I Haven't Changed My Politics, It's Society And Politics That Has Changed

[Mister M]

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

Can I just clarify what you appear to be saying. Are you saying that it is "mainstream" (as in what most people think) that historic statues  should be ripped down or historic buildings or institutions should have their names changed, because of possible links to slavery ? Something that happened over 200 years ago and was legal at the time ?

No, what I said was that 

"The term ['silent majority'] is used in the political sense to denote those who are defined as 'mainstream'. I'm not sure that any attempt has been made to study this group, probably because it's so ill defined. On top of that those that do use it, have used it in the past for nefarious purposes, for example Richard Nixon."

Quote

If so I think you should get out more and talk to "ordinary" people, as I have never talked to anyone who thinks like that. I mean face to face, not people virtue signalling on social media.

I know people of all ages, with and without kids, "middle class" or "working class".

None supports ripping down statues, and all laugh at the acronym LGBTQI+. Who are these people who come up with this nonsense ?

Quite apart from anything else what have LGBTQI+ got in common ? Very little, if anything. It is an artificial concept, as well as sounding ridiculous.

Perhaps your circle of acquaintances don't support the ripping down of statues, or all have a good laugh at the acronym LGBTQI+, it doesn't matter.

The fact is the rights of people like me have been hard fought for and won, often in the face of your acquaintances. None of those rights were handed to us on a plate. Those battles began in the 1960s, (and previous), and got us to where I and others like me are today. If such social and psychological changes at the heart of the nation have passed you and your friends by, well whose fault is that?

People who haven't had to fight for their identities and the rights to be who they are, can afford to be dismissive of others, fair enough. But don't expect any sympathy from those of us who have had to battle for what you take for granted, to suddenly feel bad because you and your acquaintances feel 'left behind'.

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

How was Thatcher authoritarian (and I speak as someone who was no fan of hers).

 

Definition of authoritarian :

 

favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.

 

That said I think it would gave been a blessing of she had been PM when Covid struck. Someone who never chased short term popularity, had the courage of her own convictions, correctly thought "advisors advise and ministers decide", and, most significantly, was  a trained scientist.

Quite simple. In your opening post you complained about the 'authoritarian left', and then went on to complain about a set of personal gripes, and the conversation included LGBTQI+.

I correctly pointed out the Margaret Thatcher and Janet Young introduced Section 28 which was a pandering to the ignorant and ill informed crap that was being published in the gutter press about local authorities and education. It had less to do with 'morality', and more to do with shoring up their own base by trampling over others whom they made a scapegoat of.

Not sure what your definition of authoritarian is, but a government singling out a minority group for the edifice of a so called 'moral majority' is to me straight from the authoritarian playbook.

Incidentally, if you don't think Thatcher's Government was authoritarian, have a read of the seminal text by Andrew Gamble called "The Free Economy and the Strong State". 

 

With regards to Covid, some of her colleagues, that is those who worked with her, have claimed that because she was a scientist, she would've been tougher on lockdowns that Johnson ever was. And although I'm certainly no fan of hers either, I think it's safe to say she wouldn't have tolerated partying at No.10 during national lockdowns. 

 

Edited May 13, 2023 by Mister M

[El Cid]

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

How was Thatcher authoritarian (and I speak as someone who was no fan of hers).

 

Definition of authoritarian :

 

favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.

The striking miners were beaten by policemen on horseback, that is quite authoritarian.

Was it Thatcher or other Governments that eroded people's right to strike. Conservatives do tend to be more authoritarian.

The UK during COVID brought in various laws forcing people to stay indoors, Sweden didn't have such strict rules.

[Chekhov]

3 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

You do talk daft sometimes.

I have had children, grandchildren and great grandchildren and I remember being prevented from videoing one of my grandchildren at a school show.

I said this cobblers was not around 20 to 30 years ago, and you are telling me I am wrong.

But it is you who are wrong (again) :

 

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/jun/23/photos-children-school-ban

The first widely reported ban was a Yorkshire primary school in 1999, followed by Perth and Kinross council in 2000 and Edinburgh District Council in 2002.

[Chekhov]

3 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

I was initially very annoyed about it in the same way as you and demanded to know why.  Unlike you,  when the reasons were explained to me  ( safeguarding ),  I could see it made a kind of sense and accepted it.

This is cobblers, again. "The reasons were explained to me", I'll bet they were not. Saying it's "safeguarding", like that's enough of an excuse and no evidence or statistics are necessary, is like saying we must suppress society during Covid  "because of death". Even during the madness of Covid they felt they had to present some statistical justification for it (even if it did turn out to be greatly exaggerated). No such statistical evidence will ever have been presented for banning people taking pics of their kids at  a school performance or at a swimming gala. Quite simply because no research will ever have been done. It is some paranoid authoritarian throwing his, or her, weight about and most people just accept it because, err, they are used to living in a amore and more authoritarian society.

[Chekhov]

3 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

So it wasn't for no good reason that you were prevented from filming

I have debated this many times and I can assure you it is not for any "good reason".

It is disproportionate paranoid overkill and I am 100% certain that any rational cost to benefit analysis would throw out that policy in an instant. Assuming, of course, that the "cost" (banning parents from filming their own kids) was considered significant. What has changed is the society, and is why it is not me that has moved to the right, it is society that has moved towards left wing authoritarianism. People's individual rights are not considered important any more, in the example above, the "cost" is "insignificant"

[Chekhov]

3 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

I think it's meaningless.  Love your kids with all your heart but you don't need film of every single moment of their lives.

The empathy is in the love,   and also in the misery if you lose some of them as I have,    and the media is not what's important.  -      you seem to think, as always,  that it's the media that matters.

Like many people,  your world is obviously bound up with possessions  but,   like money,  you can't take the media with you.  You have to bank your lovely memories in your heart.   they go where you go.

>>I think it's meaningless<<

 

That's what I said, you have no empathy for people who do not think as you do. You are a false empathiser.

 

>>your world is obviously bound up with possessions<<

 

What rubbish are you talking ?
How is me having a video of my lad winning his first ever fly race about "possessions" ?

If your child, or grand child, won their first ever fly race (and particularly if you were interested in swimming) I guarantee you'd feel differently.

The fact you cannot see that proves to me you not only have no empathy but, assuming you are not trolling, you have limited imagination.

[Chekhov]

3 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

>>Chekhov said:
How was Thatcher authoritarian (and I speak as someone who was no fan of hers).

 

Definition of authoritarian :

 

favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.<<

 

You would have thought she was authoritarian if she destroyed the main source of work and money in the town, village or city where you lived.

When the shops, pubs, clubs and cinemas started closing and you found you had moved from a fairly prosperous and happy little place to a miserable ghost town without actually moving at all.

Where's your empathy now?                                 And don't quote definitions at us   -   a lot of us were here and properly educated before you were even a twinkle in your dads eye.

>>You would have thought she was authoritarian if she destroyed the main source of work and money in the town, village or city where you lived<<

 

I was no Thatcher fan, but, if the pits were profit making, how could she have shut them down ?

They would not have been shut.

The fact is the miners lost a lot of sympathy over the previous decade with their strikes holding the country to ransom. I was definitely not a Thatcher fan at the time (I never voted Tory till 2021), but I wanted the miners to lose.

 

But, I have to say, you are being a massive hypocrite here anyway because you bang on about climate change and how we should all make sacrifices to try and avert it (despite never being asked at the ballot box). The last coal mines in this country were forced to close because the government banned coal fired power stations......

 

2 hours ago, Mister M said:

The fact is the rights of people like me have been hard fought for and won, often in the face of your acquaintances

We are talking about the last 20 to 30 years, not the 1960s.

How were you being oppressed in the 1990s ?

Edited May 13, 2023 by Chekhov

[Chekhov]

2 hours ago, Mister M said:

I correctly pointed out the Margaret Thatcher and Janet Young introduced Section 28 which was a pandering to the ignorant and ill informed crap that was being published in the gutter press about local authorities and education. It had less to do with 'morality', and more to do with shoring up their own base by trampling over others whom they made a scapegoat of.

Not sure what your definition of authoritarian is, but a government singling out a minority group for the edifice of a so called 'moral majority' is to me straight from the authoritarian playbook.

How was section 28 trampling on your rights ?

What was it stopping you from doing ?

[Chekhov]

2 hours ago, Mister M said:

With regards to Covid, some of her colleagues, that is those who worked with her, have claimed that because she was a scientist, she would've been tougher on lockdowns that Johnson ever was.

I find that very hard to believe indeed.

Throughout the world, and certainly in this country, it was left leaning governments / parties which were even more extreme on suppressing society. Labour certainly were, it was them who wanted us to continue being forced to wear masks in July 2021 (when there was no justification for it whatsoever, even if they worked, which they did not). Furthermore Starmer boasted :

 

Sir Keir Starmer questioned whether Boris Johnson was too "weak" to lead the country after a significant number of his own backbench Conservative MPs voted against a plan to introduce a COVID pass for some events. [i.e. vaccine passports]

 

Conservative MPs voted against a plan to introduce a COVID pass for some events.

"The prime minister is so weak that without Labour votes last night, vital public health measures wouldn't have got through," the Labour leader said.

 

Evidence for both in this post.

[Mister M]

4 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

What rights have you gained over the period we're talking about, the last 20 to 30 years ?

As a gay man the rights I have gained:

 

1992: World Health Organization removes homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. From then on, I had the right not to be subject to tortuous aversion therapies.

 

1994:  Age of consent for gay men reduced to 18. Was already 18 by 1994, but a step in the right direction, nonetheless. Full equality in this matter still years away

 

2000: UK Government lifts ban on lesbians, gay and bisexual people serving in armed forces. 

 

2000: Scottish Government abolishes Section 28 of the Local Government Act. Hurray for them.

 

2001: Age of consent for gay/bi men lowered to 16. At long last.

 

2002: Equal rights for adoption to same-sex couples.

 

2003: Repeal of Clause 28 in England and Wales.

 

2003: Repeal of Clause 28 in England and Wales. 

Until 2003, employers could discriminate against LGBTQ people by not hiring them or promoting them, based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. LGBTQ people did not have protection from bullying and sometimes were not offered the same benefits as other colleagues, or were unfairly affected by rules at work. This legislation made it illegal to discriminate against lesbians, gay and bisexual people in the workplace.

 

2004: Civil Partnership Act

This Act was introduced by the Labour Government and gave same-sex couples the same rights and responsibilities as married heterosexual couples in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. It officially came into effect on 5 December 2005.

 

2008: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act

Same-sex couples were recognised as the legal parents of children conceived through the use of donated sperm, eggs or embryos.

 

2010: Equality Act

The Equality Act 2010 legislates for equal treatment in access to employment as well as private and public services, regardless of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

The Act also has several restrictions that cause concern, however. It allows religious and faith institutions in England, Scotland and Wales permission to refuse a same-sex marriage ceremony if it contravenes their beliefs.

 

2013: Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act

Although same-sex couples could enter into Civil Partnerships, they were not permitted to marry. This Act gave same-sex couples the opportunity to get married just like any other couple. Same-sex couples already in a Civil Partnership could also now convert this to a marriage.

 

2014: Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill (Scotland)

The marriage equality legislation passed by a vote of 108 – 15 in Scotland and received royal assent on 12 March 2014. Civil partnership could be exchanged for marriage certificates from 16 December 2014 and the first weddings took place on 31 December 2014.