to actually dicuss anything and his need to work at getting a social media clip for himself this morning.

If I understood what she told him - several times over as he repeatedly reframed the same question - then why couldn't/wouldn't he? I do wonder who has made it worth his while to do this. He surely can't be making himself look such a fool for nothing.

What you mean is that he dares to hold views that do not agree with yours.

Why should he have to be your mouthpiece but no on elses?

Galaxy

I would say not calling people thick because they hold a different view might be a start to having a more balanced political discourse.

Absolutely.
And writing increasingly long posts doesn’t make a poster any more correct.

Yes, quite.

I would say not calling people thick because they hold a different view might be a start to having a more balanced political discourse.

Mollygo

Oh dear. Doing exactly what you accuse me of doing DD is not a good look for you, but do carry on.

No, I am replying to you and not pretending otherwise . That’s the point.

To spell it out - everyone is biased to some extent (unless they are so uninterested in politics that they have no opinion at all, in which case why comment on political threads?). That bias is likely to be because of a world view, rather than blind support of a party, but as we have a system that (in theory) pits one worldview against another we are more likely to see things done by one party as being better than the things done by another. It is those things that are commented on, however - not because of their origin in a party, but because they are things that fit our view of the world.

That’s why there is debate and often disagreement, and that is the point of a discussion board, so no problem there.

What is irritating (to me), and what I am pointing out as politely as I can, without Gotchas or sneering, is that you keep telling us that you are neutral and that you complained about the Tories in power, when unspecified Some People (or ‘one group’ if you prefer) are blindly following party politics and supporting Labour because we are hard of thinking.

As I see it, you are not remotely neutral (not in itself a criticism as nobody is) and it stifles debate when anyone who agrees with something the new government does is dismissed with the equivalent of ‘well, you would say that, wouldn’t you?’ rather than a discussion of the issue in point. That is disrespectful at best.

It is not ‘being personal’ to point that out. Disagreeing with what one person says, and/or taking issue with the way they are saying it (ie the basis of their argument) is not being ‘personal’.

I gave up on commenting on N&P for a while because of this sort of thing. I can’t be bothered with sniping instead of discussion, and the thinly-veiled nastiness is tiresome.

I don’t expect to agree with anyone all the time, and on the whole I will agree with everyone some of the time - not because of who they (or I) vote for, but because of what they post. Can you not afford others the same respect?

"Of course. But repeatedly saying that you are objective and unspecified others are simply cheerleaders for one side or the other is not debate, and the ‘some people’ style is tedious. If someone says something that seems to be hypocritical, why not call that out instead of oblique references to one-sidedness that can’t be challenged because nobody knows what they are about?" Doodledog

Could you tell me where I have said any of this this please. It's difficult to answer when you don't quote.

Oh dear. Doing exactly what you accuse me of doing DD is not a good look for you, but do carry on.

Many people desire a more balanced approach to political commentary, where all parties are scrutinized equally rather than allowing one side to dominate the narrative. It’s also valid to call out the inconsistencies in criticism, as that can contribute to a more informed public dialogue.
Of course. But repeatedly saying that you are objective and unspecified others are simply cheerleaders for one side or the other is not debate, and the ‘some people’ style is tedious. If someone says something that seems to be hypocritical, why not call that out instead of oblique references to one-sidedness that can’t be challenged because nobody knows what they are about?

It seems reasonable to to express frustration with the bias in political criticism. It’s understandable to feel that way, particularly when discussions about government performance seem skewed or one-sided.

Many people desire a more balanced approach to political commentary, where all parties are scrutinized equally rather than allowing one side to dominate the narrative. It’s also valid to call out the inconsistencies in criticism, as that can contribute to a more informed public dialogue.

Engaging in these discussions can be challenging, but they are essential for a healthy democratic process. How do people who object to the view of Trevor Phillip shown in the OP think we can encourage more balanced political discourse?

Allira

^The Guardian is a centrist paper, and there is nothing wrong with that^
Centre-left.
Rather different from absolute centrist. The Guardian is to the left of centre.

No, Mollygo is the only person who can claim objectivity or centrism - everyone else is rabid and 'decrying' others or 'excusing' the 'side' they are on.
🤔 not sure if some of these remarks are unacceptable, verging on personal attacks.
They are quite frequent and very noticeable.

Some of which remarks?

I don't know about others, but mine is simply a defence against the attacks on anyone who dares to speak up for (or refuse to join in on the attacks on) the government.

I'm not beating around the bush, or couching my comments in 'some people' or 'one group' terms, which are, and always have been, as personal as being honest and replying to a particular person. I am saying that very few people are objective, and it is tiresome to keep hearing that Mollygo 'has always criticised the Tories as much as she does Labour'. It is patently untrue.

😁

Allira

^Pinches of salt vary depending on both the writer and the source.^
Certainly a a huge dose of sea salt is required!

Orr with some writers, Epsom Salts… it’s still worth hearing them though, however violently you disagree..