Why the lib-dems are shit

[ViolentPanda]

Because far from being the attack on the encroachment of mercantilism into social life of popular myth it was rather an aggressive violent attempt to re-impose externally formulated hierarchical and authoritarian notions of the scared and the profane on a populace who were moving beyond such restrictive practices and the processes that produced them. Pure social conservatism and defence of the status quo - the sort of thing Simon Heffer or Peter Hitchens would do.

The post is good, but the typo improves it massively.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Teather should really have stood down and forced a by-election, but she's just shown what a useless fuck she is.

I'm not sure, but I think that the changes to the parliamentary pension mean that if she goes before the next GE is called, she'll lose part of her pot.

 

[butchersapron]

The post is good, but the typo improves it massively.

Do you know what, that was also after i already fixed a typo on the same bloody word

 

[nino_savatte]

I'm not sure, but I think that the changes to the parliamentary pension mean that if she goes before the next GE is called, she'll lose part of her pot.

Ah, there had to be a reason. That makes sense. I mean, let's face, honourable is one thing she isn't.

 

[killer b]

Do you know what, that was also after i already fixed a typo on the same bloody word

if you're editing from a mobile, the edit doesn't seem to save properly. for me anyway, i think i've noticed other people complaining the same.

 

[co-op]

Because far from being the attack on the encroachment of mercantilism into social life of popular myth it was rather an aggressive violent attempt to re-impose externally formulated hierarchical and authoritarian notions of the scared and the profane on a populace who were moving beyond such restrictive practices and the processes that produced them. Pure social conservatism and defence of the status quo - the sort of thing Simon Heffer or Peter Hitchens would do.

Wow .

I'm sure you've got some references for this pov but it looks like quite a stretch to me. What are the "restrictive practises" you're talking about here? And where is the evidence that the populace were "moving beyond them"?

And calling this "pure social conservatism" is pretty far-fetched; starting a large-scale fight at the Temple could surely never be called that, regardless of what the motive was - it had to be an attack (of some sort) on the dominant class (or at least the local collaborators with the Roman regime) and that makes it at least ambiguous in terms of its politics, even if you can argue the motives were reactionary (which I'd be really interested to hear more about).

What do you think of the phrase "my house shall be a house of prayer for all nations"? Why do you think that's thrown in here? It doesn't look like a socially conservative slogan to me.

 

[Combustible]

Chris Huhne is back and is blaming the Murdoch press for his predicament. Apparently it was all because he was the one brave enough to challenge Murdoch when he was in opposition.

Most of the saga was played out brutally in public, but there are some hidden eddies that reveal how politicians have become so distrusted. My endgame began when Neville Thurlbeck, the chief reporter of the now defunct News of the World, heard gossip that I was having an affair. Rather than cheapskating on the proposed investigation by hacking my phone, the News of the World put me under extensive surveillance by a retired policeman, a more expensive exercise.

Why was News International prepared to invest so much to tail an opposition Liberal Democrat back in 2009? Maybe it was coincidence, but that summer I was the only frontbencher who, with Nick Clegg's brave backing, called for the Metropolitan police to reopen the voicemail hacking inquiry into Rupert Murdoch's empire.

Given that I was falling in love with someone who was not my wife, you might think that it was an act of folly to court Murdoch's hostility, but the journalist in me rebelled. Publish and be damned. If I was not in parliament to speak out when I saw an abuse, why was I there?

And the moral of the story is that the fact he went to prison for lying and perverting the course of justice isn't just a problem for himself but is a problem for us all!

Ultimately, the new media aggression is not just a problem for those individuals directly affected, it is a problem for us all. Media ownership must be more diverse because it is the lifeblood of public debate. If competition policy is not enough, then we should have statutory limitations or even help for small media outfits (as other countries do). It is not only votes that make a democracy, but voices too.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/08/despise-politicians-my-part-murdoch-machine

 

[Sue]

Chris Huhne is back and is blaming the Murdoch press for his predicament. Apparently it was all because he was the one brave enough to challenge Murdoch when he was in opposition.


And the moral of the story is that the fact he went to prison for lying and perverting the course of justice isn't just a problem for himself but is a problem for us all!



http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/08/despise-politicians-my-part-murdoch-machine

Poor, poor Chris Huhne. He was just on Today coming out with the same bollocks.

 

[Nylock]

The truth is, politicians are no more venal or self-serving than people outside politics, and often far more high-minded. (Anyone who wants to make money should go into business. You lose money in politics.)

Utter Shite.

 

[butchersapron]

Contemptible. He's unreformed and unrepentant. I think - along with much of his party comrades - that he is a sociopath. A genuine sociopath. He has turned being caught publicly lying to a whole range of people - professional, personal and gods knows what else - into him being persecuted for seeking to talk truth to power. He's exactly the sort of person who would have flourished in the nazi bureaucracy.

 

[redsquirrel]

Poor, poor Chris Huhne. He was just on Today coming out with the same bollocks.

He's suffered because of our sins.

 

[barney_pig]

It's hilarious he is actually engaging with the comments, so sure in his inner perfection. I wonder if Laurie Penny can pull some of her old Lib Dem strings and get him on here?

 

[Sprocket.]

How come a decent bloke I worked with some years ago tried to take the blame for his son driving and take the three points so his son wouldn't lose his license, he got six years for perjury and Chris Huhne thinks he is badly done to! Arsehole of the highest order

 

[JimW]

He's suffered because of our sins.

He just wants us to take a few points for him, no biggie.

 

[nino_savatte]

I always knew the cunt, Huhne would land on his feet once he left the big house.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Utter Shite.

Well, you may lose money while you're in politics, but you soon make up for it when everyone you've done favours for while in power bungs you a sinecure.

 

[Nylock]

Well, you may lose money while you're in politics, but you soon make up for it when everyone you've done favours for while in power bungs you a sinecure.

I'd contest that it's more the case that you earn less than you would outside politics* which is not the same as actually losing money (running at a deficit and getting into hideous debt).

(*On a like-for like position in the private sector, and considering all the subsidies and expenses that MP's get/claim I would imagine you are still (largely) better off being a run-of-the-mill MP than being in the private sector and being un-subsidised on a higher (on paper) income bracket).

 

[butchersapron]

Wow .

I'm sure you've got some references for this pov but it looks like quite a stretch to me. What are the "restrictive practises" you're talking about here? And where is the evidence that the populace were "moving beyond them"?

And calling this "pure social conservatism" is pretty far-fetched; starting a large-scale fight at the Temple could surely never be called that, regardless of what the motive was - it had to be an attack (of some sort) on the dominant class (or at least the local collaborators with the Roman regime) and that makes it at least ambiguous in terms of its politics, even if you can argue the motives were reactionary (which I'd be really interested to hear more about).

What do you think of the phrase "my house shall be a house of prayer for all nations"? Why do you think that's thrown in here? It doesn't look like a socially conservative slogan to me.

Well, references are going to be hard to produce given we're talking about an interpretation of events and words that we don't have any proof actually happened rather than a question of producing evidence of straightforward facts. So what i'm left with is showing that my reading is internally consistent with the core of the four different tellings in the canonical gospels (there are undoubtdly other versions and interpretations in the Apocrypha and non-canonical gospels but i'll leave that for now), that this is also consistent with other words and deeds of jesus and finally that the material conditons i suggested were in place were actually in place.

Right, the core of each of the canonical gospels versions relies on the temple being sacred, that means that certain things or activities are not to be allowed to happen there. That is central to all. Jesus' violent rage is at the encroachment of these profane practices onto that sacred area. The two mentioned in the gospels are money-lending and the selling of animals for sacrifice (and the money-changing was to allow pilgrims with money from different areas to buy those animals for sacrifice).

Now these are not profane activities in themselves but only in specific contexts - one important one in this case, if the authorities running the temple decided they were. In this case the Pharisees had outlawed these activities and banished them to the desert - at this time the raising of sheep and goats for sacrifice, for hides, wool, meat, butter and cheese constituted much of the peasant economy of the time so this obviously seriously messed up this peoples livelihoods.(see E. P. Sanders Judaism Practice and Belief, 63 BCE-66 CE).

The choice was give up their work or give up their religious rights. Well, there was another option actually - they could rebel against the ruling , ignore it and continue to practice their trade - including in the temple. Which they did, which got jesus in a mighty sore rage. This is both the restrictive practices that i mentioned and the people moving beyond them. The evidence of this happening is in his very actions. He violently attempted to re-impose the externally created laws of the Pharisees onto the people. He tried to restore a situation that the people had found damaging and so moved beyond. I cannot think of something more clearly reactionary or socially conservative. (The fight wasn't that big btw the temple was many football fields big, and filled with thousands and thousands of people, overturning a few tables and doing a bit of shouting wouldn't have been that big a deal).

The phrase "My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations" appears in mark alone and it is mark choosing to place the words of Isaiah 56:7 in jesus' gob. This is very important for two reasons. Firstly, it is Mark saying that jesus based his violent attempt to re-impose authority on the people specifically on scriptural authority, he is arguing that jesus re-asserted the rights of orthodox authority demanding that people adhere strictly to religious law and religious authority.

Secondly, at the time of writing the gospel the mark-tradition church were tied up in a bitter war with the other churches over whether to evangelise gentiles or to stick with converting jews alone. The gospel itself was addressed specifically to gentiles in rome at the time. So what we have here is an attempt to place the idea that Gentiles should be pursued into christianity in the mouth of jesus' hmself - "a house of prayer for all nations". It is an attempt to give Mark's view Jesus's authority (and remember it's first use to emphasise the strict following of religious authority - that means jesus' authority too). It's a low-down dirty political trick that requires some unpacking. This is why it doesn't appear in any of the other gospels.

(Not quite where i expected the thread to go, but there you are! )

 

[barney_pig]

Any discussion of the sanctimonious shits must inevitably end up in biblical criticism

 

[William of Walworth]

Any discussion of the sanctimonious shits must inevitably end up in biblical criticism

Inevitably!

Was just going to comment in the latest self indulgent Sarah Teather story, linked to by butchers' earlier. Nowhere in that story was any suggestion or even hint made that she'd inevitably lose her seat (and probably by miles) if she stood again. Funny that ....

 

[barney_pig]

Inevitably!

Was just going to comment in the latest self indulgent Sarah Teather story, linked to by butchers' earlier. Nowhere in that story was any suggestion or even hint made that she'd inevitably lose her seat (and probably by miles) if she stood again. Funny that ....

My thought exactly when I saw the story

 

[Pickman's model]

Inevitably!

Was just going to comment in the latest self indulgent Sarah Teather story, linked to by butchers' earlier. Nowhere in that story was any suggestion or even hint made that she'd inevitably lose her seat (and probably by miles) if she stood again. Funny that ....

 

[Kaka Tim]

I look forward to the day - possibly the day after the next general election - when this thread title is changed to 'why the lib dems were shit'.

 

[co-op]

(Not quite where i expected the thread to go, but there you are! )

Me neither although the christian/lib-dem venn diagram did have a significant overlap in allowing use of the slag-off "sandal-wearing". But that was in the 70s and youngsters nowadays are sadly ignorant of these ancient cusses.

Well, references are going to be hard to produce given we're talking about an interpretation of events and words that we don't have any proof actually happened rather than a question of producing evidence of straightforward facts. So what i'm left with is showing that my reading is internally consistent with the core of the four different tellings in the canonical gospels (there are undoubtdly other versions and interpretations in the Apocrypha and non-canonical gospels but i'll leave that for now), that this is also consistent with other words and deeds of jesus and finally that the material conditons i suggested were in place were actually in place.

Right, the core of each of the canonical gospels versions relies on the temple being sacred, that means that certain things or activities are not to be allowed to happen there. That is central to all. Jesus' violent rage is at the encroachment of these profane practices onto that sacred area. The two mentioned in the gospels are money-lending and the selling of animals for sacrifice (and the money-changing was to allow pilgrims with money from different areas to buy those animals for sacrifice).

Now these are not profane activities in themselves but only in specific contexts - one important one in this case, if the authorities running the temple decided they were. In this case the Pharisees had outlawed these activities and banished them to the desert - at this time the raising of sheep and goats for sacrifice, for hides, wool, meat, butter and cheese constituted much of the peasant economy of the time so this obviously seriously messed up this peoples livelihoods.(see E. P. Sanders Judaism Practice and Belief, 63 BCE-66 CE).

The choice was give up their work or give up their religious rights. Well, there was another option actually - they could rebel against the ruling , ignore it and continue to practice their trade - including in the temple. Which they did, which got jesus in a mighty sore rage. This is both the restrictive practices that i mentioned and the people moving beyond them. The evidence of this happening is in his very actions. He violently attempted to re-impose the externally created laws of the Pharisees onto the people. He tried to restore a situation that the people had found damaging and so moved beyond. I cannot think of something more clearly reactionary or socially conservative. (The fight wasn't that big btw the temple was many football fields big, and filled with thousands and thousands of people, overturning a few tables and doing a bit of shouting wouldn't have been that big a deal).

The phrase "My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations" appears in mark alone and it is mark choosing to place the words of Isaiah 56:7 in jesus' gob. This is very important for two reasons. Firstly, it is Mark saying that jesus based his violent attempt to re-impose authority on the people specifically on scriptural authority, he is arguing that jesus re-asserted the rights of orthodox authority demanding that people adhere strictly to religious law and religious authority.

Secondly, at the time of writing the gospel the mark-tradition church were tied up in a bitter war with the other churches over whether to evangelise gentiles or to stick with converting jews alone. The gospel itself was addressed specifically to gentiles in rome at the time. So what we have here is an attempt to place the idea that Gentiles should be pursued into christianity in the mouth of jesus' hmself - "a house of prayer for all nations". It is an attempt to give Mark's view Jesus's authority (and remember it's first use to emphasise the strict following of religious authority - that means jesus' authority too). It's a low-down dirty political trick that requires some unpacking. This is why it doesn't appear in any of the other gospels.

But thanks for the rest of this reply, very interesting. But why was Jesus suddenly so keen to uphold the pharisees here? He clearly is generally bent on undermining them. And do we have decent evidence for this prohibition on trade in the temple?

Good point about the 'for all nations' quote though. I must admit I'd assumed it was in all the gospels and I assumed it was one of the ticklist of 'prophecy fulfillments' that Jesus was so obviously going through in order to bolster his credibility, but obviously if it's just Mark then it gets more likely that this is an addition. I mean we're always in this problem of what was said (i.e. formally) and what was added, but I'd see this phrase as a typical attack on the pharisees - and I think it's at least arguable that Isaiah uses it in a universalist sense, as an attack on the tribal nature of judaism.

Seriously though this is a divert, if you don't have the time, ignore.

 

[Pickman's model]

I look forward to the day - possibly the day after the next general election - when this thread title is changed to 'why the lib dems were shit'.

when did you last see a lib dem?

 

[butchersapron]

<snip>

Seriously though this is a divert, if you don't have the time, ignore.

I reckon leave it for now, but next first century/NT/etc stuff thread i'll jump on it! Got cricket in a minute anyway.

 

[butchersapron]

The Greens in Bristol, in order to pose as radicals put forward a motion that the council will

exclude companies involved in blacklisting of workers from securing future Council contracts.

· require companies tendering for contracts to demonstrate that they are not using blacklists.

· require that companies that tender for Council contracts demonstrate that they have processes in place to encourage the reporting by workers of workplace concerns, particularly in respect of health, safety and welfare.

· seek, where this can be done without financial or legal penalty, to terminate contracts where companies are found to be using blacklists.

· examine existing contracts with any of the companies listed by the ICO and ask for reassurances that the company uses no form of blacklisting to inform their employment decisions.

The motion passed. The lib-dems abstained. (and some Greens who peddle a radical image couldn't even be bothered to be in the right country).

I cannot see the poltical logic here -in this city their vote is a crossover to with the green party, they are/were in direct competition and here they are handing over something they could potentially use on the doorstep for those hippy-ish areas they are both competing in, and turned it into a weapon for people to demand of them why they didn't vote for it. Political madness.

 

[barney_pig]

So it appears that the Cleggon is championing a tax on carrier bags as his flagship going into conference.
I can imagine the scene in cabinet: Cleggy: "in return for our support for war, we demand something in return"
Dave: " here you are minion, have this important green initiative"
Cleggy: " that'll show them I'm still relevant"
Minion: "bottom"

 

[barney_pig]

Because I used the word minion

 

[J Ed]

So it appears that the Cleggon is championing a tax on carrier bags as his flagship going into conference.
I can imagine the scene in cabinet: Cleggy: "in return for our support for war, we demand something in return"
Dave: " here you are minion, have this important green initiative"
Cleggy: " that'll show them I'm still relevant"
Minion: "bottom"

I genuinely believe that this is how it works with some of the 'social justice' types in the Lib Dems. This type of initative is especially appealing to them because it punishes people who don't have the 'right priorities' which I think is of more interest to most environmentalists than the actual fucking environment.