The Dictatorship of the Etonariat

[sidneyfox]

I don't think I can add much to that.

Ok, I’ll try and help you. Think about BR’s flying teapot and then consider the validity of Richard’s statement. Then think about what a definition of racism might be and think how Boris and the rest of us measure up against it.

[John Locke]

Ok, I’ll try and help you. Think about BR’s flying teapot and then consider the validity of Richard’s statement. Then think about what a definition of racism might be and think how Boris and the rest of us measure up against it.

Well, I could take out 'racist' to satisfy those who question the term here, but I said I couldn't add anything. That was possibly not true, if I were to think about it for a while. Philanderer?

[sidneyfox]

Well, I could take out 'racist' to satisfy those who question the term here, but I said I couldn't add anything. That was possibly not true, if I were to think about it for a while. Philanderer?

I was thinking that given your avatar and important philosophical handle, you might do better than build on Richard’s unfalsifiable claim. I took you too seriously.

[John Locke]

I was thinking that given your avatar and important philosophical handle, you might do better than build on Richard’s unfalsifiable claim. I took you too seriously.

Yes, I have feet of clay like so many of us. But it does depend on how tightly one defines 'racism' and racist'. I have, for instance, heard it said that any comment about an individual which attributes a racial origin to a characteristic is 'racist'. To say that a person of colour has a characteristic sense of rhythm is 'racist'. That would not be my definition as it seems to me to devalue and trivialise the description of what are hateful words and deeds which should be condemned by all right-thinking people..

[John Locke]

I have been giving this further thought and it seems to me that unless one is dealing with considerable more watertight terms, the matter of proof is irrelevant. It could be that the previous person had an opinion on what was racist and what was not, and that in his view Mr Johnson is racist. One might need separate grades: criminally racist, offensively racist, provocatively racist, mildly racist, teetering on the very margins of racist - all of which might be described as 'racist'. In the case of Mr Johnson, I would call him 'provocatively racist', since he was apparently attempting to show what an amusing fellow he is by speaking of 'letter boxes' and 'bank robbers'. If people are offended, then he is being offensively racist to them. Such matters do not approach the concrete analogy of demonstrating, or not, the existence of flying teapots.

[sidneyfox]

Yes, I have feet of clay like so many of us. But it does depend on how tightly one defines 'racism' and racist'. I have, for instance, heard it said that any comment about an individual which attributes a racial origin to a characteristic is 'racist'. To say that a person of colour has a characteristic sense of rhythm is 'racist'. That would not be my definition as it seems to me to devalue and trivialise the description of what are hateful words and deeds which should be condemned by all right-thinking people..

I think you may be overstating your importance with your reference to feet of clay. I simply expected more, given howbyou have set up your on-Line persona. No admiration or reverence from me.

I agree, there are more insanitary racist references than ‘good dancing’ and a sweet-spot for rhythm, etc.

[sidneyfox]

I have been giving this further thought and it seems to me that unless one is dealing with considerable more watertight terms, the matter of proof is irrelevant. It could be that the previous person had an opinion on what was racist and what was not, and that in his view Mr Johnson is racist. One might need separate grades: criminally racist, offensively racist, provocatively racist, mildly racist, teetering on the very margins of racist - all of which might be described as 'racist'. In the case of Mr Johnson, I would call him 'provocatively racist', since he was apparently attempting to show what an amusing fellow he is by speaking of 'letter boxes' and 'bank robbers'. If people are offended, then he is being offensively racist to them. Such matters do not approach the concrete analogy of demonstrating, or not, the existence of flying teapots.

I think you should give it some more further thought.

[Barbirollians]

As always I remain utterly baffled why the hosts and moderators of this forum tolerate the behaviour of Beef Oven no matter under what alias he posts.

Weakness in the face of his appalling behaviour just encourages him .

Time for another sabbatical from here .

[CGR]

Yes, I have feet of clay like so many of us. But it does depend on how tightly one defines 'racism' and racist'. I have, for instance, heard it said that any comment about an individual which attributes a racial origin to a characteristic is 'racist'. To say that a person of colour has a characteristic sense of rhythm is 'racist'. That would not be my definition as it seems to me to devalue and trivialise the description of what are hateful words and deeds which should be condemned by all right-thinking people..

Boris's comments were in no way racist.

[CGR]

If the local association here is anything to go by, there has been a considerable influx of entrists from the likes of UKIP and the Brexit Party of late. Now they have no MP sitting under their banner. I don't see the now LibDem MP holding the seat in the forthcoming General Election.

Very few 'entrists'. Mostly ex-members of the party who were temporarily tempted by UKIP returning to the fold.

[Bella Kemp]

I think our MIT "academic" chum (https://cgr.mit.edu) is just spoofing.

You're right Mr GongGong. CGR may either be someone very silly, or actually one of Mr Putin's bots - those computer-generated things that sow discord on Facebook and other places. It's fascinating to observe how effective it is: witness the rather more personal attacks that have appeared on this thread since its intervention. Better for all to simply avoid commenting on whatever it comes up with. When I taught in primary schools I was forever telling the children to avoid being upset by the silly ones and that the best remedy was to walk away. If you are real GCR, God bless you and may you have a little think before you post.

[sidneyfox]

Boris's comments were in no way racist.

True, and the accusation of racism is thrown about so much these days that it’s almost lost it’s meaning. Although Boris seems to be a rather unsavoury character. But is he that out of kilter with most of the rest of parliament and its appalling behaviour? British politics, it’s procedures, statesmen and decisions were once looked upon as the gold standard on how to govern. IMHO, we are now a laughing stock.

[Dave2002]

True, and the accusation of racism is thrown about so much these days that it’s almost lost it’s meaning. Although Boris seems to be a rather unsavoury character. But is he that out of kilter with most of the rest of parliament and its appalling behaviour? British politics, it’s procedures, statesmen and decisions were once looked upon as the gold standard on how to govern. IMHO, we are now a laughing stock.

I may posssibly agree with you about the charge of racism wrt BJ. I definitely agree with you about his seeming unsavouriness.
Re the Parliamentarians having appalling behaviour, I would suggest that this is not true of most of them, or certainly not most of them most of the time.

Rightly or wrongly, people in the UK live in a democracy with many aspects. This is generally thought to be a better option than living under rulers or dictators. Although technically the UK is a monarchy, the monarch is, I believe, subservient to Parliament. Thus at the highest level of governance in the UK, we have Parliament, which is a representative democracy, with not quite universal suffrage. Each MP is a representative for constituency, and the constituencies are supposed to be roughly comparable in terms of number of constituents, though that is not feasible, and of course sometimes boundaries are changed possibly to favour one or other political group - in the worst cases clear gerrymandering. However, the representative areas are generally more representative than the Rotten Boroughs of previous centuries.

MPs are elected from time to time - at present every five years, unless special circumstances arise. If we are to retain fixed Parliamentary terms, I do wish the period would be reduced to four years, or perhaps even three. The Fixed Term Act was arguably introduced to avoid some problems, but recent events seems to suggest that it leads to as many problems as it solves. In this respect it is similar to reforms in some of the political parties. The changes to the way leaders of the Labour party are elected seemed quite a good idea initially, but has led clearly to the behaviour which we now cally entryism. Likewise, the Conservatives have changed their rules about the selection of leaders, but the approach adopted also seems to have major flaws. The party system which operates in the UK does not require a change of leadership in the governing party to cause a General Election, so that in some cases it can reasonably be argued that the PM has not been elected "democratically", but only by a biased process by a possibly very small subset of the overall population.

Our liberal "democracy" does, however, permit parties to form with their own rules.

Having longer periods beween elections is sometimes argued as providing stabilty, but in the case of some leaders who become dictatorial, they frequently try to gain more power, and to keep extending the length of each period of governance. We can see example of this in other countries - possibly including the one from which you appear to have written.

At lower levels of governance UK citizens still have, for the most part, what might be called democratic procedures, but for regional and local government the election and selection processes are not the same as for the highest levels as used in Parliament. At the lowest levels of UK governance, democracy is somewhat different. Some of the procedures are based on the "put up or shut up approach". If for example, a council has one or two "difficult members" it may be very difficult to remove them from office, as some elections are based on a quota. It is not possible to prevent such difficult members from standing for "election" as they may be eligible to do so. If the quota is not exceeded by those put forward, then all the nominees are "elected". It is only if more candidates come forward to stand for election that a "proper" election takes place, and even then it may be very hard to prevent awkward squad candidates from mustering enough support to get back. However, awkward people who seek to gain access to councils will generally have their views and actions moderated by the other members.

The point I'm trying to make here is that many say "we live in a democracy", but actually hardly anyone knows in much detail exactly what democracy in the UK is, and few people are really aware of the different levels and models used in a country such as the UK. At the highest level the UK is a Parliamentary democracy, with elected representatives (MPs) and a government which is usually formed from a party whose members garnered most votes at the last election.

Of course then there's the House of Lords ... members of which are not elected directly by "the people" - though often over the years I have thought that the members of the upper house have been very helpful in moderating some of the "worst" effects of legislation passed in the Commons - but then, who am I to judge?

[MrGongGong]

At the highest level the UK is a Parliamentary democracy, with elected representatives (MPs) and a government which is usually formed from a party whose members garnered most votes at the last election.

It's a shame that so many of our "elected representatives" see themselves as delegates rather than representatives.

[CGR]

True, and the accusation of racism is thrown about so much these days that it’s almost lost it’s meaning. Although Boris seems to be a rather unsavoury character. But is he that out of kilter with most of the rest of parliament and its appalling behaviour? British politics, it’s procedures, statesmen and decisions were once looked upon as the gold standard on how to govern. IMHO, we are now a laughing stock.

The idea that British politics is any different to politics elsewhere is nonsense. There have been brawls in the Commons chamber. The antics last week were rather low level when compared with the past.

For a starter this Wikipedia article has a "List of incidents of grave disorder in the British House of Commons", but it only recounts a summary of the Hansard report. For the reality of these incidents you have to read some of the political biographies, published letters, diaries, etc. of those involved. On one occasion in the 1920s a Tory MP had his jaw broken in fight on the floor of the House. As you can imagine the actual language used in these incidents and many others was not what was recorded in Hansard.

The impact of broadcasting and the reformed sitting times introduced in the 1990s has reduced the number of tantrums, political rage and occasional violence that featured in the past.