Jump to content

UK Politics: And Brexit came swirling down


Chaircat Meow

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Zorral said:

What was that again, about how the media really wasn't racist to Meghan, or at least, not very much?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/exclusive-meghan-markle-targeted-by-hundreds-of-racist-and-sexist-tweets-amid-plan-to-step-back_n_5e1f5b28c5b673621f6f7965

 

Do you class ‘Twitter trolls’ as the media? Genuine question 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

What was that again, about how the media really wasn't racist to Meghan, or at least, not very much?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/exclusive-meghan-markle-targeted-by-hundreds-of-racist-and-sexist-tweets-amid-plan-to-step-back_n_5e1f5b28c5b673621f6f7965

 

 

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Do you class ‘Twitter trolls’ as the media? Genuine question 

 

I think that this has been an issue all along. The inability to pinpoint where the racism comes from, or the sense that some people have difficulties explaining it, has resulted in sort of "there is racism, there isn't" tennis match with both sides actually having quite good points. Simply, if you ask the experts does racism in press about Mrs Markle come from the Palace, the answer is no. If you ask them whether the racism comes from the press junket and royal correspondents, the answer is still no. Then we start talking about tabloids and social media and the answer turns to yes. I am still having problems in grasping the idea that it will all end once these two stop being fully-functional members of Royal Family, but some people, both here and around the world, think it'll stop.

The very instances people mentioned - avocado, hand on the belly, Straight Outta Compton and Archie being compared to chimpanzee have all been derogated by the public, media too. And no one denied there are instances of racism. But the racism has become an umbrella for all sort of things - anti-Americanism, snobbery, misogyny etc. And when you start talking about "unconscious bias", you get to the point that every comment is racist. And honestly, given the severity of the word, I feel as there is an entire culture of ending all debates with what is essentially "racist card". I feel that the criticism of Catherine, Fergie, Diana, Camilla has been charted as snobbish and misogynist elitism, but when it comes to Meghan, that doesn't seem to cover it and we need to upgrade it to the most heinous of all heinous behaviors - racism.

I have no doubts that British have numerous issues with regards to racism. I understand that it is not an easy subject and there are nuances that I may be missing. I am just having a bit hard time buying this whole "Meghan is Diana 2.0" narrative that some have pushed. Because, I am trying to remember what the pair has asked for and didn't get in the past two years. And I can't remember anything. 

Simply, they pulled off what many thought was impossible. That said, perhaps Brexit talks should be like this :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the link, I only see two 'racist' tweets in this sample list, which presumably, they are highlighting the worse insults the study found, it is actually quite a bit milder than I would have expected.

Some 400 tweets were captured in the the most severe category of abuse, containing sexist and racist insults.

Phrases included “self-loathing race traitor”, “trailer trash”, “meghan the queen, of monkey island”, “the woke Meghan bint” and “poisonous cow”. Markle was also described as a “bitch”, “c*nt”, “whore”, “slut” and “witch”, among other terms.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems pretty clear to me that Meghan has been subject to some kind of isms aside from just the sexism that she shares in common with Kate.

I saw an article yesterday that looked at 20 headlines (10 each) where the subject was either Kate or Meghan and the objects were pretty much the same, from a range of British "news"papers . In each side by side comparison the headline was typically positive for Kate and typically negative for Meghan. Whether it's classism, anti-Americanism, racism, or some combination thereof it does appear to me that Meghan is the target of British media prejudice over and above any background level of negativity towards the Royals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is this even a matter of debate?  The dogwhistles on Meghan's race in media coverage are so prevalent it's quite plausible the reason the couple made this move is because they were forced to focus their time on opening rescue shelters with all the strays she'd have to deal with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Risto said:

I think that this has been an issue all along. The inability to pinpoint where the racism comes from, or the sense that some people have difficulties explaining it, has resulted in sort of "there is racism, there isn't" tennis match with both sides actually having quite good points.

Well one of the problems with stories like this, is that the press just seems to feed off of itself and tries to make the case that because people say things on Twitter then that is of some relevance (presidents aside!). Stating that people have suffered abuse on Twitter is like saying people got wet standing in water. 

When you discount what trolls have said on Twitter then it's much harder to put your finger on anything. IF and I mean IF Meghan has suffered from harsher reporting than her counterparts then it would be for a complex number of reasons. Plus when it was announced that they were getting married, the coverage was overwhelmingly positive and supportive of the couple, it was viewed with excitement, and her background was talked about in positives. That things have deteriorated suggests their relationship with the press has broken down. 

Her treatment is nowhere near the level that Fergie or Camilla or Diana had to endure in their time. It's not even close. That was outright bullying and it was disgusting, but it was how the press behaved back then

Even with Kate, there has been a lot of cherry picking there. Talk of Avocados or baby bumps neglects all the negative press Kate also got at times, and there was a lot of intrusion there as well. Like I said before, I think Kate has managed to weather it and has worked with the press by doing what the royals do, and just became incredibly boring and bland, never taking any risks. It seems to have worked for her. Even Camilla gets good press coverage these days.



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DMC said:

How is this even a matter of debate? 

Because some people simply will not ever admit to seeing racism unless it involves burning crosses, and possibly not even then.

That the UK tabloids have an international reputation for racist, xenophobic headlines is a given fact. Anyone who's arguing that the UK media is not racist, is never going to admit it at this point. It's a waste of time trying to persuade them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The next generation will need to be receive training on how to deal with social media, the same way that athletes, celebrities and so on get advice on how to deal with the press.

For example, teaching them how not to be affected by Twitter trolls, especially since most of them are fat white nerds dunking chicken wings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mormont said:

Because some people simply will not ever admit to seeing racism unless it involves burning crosses, and possibly not even then.

That the UK tabloids have an international reputation for racist, xenophobic headlines is a given fact. Anyone who's arguing that the UK media is not racist, is never going to admit it at this point. It's a waste of time trying to persuade them.

I don't think that is fair. It is perhaps that I come from country that doesn't suffer from that particular "illness". People of color have always been welcomed in Yugoslavia during those Non-Alligned Movement, when many people, especially students, from African countries came to Yugoslavia and many even stayed, building their lives here. On the other hand, many Yugoslavs went working to African countries such as Libyia during 1980s and 1990s, so the question of racism, unlike the question of nationalism, have never been an issue.

This is not debate about whether the media is racist. This is a debate where the racism came from - from sources that Palace could have controlled, or Palace itself - for which the reason to abandon their functions makes a lot of sense. Or whether it came from tabloids and social media - which, we would all agree, not Palace nor any individual celebrity has the power to stop. 

I am not claiming there is no racism (Hell, the chimpanzee comparison is enough by itself). I am asking how things will be different tomorrow for this pair and do we really expect that racism will stop once they quit their royal functions? Because many people have asked questions "Have Palace's establishment been racist?" or "Have royal correspondents been racist?" and people would not have the answer. And those are probably the places where someone could have intervened and privately protect the Duchess from the filthy attacks. But, going after tabloids and social media comments... That's another story.

 

1 hour ago, Darryk said:

For example, teaching them how not to be affected by Twitter trolls, especially since most of them are fat white nerds dunking chicken wings.

Speaking as a fat, white nerd with great love for buttermilk fried chicken, I have to say that I have learned a lot about Internet communication in the past decade, which has also been the years of my 20s and I would hate to think that someone has my picture in mind when speaking about trolls.

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Like I said before, I think Kate has managed to weather it and has worked with the press by doing what the royals do, and just became incredibly boring and bland, never taking any risks. It seems to have worked for her. Even Camilla gets good press coverage these days.

Just to say, poor William and Kate. I mean, we all sympathize with Harry about his mother's death but no one talks about William because he is supposed to be the next King and we seem to dehumanize him from those emotions. Same with Kate. We speak how Meghan and Harry are concerned parents, but no one speaks about being mother to three kids who are coming into huge spotlight. It seems we have somehow successfully dehumanized Cambridges like we do with many celebrities...

As for Camilla, one of the royal correspondents that I have been watching and reading from is Camilla Tominey. She was speaking about how villified Camilla has been and that at one moment she was voted the most hated woman in UK. She spoke about how Camilla dealt with that, especially because a lot of the bad press came from royal correspondents. She approached them privately and asked them "where did that come from?" And it seems that, by doing so, by having more open conversation with the media at the Palace, slowly but steadily, she moved herself into calmer waters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Risto said:

Just to say, poor William and Kate. I mean, we all sympathize with Harry about his mother's death but no one talks about William because he is supposed to be the next King and we seem to dehumanize him from those emotions. Same with Kate. We speak how Meghan and Harry are concerned parents, but no one speaks about being mother to three kids who are coming into huge spotlight. It seems we have somehow successfully dehumanized Cambridges like we do with many celebrities...

That is part of what being a royal seems to be about. The public might think they want REAL people in these roles, but it's not a good idea. These are all ceremonial roles, and the royals play a part. They aren't there to be real people, with real emotions and dilemmas.. we want them to be symbols. It's much easier for people like Kate and William to hide their humanity and fade into the background, and simply be photo opportunities. 
 

Quote

And it seems that, by doing so, by having more open conversation with the media at the Palace, slowly but steadily, she moved herself into calmer waters. 

This is really what I think is at the heart of it. From what I can tell the British Press is built on relationships. Just look at all the terrible English football managers who seem to be praised to high heaven despite being awful at their jobs. Harry Redknapp has it so easy it seems because he has a load of mates in the press. I think it's the same with the Royal Family. 

Its also a process of give and take. Do some nice interviews and photoshoots, let the press into the bits of your lives you are happy to expose and the press will give you some space. But set up an antagonistic relationship with them and they will turn against you. Go off to Canada for 6 weeks, don't let the press in when you have a baby, sue papers.. all these things will only lead more problems for you down the road. It's a sad state of affairs but it seems to be how it works. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Darryk said:

The next generation will need to be receive training on how to deal with social media, the same way that athletes, celebrities and so on get advice on how to deal with the press.

For example, teaching them how not to be affected by Twitter trolls, especially since most of them are fat white nerds dunking chicken wings.

The thing about the Twitter trolls though is that they are just a symptom. Especially if you are female, they mean that there are a large number of people out there egging each other on to hate you. Some of them are going to start stalking you. Some will attempt to harass you IRL. A handful will start making plans to kidnap, rape or murder you or your children (even in the UK, such attempts are made, and such murders are not unknown).

These days, every female celebrity is aware of that, which means that "not being affected by Twitter trolls" is not so simple.

And of course this underlines that, whatever happens, Meghan will continue to need serious protection for a long while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Risto said:

Simply, if you ask the experts does racism in press about Mrs Markle come from the Palace, the answer is no. If you ask them whether the racism comes from the press junket and royal correspondents, the answer is still no. Then we start talking about tabloids and social media and the answer turns to yes.

For the record, most of those royal correspondents work for the tabloids. They are writing the articles that appear in the tabloids. So is is scarcely surprising that Harry and Meghan are not very happy with them.

 

10 hours ago, Heartofice said:

when it was announced that they were getting married, the coverage was overwhelmingly positive and supportive of the couple, it was viewed with excitement, and her background was talked about in positives. That things have deteriorated suggests their relationship with the press has broken down. 

Of course the initial coverage was positive. The tabloids love a narrative. They build someone up so that they can later tear them down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

new polling data suggesting Labour doesn’t represent a lot of the voters it managed to lose to the Tories any more.

Plus Labours Brexit position being the big reason they lost so many votes, even over Corbyn.

So while I think there is some truth that voters weren’t unhappy with Labour policies , as most of the new candidates like to repeat, I think there is a huge image problem for Labour right now.

They have turned into the party of the student and the liberal city dweller and don’t really have much connection to the rest of the country. I’m not seeing any real effort to reconnect , and much of the talk I think is really about doubling down instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So quoting your linked YouGov tweets (which don't seem to mention Brexit):

Quote

74% of Lab-Con switchers say that Labour left them, not the other way around. The party "used to represent people like me, but no longer does".

46% say the Tories never used to represent people like them, but does so now.

...that's not to say that Lab-Con switchers like Jeremy Corbyn - they really, really don't. Just 5% hold a favourable view of the outgoing Labour leader, while 76% have a very unfavourable view.

By contrast, 81% have a favourable view of Boris Johnson.

Doesn't sound like Corbyn was not a factor ...


I think that the central question is whether Johnson can keep the support of those people, given the likely near future and that they are typically poorer and from relatively deprived areas (that, for example, currently receive EU subsidies). Can he keep up his persona? Is he going to be able to convince them in a few years time that their lives are better? Personally I am still concerned about disillusionment leading to a further rise of the far right.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, A wilding said:

So quoting your linked YouGov tweets (which don't seem to mention Brexit)):

Doesn't sound like Corbyn was not a factor ...


I think that the central question is whether Johnson can keep the support of those people, given the likely near future and that they are typically poorer and from relatively deprived areas (that, for example, currently receive EU subsidies). Can he keep up his persona? Is he going to be able to convince them in a few years time that their lives are better? Personally I am still concerned about disillusionment leading to a further rise of the far right.

 

Worth checking out the original tweet in that thread for the Brexit bit, it was almost overwhelmingly the reason stated they’d switched, Corbyn being second,  but actually not that close.

On your second point, it’s been pretty clear that the Tories realise they don’t have a good hold of those voters now. They will almost certainly need to put in place policies that help those areas, and much of the talk is that they want to do that.

But at the same time it’s clear the switch wasn’t based on economic reasons. I think whilst Labour sell themselves as a party of Liberal Londoners then they are really going to struggle to get those areas back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anybody happens to meet Arlene Foster (I know very unlikely), could you ask her one question.

Will Boris Johnson be invited to speak at their next party conference again?

49 minutes ago, A wilding said:

I think that the central question is whether Johnson can keep the support of those people, given the likely near future and that they are typically poorer and from relatively deprived areas (that, for example, currently receive EU subsidies). Can he keep up his persona? Is he going to be able to convince them in a few years time that their lives are better?

Ok, I wanted to start this post on a lighter note, now let us get into the more gloomy stuff, which is reality.

Interesting question, but no, I don't think Johnson can hold on to them. I think more likely they will retreat into not voting.

Yes, those areas will suffer the most. But this is posing some strategical problems for Labour. Brexit and its cult like following, was not a rational decission. And I doubt most of those voters in the leave areas up north will be able to refllect on how their Leave vote contributed to their worsening situation. So what's Labour going to campaign on? This is a serious question. They will have the same problem the Tories will encounter along the way, that the magical money tree is not an infinite resource, and they'll have to find the funds for any election promise. Ok, Johnson did not bother, but let's see how this is gonna work out.

Whether he can convcince them their lives are better, that brings us back to Brexit being more of a religious cult. You can mock them over their French printed Blue passports all day long, but hey they showed you their vote matters.

In nomine Johnson et Frogface et Brexitus sanctum. Amen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, the votes of these people matter. And the combination you mention of their "worsening situation" and "religious cult" like attitude is why I fear a further lurch to the right.

And thinking on:

17 hours ago, Heartofice said:

But at the same time it’s clear the switch wasn’t based on economic reasons. I think whilst Labour sell themselves as a party of Liberal Londoners then they are really going to struggle to get those areas back.

As a middle class SE England small "l" liberal I probably count as one on those "Liberal Londoners" you refer to. And yet, while I voted tactically for them last month because of the critical situation (and do now have a Labour MP) I am not a Labour supporter and currently think it unlikely I will vote for them in the next GE. That may be another measure of how far Labour now need to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, A wilding said:

Indeed, the votes of these people matter. And the combination you mention of their "worsening situation" and "religious cult" like attitude is why I fear a further lurch to the right.

I'm not really seeing a lurch to the right or one happening in the future. The dividing lines between left and right don't mean very much any more. I think that once Brexit has happened those areas will at least feel like they have been listened to, it isn't a bunch of London liberals telling them they are all racists and 'deplorables'. I can't see any reason for them to lurch to the right. Anti immigration sentiment has fallen massively once it became clear Brexit was going to happen and control of border would be brought back to the UK. 

7 minutes ago, A wilding said:

As a middle class SE England small "l" liberal I probably count as one on those "Liberal Londoners" you refer to. And yet, while I voted tactically for them last month because of the critical situation (and do now have a Labour MP) I am not a Labour supporter and currently think it unlikely I will vote for them in the next GE. That may be another measure of how far Labour now need to go.

With Corbyn gone and a strong leader they would have a much better chance. They have been a terrible party of opposition for a very long time, before Corbyn. Unfortunately none of their candidates look like that strong leader, all have massive failings one way or another. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...