Profile on John McDonnell

[french frank]

am I right in thinking that we aren't supposed to discuss 'politics' on these boards?

We're on 'Ideas & Theory' - a board I set up for the discussion of ideas and theory in a non partisan way so that it didn't result in irreconcilable squabbling



For those who don't know who John McDonnell is, go back to the OP and listen to the interview. Or Google.

[cloughie]

Who's John McDonnell? Never erd of im!

He’s the new John Prescott!

[JimD]

He's the Labour Jacob Rees Mogg.

[eighthobstruction]

....what ever is happening with Labour Party.....they are failing to identify to the nation WHO the prominent [if that word can be used for such a 'nil by mouth' enterprise] individuals in the shadow cabinet might be, other than the 3 obvious (and Dianne Abbott whether she has merit or not, is the object of laughter)....

[eighthobstruction]

Who's John McDonnell? Never erd of im!

....not sure, but I understand his brother played on the wing for Celtic....

[Dave2002]

We're on 'Ideas & Theory' - a board I set up for the discussion of ideas and theory in a non partisan way so that it didn't result in irreconcilable squabbling



For those who don't know who John McDonnell is, go back to the OP and listen to the interview. Or Google.

Fair enough.

I glanced at the thread title and I first I tried to figure out if I'd ever heard any pieces of music by him, when he lived and where, etc. Then it dawned on me .... after about 30 seconds of reading the posts.

If we're allowed to write about a person, are we still banned from "talking" about Brexit - even at a conceptual level - which is arguably much more important, and will have more impact on most of us, and even music and musicians?

[french frank]

Fair enough.

I glanced at the thread title and I first I tried to figure out if I'd ever heard any pieces of music by him, when he lived and where, etc. Then it dawned on me .... after about 30 seconds of reading the posts.

If we're allowed to write about a person, are we still banned from "talking" about Brexit - even at a conceptual level - which is arguably much more important, and will have more impact on most of us, and even music and musicians?

The problem is 'talking about'. What some people call 'discussion' amounts to no more than dismissive one-line wisecracks which prompt others to retaliate. Then, as now, they're no longer talking about subject at all. No, it isn't possible to talk about B***** on a conceptual level unless everyone is on the same side. For heavens sake - we've had enough examples in this forum already. The Inability of Some People to Discuss Controversial Subjects on a Conceptual Level might be an idea to discuss. On another thread.

[teamsaint]

The problem is 'talking about'. What some people call 'discussion' amounts to no more than dismissive one-line wisecracks which prompt others to retaliate. Then, as now, they're no longer talking about subject at all. No, it isn't possible to talk about B***** on a conceptual level unless everyone is on the same side. For heavens sake - we've had enough examples in this forum already. The Inability of Some People to Discuss Controversial Subjects on a Conceptual Level might be an idea to discuss. On another thread.

But it ought to be possible to talk about the practicalities, outcomes, and indeed the benefits ( and otherwise) of EU membership . There was an article by David Owen discussing the possibility of using EEA as a practical solution to the dangers of the current situation.

http://www.lorddavidowen.co.uk/the-eea-is-a-credible-strategy-for-the-transition-period-argues-lord-owen/

It ought to be able to discuss pieces such as this, and the opportunities that it suggests, in a sensible manner.

Isn't there a big grey area where conceptual meets practical, and where the area becomes grey depends on ones own beliefs and opinions?

[french frank]

Again, following up on Ideas & Theory , I would ask why isn't it possible to discuss "these things" in a sensible manner?

I think it's because the people who want to leave do so for one set of reasons, and the people who want to remain do so for a different set of reasons. In the article you cite, Owen is starting from the position of one who wanted us to leave in the first place. Consequently, his suggestion for all the 'opportunities' his solution provides may well be sound; but it doesn't begin to touch the reasons why remainers want to remain. It leaves a kind of, So what? feeling of non-relevance. And I suspect that might unite some leavers with the remainers - albeit that they have different points of view.

But it ought to be possible to talk about the practicalities, outcomes, and indeed the benefits ( and otherwise) of EU membership . There was an article by David Owen discussing the possibility of using EEA as a practical solution to the dangers of the current situation.

http://www.lorddavidowen.co.uk/the-eea-is-a-credible-strategy-for-the-transition-period-argues-lord-owen/

It ought to be able to discuss pieces such as this, and the opportunities that it suggests, in a sensible manner.

Isn't there a big grey area where conceptual meets practical, and where the area becomes grey depends on ones own beliefs and opinions?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

But it ought to be possible to talk about the practicalities, outcomes, and indeed the benefits ( and otherwise) of EU membership .
It ought to be able to discuss pieces such as this, and the opportunities that it suggests, in a sensible manner.

Indeed it ought. And I'm pretty sure that if Forumistas gathered in a room, we could do this. But in print, and with the absence of hearing a speaker's tone of voice, such discussions inevitably and rapidly deteriorate into hostilities. It does seem that, when we/some of us cannot hear how somebody is speaking, the default setting is to presume that an opinion we disagree with is proof of a scoundrel.

The Hosts - finding their e-Mail filled with "Reported Posts" (in which x complains about y, at exactly the same time that y complains about x) generally find it saves time - and online tempers - just to close discussions and advise people to avoid the subject.

As frenchie says, there have been more than sufficient examples on the Forum to demonstrate that the "ought" ain't delivered in practice.

[teamsaint]

Again, following up on Ideas & Theory , I would ask why isn't it possible to discuss "these things" in a sensible manner?

I think it's because the people who want to leave do so for one set of reasons, and the people who want to remain do so for a different set of reasons. In the article you cite, Owen is starting from the position of one who wanted us to leave in the first place. Consequently, his suggestion for all the 'opportunities' his solution provides may well be sound; but it doesn't begin to touch the reasons why remainers want to remain. It leaves a kind of, So what? feeling of non-relevance. And I suspect that might unite some leavers with the remainers - albeit that they have different points of view.

And I think the point I was driving at was that his article is, (although as you say it is in the context of him being a Leaver) essentially practical. There are no doubt some remainers who have accepted that the government( and in fact the "opposition") is set on leaving , and to the current timetable, and that given that, a search for what they might regard as the least bad way of doing this is a legitimate discussion. Equally I think there are leavers ( and I suspect that Owen would be among them) who may value some or many aspects of the EU, and seek ( again quite legitimately ) to retain some of those through the leaving process.

Uniting anybody on the two "sides" seems to me to be a worthwhile possibility right now.

Anyway, I should take Ferney's hint and leave it now.

[ardcarp]

Maybe I shouldn't have started the thread. I hope my OP was neutral-ish though I admit by #6 I may have come off the fence a bit. However, I did think the R4 programme (which wasn't an interview with John McD) did its best to give a factual and balanced account of the man.

[Serial_Apologist]

I predict that when the antisemitism business and Trump phenomenon are sufficiently out of the collective memory, say ten years further down the road when the man will have been persuaded to resign rather than be impeached, and a new Tory/LibDem coalition in power, enough materials will be found for a multilayered plotline blockbuster, offering the full picture of who was responsible, who really started it all, to what purposes, and who stood to benefit. People will say, "if only we'd known at the time" and the feeling of cynicism and impotence towards politics will be confirmed, since it will all have come out too late, as is nearly always the case.