Shameful

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I think this is one of the most perceptive comments I have read on this forum, or indeed anywhere else
I'd never looked at it like this before and I think you are absolutely spot on.

Thanks Mum!

 

[Palacefinder General]

Although I also agree with those saying Johnson is a clever man. But I think his intelligence is very much emotional intelligence - about winning popularity and playing political situations - not necessarily the same type of intelligence that makes someone a good political leader.

Three key facets of emotional intelligence are empathy, self-regulation and self-awareness. I’m not convinced Johnson possesses any of those three beyond the superficial ‘public face’ level.

 

[NooBHA]

I think about this a lot, its interesting. Its something to do with politics being tribal, so similar to football, red versus blue, where winning is the most important thing and it doesn't matter whether you play dirty, foul, cheat the ref, its just the winning that matters and you will defend your side regardless.

All of us are guilty of this to some degree - in a way we have to be because so few people, let alone politicians, are perfect non-hypocritical beings. We hoped Trump or Kavanaugh or Roy Moore would be brought down by revelations of sexual misconduct, but merely wince and then carry on when Biden is tarred with the same brush. Because what else can we do, only Biden can beat Trump now. Bigger picture stuff.

Now of course none of this is new, politics has always been tribal, people have always voted what their family or class or town have voted for generations, its instilled in people. But I think the advent of social media has made us more involved, far more people have influence (or feel they have influence these days). It also opens us up to more people on the other side to have an argument with, like on NSC, back in the 80's and 90's your social grouping tended to be of similar minds, the only people I would argue politics with was my family. Now there are hundreds of people to play this game with, thousands and thousands if you want to be active on Twitter. In America there are whole TV channels devoted to backing their side, in the UK we have newspapers doing that job.

And the more that people belligerently defend their side, the more you are likely to stick your heels in on your side, just driving the divide further apart.

What Trump did brilliantly, that I have never seen before from a top level politician but which is clearly the playbook of the moment, is refuse to apologise. Ever. He just doubled-down, deflected, ignored it, claimed the allegations were lies or smears, blamed the other side and the media - and always, always, presented himself as a tough, strong, in-control man who took no shit. And in a tribal world, that's what we look for in a leader - someone to lead our side, and, perhaps even more importantly, beat the other side. The most revered Brighton managers and players are the ones who talk sh*t about Palace, the ones who become hated by Palace.

The more the enemy hates them, the more we love them. And if they beat the enemy, we love them even more. But if they show weakness, then they lose stature as a leader.

So the masses don't want a leader to unite the people, they want one to beat the other side. Its not a universal, of course, many people in the middle are horrified and want sensible government, and sometimes we get it. Popular opinion was that it was the middle who decided elections. Recent evidence seems to counter that, that if you get a rabid, engaged base you will win on turnout alone without changing anyone's mind. Landslides used to happen when one side was obviously much better than the other, but all elections seem to be close these days. And slogans and campaigns seem different now, everyone campaigns on being the Change candidate, the Outsider candidate, taking down the Political Elite. It used to be about competence and ability and policies.

Both sides do this, so whether it will ever change our political-path long-term, I don't know. But both the Republicans and the Tories saw an opportunity to get the masses from the poorer, more ignored, traditionally-working class parts of the country on their side, saw disillusionment about their traditional left-wing leaders, whether Clinton or Corbyn, and pounced. They've presented tough, take-no-shit leadership and won elections with their support.

We can thank coronavirus for taking the wind out of their sails. In a crisis you need national unity government. In America they have barely attempted it, the cracks are showing and no, I don't think Trump can win in November, not with the economy the way it is. The economy was the only reason he could have been re-elected - he's not liked by the suburbs and his victory in 2016 was driven as much by dislike of Clinton as support for him. Joe Biden, for all his flaws, is an everyman kind of guy. He's acceptable.

As for the UK, Johnson made a good stab at the unity thing, and it was working well enough til fairly recently, but now shattered by the Cummings thing. I don't know whether a full-on Trump style leadership will work here, for one thing I imagine its impossible to turn the media into 'fake news', the BBC are too well respected and the media will on the most part defend their own ahead of the government.

But interesting times, as ever

That's a very accurate synopsis.

Doesn't mean I like it - It is like you say ''Tribal'' - Almost like ''Gang Warfare'' - park your allegiances behind the Biggest Bully in School for self protection. but you would have thought that when you grow up and are no longer a child that people would think more for themselves and be able to identify absolute Twats and steer themselves away from them.

I do think you are correct but like i said ''I don't like it'' and find it a tad worrying.

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

I think about this a lot, its interesting. Its something to do with politics being tribal, so similar to football, red versus blue, where winning is the most important thing and it doesn't matter whether you play dirty, foul, cheat the ref, its just the winning that matters and you will defend your side regardless.

All of us are guilty of this to some degree - in a way we have to be because so few people, let alone politicians, are perfect non-hypocritical beings. We hoped Trump or Kavanaugh or Roy Moore would be brought down by revelations of sexual misconduct, but merely wince and then carry on when Biden is tarred with the same brush. Because what else can we do, only Biden can beat Trump now. Bigger picture stuff.

Now of course none of this is new, politics has always been tribal, people have always voted what their family or class or town have voted for generations, its instilled in people. But I think the advent of social media has made us more involved, far more people have influence (or feel they have influence these days). It also opens us up to more people on the other side to have an argument with, like on NSC, back in the 80's and 90's your social grouping tended to be of similar minds, the only people I would argue politics with was my family. Now there are hundreds of people to play this game with, thousands and thousands if you want to be active on Twitter. In America there are whole TV channels devoted to backing their side, in the UK we have newspapers doing that job.

And the more that people belligerently defend their side, the more you are likely to stick your heels in on your side, just driving the divide further apart.

What Trump did brilliantly, that I have never seen before from a top level politician but which is clearly the playbook of the moment, is refuse to apologise. Ever. He just doubled-down, deflected, ignored it, claimed the allegations were lies or smears, blamed the other side and the media - and always, always, presented himself as a tough, strong, in-control man who took no shit. And in a tribal world, that's what we look for in a leader - someone to lead our side, and, perhaps even more importantly, beat the other side. The most revered Brighton managers and players are the ones who talk sh*t about Palace, the ones who become hated by Palace.

The more the enemy hates them, the more we love them. And if they beat the enemy, we love them even more. But if they show weakness, then they lose stature as a leader.

So the masses don't want a leader to unite the people, they want one to beat the other side. Its not a universal, of course, many people in the middle are horrified and want sensible government, and sometimes we get it. Popular opinion was that it was the middle who decided elections. Recent evidence seems to counter that, that if you get a rabid, engaged base you will win on turnout alone without changing anyone's mind. Landslides used to happen when one side was obviously much better than the other, but all elections seem to be close these days. And slogans and campaigns seem different now, everyone campaigns on being the Change candidate, the Outsider candidate, taking down the Political Elite. It used to be about competence and ability and policies.

Both sides do this, so whether it will ever change our political-path long-term, I don't know. But both the Republicans and the Tories saw an opportunity to get the masses from the poorer, more ignored, traditionally-working class parts of the country on their side, saw disillusionment about their traditional left-wing leaders, whether Clinton or Corbyn, and pounced. They've presented tough, take-no-shit leadership and won elections with their support.

We can thank coronavirus for taking the wind out of their sails. In a crisis you need national unity government. In America they have barely attempted it, the cracks are showing and no, I don't think Trump can win in November, not with the economy the way it is. The economy was the only reason he could have been re-elected - he's not liked by the suburbs and his victory in 2016 was driven as much by dislike of Clinton as support for him. Joe Biden, for all his flaws, is an everyman kind of guy. He's acceptable.

As for the UK, Johnson made a good stab at the unity thing, and it was working well enough til fairly recently, but now shattered by the Cummings thing. I don't know whether a full-on Trump style leadership will work here, for one thing I imagine its impossible to turn the media into 'fake news', the BBC are too well respected and the media will on the most part defend their own ahead of the government.

But interesting times, as ever

Great post. Very well explained.

 

[lawros left foot]

I think about this a lot, its interesting. Its something to do with politics being tribal, so similar to football, red versus blue, where winning is the most important thing and it doesn't matter whether you play dirty, foul, cheat the ref, its just the winning that matters and you will defend your side regardless.

All of us are guilty of this to some degree - in a way we have to be because so few people, let alone politicians, are perfect non-hypocritical beings. We hoped Trump or Kavanaugh or Roy Moore would be brought down by revelations of sexual misconduct, but merely wince and then carry on when Biden is tarred with the same brush. Because what else can we do, only Biden can beat Trump now. Bigger picture stuff.

Now of course none of this is new, politics has always been tribal, people have always voted what their family or class or town have voted for generations, its instilled in people. But I think the advent of social media has made us more involved, far more people have influence (or feel they have influence these days). It also opens us up to more people on the other side to have an argument with, like on NSC, back in the 80's and 90's your social grouping tended to be of similar minds, the only people I would argue politics with was my family. Now there are hundreds of people to play this game with, thousands and thousands if you want to be active on Twitter. In America there are whole TV channels devoted to backing their side, in the UK we have newspapers doing that job.

And the more that people belligerently defend their side, the more you are likely to stick your heels in on your side, just driving the divide further apart.

What Trump did brilliantly, that I have never seen before from a top level politician but which is clearly the playbook of the moment, is refuse to apologise. Ever. He just doubled-down, deflected, ignored it, claimed the allegations were lies or smears, blamed the other side and the media - and always, always, presented himself as a tough, strong, in-control man who took no shit. And in a tribal world, that's what we look for in a leader - someone to lead our side, and, perhaps even more importantly, beat the other side. The most revered Brighton managers and players are the ones who talk sh*t about Palace, the ones who become hated by Palace.

The more the enemy hates them, the more we love them. And if they beat the enemy, we love them even more. But if they show weakness, then they lose stature as a leader.

So the masses don't want a leader to unite the people, they want one to beat the other side. Its not a universal, of course, many people in the middle are horrified and want sensible government, and sometimes we get it. Popular opinion was that it was the middle who decided elections. Recent evidence seems to counter that, that if you get a rabid, engaged base you will win on turnout alone without changing anyone's mind. Landslides used to happen when one side was obviously much better than the other, but all elections seem to be close these days. And slogans and campaigns seem different now, everyone campaigns on being the Change candidate, the Outsider candidate, taking down the Political Elite. It used to be about competence and ability and policies.

Both sides do this, so whether it will ever change our political-path long-term, I don't know. But both the Republicans and the Tories saw an opportunity to get the masses from the poorer, more ignored, traditionally-working class parts of the country on their side, saw disillusionment about their traditional left-wing leaders, whether Clinton or Corbyn, and pounced. They've presented tough, take-no-shit leadership and won elections with their support.

We can thank coronavirus for taking the wind out of their sails. In a crisis you need national unity government. In America they have barely attempted it, the cracks are showing and no, I don't think Trump can win in November, not with the economy the way it is. The economy was the only reason he could have been re-elected - he's not liked by the suburbs and his victory in 2016 was driven as much by dislike of Clinton as support for him. Joe Biden, for all his flaws, is an everyman kind of guy. He's acceptable.

As for the UK, Johnson made a good stab at the unity thing, and it was working well enough til fairly recently, but now shattered by the Cummings thing. I don't know whether a full-on Trump style leadership will work here, for one thing I imagine its impossible to turn the media into 'fake news', the BBC are too well respected and the media will on the most part defend their own ahead of the government.

But interesting times, as ever

Excellent post.

One of the biggest arguments my late father and I had was about Thatcher. Although he was no Tory but not as left wing as myself ( few are), he maintained she was a good PM because she was strong and confident, even if he didn’t agree with most of her policies. I took the view she was the worst PM of modern times, until recently, as her policies were the antithesis of everything I abhorred. My point was that Stalin was strong and confident, but, an absolute disaster for the Russian people, his was that every good politician needs to have a little bit of the psychopath about them.

If I could have this discussion again with him,(I wish) the phrase style over substance would no doubt be used by both of us.

 

[NooBHA]

Excellent post.

One of the biggest arguments my late father and I had was about Thatcher. Although he was no Tory but not as left wing as myself ( few are), he maintained she was a good PM because she was strong and confident, even if he didn’t agree with most of her policies. I took the view she was the worst PM of modern times, until recently, as her policies were the antithesis of everything I abhorred. My point was that Stalin was strong and confident, but, an absolute disaster for the Russian people, his was that every good politician needs to have a little bit of the psychopath about them.

If I could have this discussion again with him,(I wish) the phrase style over substance would no doubt be used by both of us.

This is an ironic analogy

Stalin seemed hell bent on culling the population of his own country. Dare I say it Johnson at the very beginning seemed to be, not adverse to this with his leanings early on to the ''Herd Immunity'' theory.

 

[CheeseRolls]

Absolutely. And you have to remember you have to be pretty damned bright to get into Oxford in the first place - the Oxbridge universities are very picky about their intake.

Rob Andrew is another example of someone, who got into Oxbridge without glowing academic references.

Study and learning are good like skills in general and no one is stupid who invests their time in such activities. There is also a dynamic tension between getting a degree to further your career and studying something for which you have a passion. Oxbridge is a recognised gold standard. Where Classics sits on the gold standard spectrum between the luge and 100 metres sprint, I will leave you to make your own mind up. I would be more likely to be deferential to someone who had studied in a truly Internationally competitive field like Mathematics, Science or Engineering, where the colleges stake their reputation, rather than in the polo events of Classics and Land Economics.

 

[daveinplzen]

So, im seeing plenty of 'lefties' jibes here and elsewhere.
'Righties', do you believe this the sorr of government you want, and why?

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Excellent post.

One of the biggest arguments my late father and I had was about Thatcher. Although he was no Tory but not as left wing as myself ( few are), he maintained she was a good PM because she was strong and confident, even if he didn’t agree with most of her policies. I took the view she was the worst PM of modern times, until recently, as her policies were the antithesis of everything I abhorred. My point was that Stalin was strong and confident, but, an absolute disaster for the Russian people, his was that every good politician needs to have a little bit of the psychopath about them.

If I could have this discussion again with him,(I wish) the phrase style over substance would no doubt be used by both of us.

Strong and confident, absolutely. My 80-year old father-in-law embodies this style of thinking, to support the strong and confident guy regardless. More than that, he likes supporting the guy that the media attack, its as if standing up to a baying media makes them stronger in his eyes. It means that his political views end up being all over the place, but he doesn't care, he likes personalities.

So we have a man who voted Remain, is still fervently opposed to leaving the EU, but voted for the Brexit Party in the European elections because he likes Farage. A man who goes around telling everyone that this is the worst government in his lifetime, how Johnson is absolutely pathetic and the worst prime minister ever, but happily defends his vote for Anne-Marie Morris, that most ERG-er of Tories, because he likes her and she replied to an email of his once. A man who liked Corbyn, hated Blair, likes Trump, hated Bush, and now is a huge fan of Cummings purely because of this latest outrage. A Daily Mail reader, the only bit of this that makes sense!

Obviously he's completely hatstand, and old country-bloke of aristocratic heritage who drinks far too much cider. But being strong and tough cuts through. We don't want our leaders to show weakness.

Ironically, Johnson not sacking Cummings is a big flashing neon sign of weakness. I thought he was going to come on TV on Sunday and yesterday and completely own the Cummings-case, claim that the buck stops with him, slap Cummings down, say he was wrong to do what he did but he wasn't going to sack him. But instead he made a few statements that he trusted him fully, repeated Cummings' declaration of innocence and then slipped back into bluster and deflection. Ultimately he let Cummings make a much better defence of his situation than Boris ever did.

We all know who's in charge now. That must eat at Boris.

----

The missing part of the 'strong and confident' approach is Empathy. Trump doesn't have it. My father-in-law completely fails that test, doesn't mean he's not individually loving and caring, but to the wider world at large its completely absent. In Boris' case it seems part of his act. Obama had it in spades. Cameron also displayed it. But empathy seems to be something that varies from person to person, and I would love to see some studies on this in relation to politics and the political divide.

 

[GT49er]

Rob Andrew is another example of someone, who got into Oxbridge without glowing academic references.

Study and learning are good like skills in general and no one is stupid who invests their time in such activities. There is also a dynamic tension between getting a degree to further your career and studying something for which you have a passion. Oxbridge is a recognised gold standard. Where Classics sits on the gold standard spectrum between the luge and 100 metres sprint, I will leave you to make your own mind up. I would be more likely to be deferential to someone who had studied in a truly Internationally competitive field like Mathematics, Science or Engineering, where the colleges stake their reputation, rather than in the polo events of Classics and Land Economics.

Very high. Johnson did classics and it's a bloody difficult subject.

 

[nicko31]

I think about this a lot, its interesting. Its something to do with politics being tribal, so similar to football, red versus blue, where winning is the most important thing and it doesn't matter whether you play dirty, foul, cheat the ref, its just the winning that matters and you will defend your side regardless.

All of us are guilty of this to some degree - in a way we have to be because so few people, let alone politicians, are perfect non-hypocritical beings. We hoped Trump or Kavanaugh or Roy Moore would be brought down by revelations of sexual misconduct, but merely wince and then carry on when Biden is tarred with the same brush. Because what else can we do, only Biden can beat Trump now. Bigger picture stuff.

Now of course none of this is new, politics has always been tribal, people have always voted what their family or class or town have voted for generations, its instilled in people. But I think the advent of social media has made us more involved, far more people have influence (or feel they have influence these days). It also opens us up to more people on the other side to have an argument with, like on NSC, back in the 80's and 90's your social grouping tended to be of similar minds, the only people I would argue politics with was my family. Now there are hundreds of people to play this game with, thousands and thousands if you want to be active on Twitter. In America there are whole TV channels devoted to backing their side, in the UK we have newspapers doing that job.

And the more that people belligerently defend their side, the more you are likely to stick your heels in on your side, just driving the divide further apart.

What Trump did brilliantly, that I have never seen before from a top level politician but which is clearly the playbook of the moment, is refuse to apologise. Ever. He just doubled-down, deflected, ignored it, claimed the allegations were lies or smears, blamed the other side and the media - and always, always, presented himself as a tough, strong, in-control man who took no shit. And in a tribal world, that's what we look for in a leader - someone to lead our side, and, perhaps even more importantly, beat the other side. The most revered Brighton managers and players are the ones who talk sh*t about Palace, the ones who become hated by Palace.

The more the enemy hates them, the more we love them. And if they beat the enemy, we love them even more. But if they show weakness, then they lose stature as a leader.

So the masses don't want a leader to unite the people, they want one to beat the other side. Its not a universal, of course, many people in the middle are horrified and want sensible government, and sometimes we get it. Popular opinion was that it was the middle who decided elections. Recent evidence seems to counter that, that if you get a rabid, engaged base you will win on turnout alone without changing anyone's mind. Landslides used to happen when one side was obviously much better than the other, but all elections seem to be close these days. And slogans and campaigns seem different now, everyone campaigns on being the Change candidate, the Outsider candidate, taking down the Political Elite. It used to be about competence and ability and policies.

Both sides do this, so whether it will ever change our political-path long-term, I don't know. But both the Republicans and the Tories saw an opportunity to get the masses from the poorer, more ignored, traditionally-working class parts of the country on their side, saw disillusionment about their traditional left-wing leaders, whether Clinton or Corbyn, and pounced. They've presented tough, take-no-shit leadership and won elections with their support.

We can thank coronavirus for taking the wind out of their sails. In a crisis you need national unity government. In America they have barely attempted it, the cracks are showing and no, I don't think Trump can win in November, not with the economy the way it is. The economy was the only reason he could have been re-elected - he's not liked by the suburbs and his victory in 2016 was driven as much by dislike of Clinton as support for him. Joe Biden, for all his flaws, is an everyman kind of guy. He's acceptable.

As for the UK, Johnson made a good stab at the unity thing, and it was working well enough til fairly recently, but now shattered by the Cummings thing. I don't know whether a full-on Trump style leadership will work here, for one thing I imagine its impossible to turn the media into 'fake news', the BBC are too well respected and the media will on the most part defend their own ahead of the government.

But interesting times, as ever

The offshore media Baron's would love to get Ofcom torn up and broadcast media opened up into a CNN v Fox free for all. With this lot in charge they might try and do it, imagine a 24/7 Guido Faulkes News channel dedicated to Johnson and his cronies...

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

The offshore media Baron's would love to get Ofcom torn up and broadcast media opened up into a CNN v Fox free for all. With this lot in charge they might try and do it, imagine a 24/7 Guido Faulkes News channel dedicated to Johnson and his cronies...

Is there actually a law against that? And considering I can get lots of international news channels through the various digital TV packages, perhaps its just a matter of time?

Have to say I did use to enjoy watching Fox News for the comedy value, especially in the days of O'Reilly followed by Hannity followed by Beck

 

[CheeseRolls]

Very high. Johnson did classics and it's a bloody difficult subject.

Isn't that a circular reference?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

 

[nicko31]

Is there actually a law against that? And considering I can get lots of international news channels through the various digital TV packages, perhaps its just a matter of time?

Have to say I did use to enjoy watching Fox News for the comedy value, especially in the days of O'Reilly followed by Hannity followed by Beck

Well if you want a radio or TV licence to broadcast to these isles you need to comply with Ofcom rules.

To ensure that news, in whatever form, is reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality.

There's nothing to stop anyone making up a Channel and putting it on Youtube or making a podcast, that's different

Yes, Fox from afar does have some entertainment value, the problem is its not supposed to be comedy and people do actually take it seriously and get groomed...

 

[rippleman]

Possibly. He was on an educational conveyor belt designed for his background. A 2:1 from Oxford is an achievement for sure. We will never know what he would achieved from another background. I have met many very bright people over the years who have not done a lot academically. Who knows.

I was once as a manager at the largest professional services firm in the world. They had a policy of recruiting staff directly from the best universities around and with firsts or 2:1s. Cracking academic records the lot of them. But most didn't know how to write a letter or speak to clients on the telephone and only a very few had any commonsense at all.

Being academically gifted is absolutely no guarantee that you have the skillsets to survive in the job market. Our PM is the most clear example of the triumph of ambition over ability.

 

[rippleman]

Absolutely. And you have to remember you have to be pretty damned bright to get into Oxford in the first place - the Oxbridge universities are very picky about their intake.

Totally agree. Oxbridge are very picky with their intake.

They don't generally pick those who have been State educated and/or are of BAME heritage.

 

[GT49er]

Totally agree. Oxbridge are very picky with their intake.

They don't generally pick those who have been State educated and/or are of BAME heritage.

True - but that's largely because they'll be picking the ones with the highest results/academic performance.....oh, and by the way, three years ago, Cambridge undergraduate intake contained more black students than pupils from Eton.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

True - but that's largely because they'll be picking the ones with the highest results/academic performance.....oh, and by the way, three years ago, Cambridge undergraduate intake contained more black students than pupils from Eton.

I should ****ing well hope so! Only 260 Pupils leave Eton each year!

 

[Dick Swiveller]

The way Hancock just cut off Peston was full on Trump. He gets 25 seconds, no eye contact and cut off before a follow up. Jed Eskimo from the Cumbrian Pig Farmers Weekly gets 5 minutes. We cannot stand for this slide into Trump politics.

 

[aftershavedave]

The way Hancock just cut off Peston was full on Trump. He gets 25 seconds, no eye contact and cut off before a follow up. Jed Eskimo from the Cumbrian Pig Farmers Weekly gets 5 minutes. We cannot stand for this slide into Trump politics.

absolutely this and shocking, shocking, shocking