[TobyD]

Pete,
 I don't think there is a case for what you are arguing. In normal times such language may have been accepted and passed away without much comment. Context and intent both matter, and these are plainly not normal times.
I find Boris Johnson's language in parliament depressing and I think he knows it's likely to risk emulation and violence and he doesn't care.

[Oldmanmatt]

Pete,
 I don't think there is a case for what you are arguing. In normal times such language may have been accepted and passed away without much comment. Context and intent both matter, and these are plainly not normal times.
I find Boris Johnson's language in parliament depressing and I think he knows it's likely to risk emulation and violence and he doesn't care.

I suspect he does care.
I think they, he and Cummings, are quite prepared to use fear in their opposition, to leverage their will.

[Oldmanmatt]

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2019/09/british-army-corporal-tweets-angela-rayner-will-perish-brexit-civil-war

Bet you can picture the type, too, can’t you Pete.
Pretty sure we both know someone in that category.
I still see them in my FB feed, old friends, too many fond memories to just delete the tossers, but I’m dismayed by their radicalism.

[tommytwotone]

Did you catch the AG’s tirade from earlier in the day? I think the opposition were probably expecting some contrition from the government on the first day back after their illegal break, but they just got a load of populist chest thumping and drum beating.

I think this is an excellent point - and has been overshadowed by the "humbug" stuff.

Having caught a decent section of leading Brian Blessed impersonator Geoffrey Cox's time at the despatch box I was more taken aback by his tone and what he was saying - calling the opposition "this shower" and "cowards" and all before he started banging on about "dead parliament".

I can't help but feel that kind of set the tone. I know it's not about who cast the first stone etc but I don't think it set a very good precedent for what followed.

[Oldmanmatt]

I keep asking myself “why”?

What is the point in all this?

Why are these people so intent on dying on this hill?

Every expert in the land says “ bad idea”, but they just ramp it up a notch and drop all pretence of “advantages” and fall to pushing the tribal buttons.

But.

I read the Times.

So, I can take a wild stab in the dark at “why”:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/tory-tax-plans-will-give-6bn-to-richest-tenth-of-households-h7cvs7ld3?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1569587123

[tomtom]

Its an interesting gamble by Cummings et al.

They will - undoubtably lose a large number of Tory voters (probably to the Lib Dems). Much of this is unsavoury language and behaviour for the well trimmed hedges of the suburban SE.

They will - undoubtably gain labour and Brexit party/UKIP voters in N.England, S.Wales and other traditional Labour strongholds.

The gamble for them is how this pans out in terms of seats lost (they know some will go) vs seats gained.


RE: The langauge. I was thinking of how counterpoint language would go if we were to treat the ERG Ultra's and their leader/crew to the same type of langauge. Something like:

"The derranged separatists are willing on their suicide bill that comes into effect on Halloween".
"Fueled by an illegal referendum funded by a communist dictator"
"The right honourable PM is a treasonous liar - and is a racist facist in charge of a dead government"

That sounds terrible - but is it so far from the mark in the same way BJ and Cox were calling things?

[petejh]

Pretty shocked by your replies on this one Pete. People are getting death threats with the PMs words repeated verbatim.

It’s one thing to defend his right to use inflammatory language, but it’s genuinely shocking to hear you suggest that people receiving death threats are only raising this issue for political gain, or to “stifle debate” as you put it.

That’s a whole new level of cynicism

I'm not defending anyone's right to use inflammatory language Stu - although I would if they were. I don't agree that labelling the ben act the surrender act is 'martial' or 'inflammatory language' as some have put it. Saying it is is a wonderfully easy way to shut down a valid argument.

You're basically saying to vast numbers of people who see it explicitly as surrendering power to the EU that their perception is wrong. They aren't wrong, that IS their perception. The tories are quite within their rights to paint the ben act in that way, that's just normal political rhetoric.

If the tories were suggesting to a group of the general public that they should go out and intimidate anyone who disagrees with them into silence through threats of violence then I'd agree that's totally unacceptable. This is nothing like that and is closer to a media moral panic than anything else.

[JamieG]

Do you mean like this Pete?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/deliver-brexit-or-face-riots-minister-warns-boris-johnson-m7bqr00x3

[abarro81]

They aren't wrong, that IS their perception.

This is  as a tangent, but it's perfectly possible to hold a perception that is wrong. Perhaps you didn't mean it to read like that?

I also disagree about it shutting down debate - you can argue that the bill cedes too much power, and that you're disappointed by a court's ruling without resorting to claiming "betral", "surrender" and "a constitutional coup". It's all just getting a bit Trump in here...
I find your argument a bit like arguing that me not calling BJ an evil cunt who'll rot in hell in my earlier post (where I said I thought he was a bad person) was my side of the debate being stiffled... it's not stiffled.

[petejh]

That’s a poor analogy Alex.
Because you aren’t trying to win an election by persuading a great many people, via soundbites in the media, in the simplest terms possible, that what you’re trying hard to do is being obstructed by your opponents.
It’s nothing like what you said.

[abarro81]

You were claiming that it stiffles debate and shuts down a valid argument.. my point is that moderating your language doesn't do either of those. Whether it inhibits your ability to play to an angry base is a separate question..

[tomtom]

Or the ability to generate an angry base - which may be more pertinent 🙄

[Oldmanmatt]

Being effective, simple, and easy for the intellectually challenged; does not make it right.

Nor does it make it a justifiable equivalent of the language used by the opposition (everybody, except a now very reduced Tory minority).

TT made this point, and his statement was irrefutable. Which is why you didn’t address it. Several people made this point, his was the best rendering.

Incidentally, the meta polls are putting it 53/47 to remain, as of Tuesday.
So regardless of anything else, the country appears to still be evenly split on the issue.
Therefore, the PM et al, are using this language to label, very nearly, half the population, traitors etc etc.

Despite being insulted in such a heinous fashion, I (nor anyone else) have not walked the 20 meters from my front door at work, to Kevin Foster’s office, to berate his staff or threaten their families.

And that wanker is Bozo’s little flunky.

If you still can’t grasp the difference, then it’s wilful on your part snd I don’t actually believe you “really” think it’s the same thing.
I do think you support it because it furthers the objective of your “side”, that is the only conclusion possible, given the weight of arguments against your statements. 

[Stu Littlefair]

Pretty shocked by your replies on this one Pete. People are getting death threats with the PMs words repeated verbatim.

It’s one thing to defend his right to use inflammatory language, but it’s genuinely shocking to hear you suggest that people receiving death threats are only raising this issue for political gain, or to “stifle debate” as you put it.

That’s a whole new level of cynicism

I'm not defending anyone's right to use inflammatory language Stu - although I would if they were. I don't agree that labelling the ben act the surrender act is 'martial' or 'inflammatory language' as some have put it. Saying it is is a wonderfully easy way to shut down a valid argument.

You're basically saying to vast numbers of people who see it explicitly as surrendering power to the EU that their perception is wrong. They aren't wrong, that IS their perception. The tories are quite within their rights to paint the ben act in that way, that's just normal political rhetoric.

If the tories were suggesting to a group of the general public that they should go out and intimidate anyone who disagrees with them into silence through threats of violence then I'd agree that's totally unacceptable. This is nothing like that and is closer to a media moral panic than anything else.

I note you totally dodge the main part of my argument. Fine - defend the use of “surrender” if you like. I still think it’s reckless in the current climate but we can agree to differ.

What really shocked me was your immediate assumption that the, predominantly female, MPs calling Johnson out for it were doing so for political convenience.

If your mate was killed in a climate very similar to today’s, and you were getting death threats daily, and you called someone out for their language and were accused of using your mates death for political gain - how would you feel about that?

I do sometimes feel like everyone - in both sides - has lost their minds about Brexit, to the point where we see people on the other side as less human than us. It worries me a lot more than Brexit itself.

It’s also perfectly obvious that Johnson is exploiting that situation, which is pretty odious. 

[Oldmanmatt]

You are right Stu.

But there’s a massive difference between the two camps, or the extremes thereof, anyway.

I can’t find a comparable report, with an opposite slant, to the likes of this:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/27/police-investigate-pro-brexit-hate-crimes-in-lewes

Can you?


More to the point, even if you could, you’d find 10:1 of the incidents are angled as per this incident. There just aren’t that many violent or aggressive Remainers.
Loud, maybe.
Sign waving?
Sure.
Protest marching?
Absolutely.

Death threats, bricking windows, murdering MPs?

Not so much.
Actually, not at all.

And therein lies the difference. Johnson’s language is a calculated call to the dogs he knows are listening. Already straining at their leash.

[Fiend]

Something like:

"The derranged separatists are willing on their suicide bill that comes into effect on Halloween".
"Fueled by an illegal referendum funded by a communist dictator"
"The right honourable PM is a treasonous liar - and is a racist facist in charge of a dead government"

That sounds terrible - but is it so far from the mark in the same way BJ and Cox were calling things?

Sounds bang on to me 

[TobyD]

...

And therein lies the difference. Johnson’s language is a calculated call to the dogs he knows are listening. Already straining at their leash.

Pithy. Actually you effectively summarize what Stephen Bush says here: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/09/boris-johnson-knows-exactly-what-hes-doing-when-he-talks-about-jo-cox-and

[BrutusTheBear]

Follow this thread but have been reluctant to comment because I am a socialist and a fan of JC, I have previously been accused of destroying the Labour Party and wearing a tin foil hat for suggesting the majority of the mainstream media is railed  against any form of socialist government that would affect the interests of the owners.  The voice of folk like Me is distinctly lacking from this thread and the thread is dominated by the same small group of people that post regularly.  So on behalf of people who hold similar views, I will stick my tin foil encased head above the parapet...

The game is now obvious, Mr Johnson under the guidance of Cummins is being fashioned as a man of the people and the one who will stand with them against an establishment and political system that denies their Democratic will.  After countless years of dog whistling in the mainstream media there are enough people (of an aggressive and violent disposition) to inhale this narrative and view Mr Johnson as their saviour.  These are scary times, the hatred and blaming of ‘outsiders’ is strongly rooted in the prejudice, racism, xenophobia promoted by the Daily Mail, right wing social media etc. Etc. 

In my opinion, the LP have it right, it is a time for compromise and a time to dissolve tensions.  Taking a stance in either of the polarised camps of Leave and Remain will resolve nothing.  With a nation split down the middle everyone will have to accept compromise.  JC is very experienced at negotiating and is lauded by some for his involvement in bringing peace to NI.  An interim government led by him would enable compromise to be reached, we just need the Lib Dem’s and ex Cons to get on board now.. 

[teestub]

I’m still not quite sure how one can have a compromise over a binary decision. Remainers want no change in the current situation, and as discussed at length in many places, any soft brexit avenues lose benefits of being in the EU with no advantages to replace them. This is without considering how distasteful they are to the harder/no deal Brexit camp.

It sounds like you’re still a fan of magic grandpa, so what do you think the likelihood of a man with such shocking approval ratings (I know we don’t believe in polls) following through with his plan:
- winning a majority in the election
- going to the EU and getting a deal which is better than being in the EU (what he proposed at the conference)
- getting a majority for that deal in parliament
- getting a majority in parliament for a second referendum?

JC would and should be very far down anyone’s list as a choice to lead an interim government (i understand he has first dibs being leader of the opposition) as he is so toxic to so many people. A more middle ground Lab member would form a better figurehead to rally LD and more centrist Cons, but that seems v unlikely to happen with JC in place.

[mrjonathanr]

Farage says he wants to 'take a knife to civil servants'.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/28/police-investigate-nigel-farage-knife-comments

Some might say it's just good politics to motivate the base.

I'd say if it is as reported, it's an incitement to violence.

[petejh]

Pretty shocked by your replies on this one Pete. People are getting death threats with the PMs words repeated verbatim.

It’s one thing to defend his right to use inflammatory language, but it’s genuinely shocking to hear you suggest that people receiving death threats are only raising this issue for political gain, or to “stifle debate” as you put it.

That’s a whole new level of cynicism

I'm not defending anyone's right to use inflammatory language Stu - although I would if they were. I don't agree that labelling the ben act the surrender act is 'martial' or 'inflammatory language' as some have put it. Saying it is is a wonderfully easy way to shut down a valid argument.

You're basically saying to vast numbers of people who see it explicitly as surrendering power to the EU that their perception is wrong. They aren't wrong, that IS their perception. The tories are quite within their rights to paint the ben act in that way, that's just normal political rhetoric.

If the tories were suggesting to a group of the general public that they should go out and intimidate anyone who disagrees with them into silence through threats of violence then I'd agree that's totally unacceptable. This is nothing like that and is closer to a media moral panic than anything else.

I note you totally dodge the main part of my argument. Fine - defend the use of “surrender” if you like. I still think it’s reckless in the current climate but we can agree to differ.

What really shocked me was your immediate assumption that the, predominantly female, MPs calling Johnson out for it were doing so for political convenience.

If your mate was killed in a climate very similar to today’s, and you were getting death threats daily, and you called someone out for their language and were accused of using your mates death for political gain - how would you feel about that?

I do sometimes feel like everyone - in both sides - has lost their minds about Brexit, to the point where we see people on the other side as less human than us. It worries me a lot more than Brexit itself.

It’s also perfectly obvious that Johnson is exploiting that situation, which is pretty odious.

Stu, a few points to consider. (for the sake of omm: try to read as if I'm speaking calmly because I'm not passionate about this)

Firstly. What gets said and done in parliament is political, whatever the intent may be.
Wednesday evening's debate wasn't an off the record heated discussion down the pub between a group of friends comprising remainers and leavers. A professional politician - an elected MP - standing up to speak in the house of commons during a rowdy debate where everyone present is fully conscious that what they say can and will be all over the media broadcast to the nation within minutes. With political analysts eager to interpret the fall-out for days afterwards.

In that parliamentary context it's undeniable that whatever is uttered, is uttered with the inherent potential at least for political gain or loss. If you disagree that politicians speaking in political debates do so without at least the obvious risk of political impact, then I'm afraid you may be among the group who you think have lost their senses. 


Secondly. Despite the above, if you read what I said you'll see that I haven't said - because I didn't think it -  that I thought the MP's intention in raising the murder of her colleague was political effect.
I'm open to believing she raised it purely with the intention of her wanting passions to calm down on all sides. And because it has huge emotional resonance for her and others. What I was saying was that, for the reason explained above, the unavoidable (and for a professional politician, foreseeable?) effect is political.

I was questioning the logic, if calming heated passions is the purported aim, of attempting to calm passions by invoking one of the most passionate subjects among MPs in recent times - the murder of an MP. 'Clumsy and ill considered' would be my characterisation. 'Humbug' was bozos - again clumsy and ill considered.

And the logic of whether the language mentioned really is inflammatory? I think it's a statement of fact that the ben act surrenders power.
We can agree to disagree on 'surrender'. I'm more concerned with the unintended consequences of silencing debate. The short term picture might be messy right now but the long term outcome of not allowing people to say things you disagree with (but which are not demonstrably sexist, inciting violence, racist, etc.) is far more damaging and sinister for everyone.

As for seeing people as less human, I definitely don't? I've never felt that way about anyone who disagrees with me over brexit - probably because I'm not emotionally invested in it like many seem to be. My mind has been made without needing anything any politician has ever claimed either for or against. But I certainly have felt what you describe (not aimed at you) from some people who disagree with me and I recognise the 'faith' belief at work.

[mrjonathanr]

That's a fair reply, but I think your defence of the term 'surrender' lacks credibility.

Rachel Johnson put it this way:

My brother is using words like surrender and capitulation as if the people standing in the way of the blessed will of the people as defined by 17.4 million votes in 2016 should be hung, drawn, quartered, tarred and feathered. I think that is highly reprehensible language to use.

The point she is making should be obvious: it is such an emotionally (and culturally) charged term to use it is highly inflammatory and has no place in responsible debate.

Inflaming the emotions of a mob mentality will cause real harm, sooner or later.
Going from your posts, intelligent and well argued as they are, you seem much less troubled than most on here about that.

I think that's a mistake.

[petejh]

Fair enough.

Here's a question about inflammatory language for you. And I'm not angling at anything and am not going down the road of whataboutery - not interested in playing that game. I'm genuinely interested in what you and others think constitutes, in your words, 'emotionally (and culturally) charged' terms, and which presumably 'have no place in debate'.

Without going into the facts, which have been analysed by fullfact and others and are available to read. Try to answer the following without bias or emotion or resorting to party loyalties:

The British government is responsible for the 'murder' of 120,000 of its own citizens.

Inflammatory language? Could incite violence?

[mrjonathanr]

Potentially. Shorn of context, cannot say much else.

The issue is the impact of the words, so context is everything.

[teestub]

The inverted commas make me think of someone doing the bunny ears whilst saying the words, and add instant doubt into the statement. Without them it would be a shocking statement.