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

Yes .

I suspect you are on the wrong thread, though.

Am I the only person in the world who hasnt watched any of Happy Valley

Yammy

Doodledog

Who is that addressed to, Yammy?

No one in particular just anyone who thinks it applies to them.

I meant the Some People on this thread, or the Some People on N&P?

Joseanne

Silly fool me!
Wrong thread. I'm having a little dabble on the N & P threads at the moment, because SO FAR no one is being rude or discouraging.
Maybe this thread here did some good after all?

Joseanne - thank you for your kind words a few pages back. I’ve just read through this long thread. I sometimes find it difficult not to refer to ‘some posters’. I try to avoid getting into rows on line so try not to name some posters, though I don’t always manage it.

I expect most of us who are interested in news and politics fall into what could be seen as left, middle right about many key issues. I’m broadly left but not left enough for many. I enjoy reading other points of view. I enjoy germanshepherd’s mum and GrannyGravy’s contributions on news and politics.

Many regulars are well informed - Whitewave, MaizieD, rosie, Galaxy, Doodledog to name only a few. FannyC for making me laugh. I’d go on but happy valley is about to start

Doodledog

Who is that addressed to, Yammy?

No one in particular just anyone who thinks it applies to them.

Who is that addressed to, Yammy?

I think the thread title is insulting reffering to posters as one of those.
I had a argument with someone who made a racist comment. She reffered to me sneerily as one of those do gooders.
Goady post if I am honest.

If this post has done nothing else it showed those that like to argue and people who are warry will have noticed your names and will probably give sites where your name appears a wide birth in future, perhaps more than they have been.
Instead of encouraging others to join in, I think you have done the opposite. Just my opinion and I am allowed that.

It’s a line from The Hobbit, Gollum is trying to solve a riddle,
😄

Oreo

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.

Thanks for replying. And no I am not French- I have lived in England since I was a teenager, and have British nationality since 1970. And yes, I know exactly what it means.

But thanks for coming back (no need for the 'precious' bit, though).

Silly fool me!
Wrong thread. I'm having a little dabble on the N & P threads at the moment, because SO FAR no one is being rude or discouraging.
Maybe this thread here did some good after all?

I'm learning here, so bear with me.
Do the rich not get richer by re investing their wealth, often in shares? So their money makes money, yes? How can it be at the expense of everyone else if they then expand their businesses and employ poorer people, (though they should of course pay them properly)? Doesn't the economy then grow for all.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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😄

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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