A comment was made on the blog today by a person who is an occasional contributor. They made the request that some of the language now becoming relatively commonplace, particularly when commentators are describing the Labour Party, Keir Starmer, and other members of the shadow cabinet, should be more moderate.
If I understand the comment correctly, they do not think that references to the Labour Party as, for example, Tory2, are helpful to understanding. In particular, for those who are not regular readers, such references might be straightforwardly confusing.
It was also implied that the use of semi-abusive corruptions of Labour's name, or the name of Labour politicians, was generally unhelpful to the acceptance of this blog as a place for serious political comment.
I am aware of the importance of language in political discourse. I have, in my time, set out to change such language in areas on which I have been campaigning. However, I tend to agree with this contributor. I did, however, also sound out the opinion of several regular readers of the comments on this blog, none of whom regularly contribute themselves. I was left with a clear impression that they shared the view of this particular commentator that the use of relatively obscure terminology or terms of abuse that imply ongoing knowledge of what is said here, or an understanding of what might be called in-jokes, does not help to encourage wider readership.
Given that such wider readership is, I think, of overall benefit to the blog, can I request that those inclined to use these terms cease to do so? If comments are to have broad appeal and usefulness it would be better to either explain reasons for concern, or at least to use recognised language (for example, 'neoliberal Labour') instead of some of the terminology that has become commonplace of late.
To save me time, could I ask that contributors respect this request for a change in style so that the overall appeal of the blog and the comments upon it might be maintained?
Thank you for your assistance.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Agree 100%
I also agree – as I have previously said here.
I agree totally with your contributor on this.
One of the reasons for following this blog is that you engage in intelligent discussion about serious and important issues. Anyone commenting who thinks that serious debate is had by hurling insults at politicians or parties they dislike (Trump style) diminishes the credibility of the whole blog. It is particularly worrying that some of the worst offenders are people whose other contributions show them perfectly capable of sensible engagement when they choose to.
They may defend themselves by talking about “in-jokes” but it isn’t funny. Someone coming across the blog from following a link would read the insulting language and not return.
Jeanette Fletcher
Well, well. Centrists will be centrist cancel culturists. My first post, most probably my last.
Pity. I was enjoying the economics education.
Can you clarify your concerns?
Genuinely do not understand Jeanette Fletcher post. Cancel culture? Clarity culture, more like. While I hold a similar view to our Liebore user, entirely agree that the purpose of this log is dialogue, and in’joke’s are a bit “boys club” and obscure the argument,.
I agree with you Richard . Personally I feel and agree with the criticisms directed at Starmer and the present Labour Party positions and awful U turns , BUT your excellent interesting informative blog is not the place to say it . A year ( to the next election) is a ‘very long time in politics ‘ and an awful lot of ‘events’ could occur which might boost Tory popularity, and the thought of more of their vile ways if they won is just toooo depressing. The general ideas and thoughts talked about here are still in fringe ish thinking but gaining momentum. “Anyone but the Tories “ would sell Labour to me whilst holding my nose. Once in power perhaps and hopefully they will start to be more gradually , quietly move towards ‘our’ more radical way of thinking over a few years . So yes, don’t turn away people who want to be informed of alternative ideas …. Keep it decent and open.
Thanks
100% agree. Plenty of criticism can be directed at the current Labour Party but it is the best we’ve got to defeat the current incumbents who are hell bent on destroying the entirety of the Welfare State, the justice system, social services. Housing, etc. creating a grossly unfair and increasingly unequal society. We have to end this and, whether we like it or not, at the moment the Labour Party is all we have. It’s clear that the country wasn’t, in 2019, and now in 2023/4 going to support a Corbynist agenda. We have to recognise this and by the kind of work Richard is doing, start to change ideas about the role of Government, role of taxation and the ways to create a community in which citizens support each other. Reading these comments on a daily basis as I do, I wrack my brain as to how we, who share the same values and views, can help to spread these and change the climate of thought from cutting government expenditure mantra, to investing in people. Richard you do a great job. How can we help?
I might ask you last question in a separate pst, sometime soon.
Thanks for asking it.
My two cents worth is:
I agree with you.
I agree, for what it’s worth.
I enjoy clever wordplay as well as the next man (Whoops!…person), but it palls with repetition.
I’m in favour of calling a spade a spade even when I know it to be a shovel (as I think most readers here do).
Serious criticism is (and should not be) devalued by frivolity. Although I have to admit humour can be a powerful weapon.
Some humour is good
But I think you know that Andy
Richard,
The important thing is to not let the comment section of “Funding the Future” degrade to the level of the comment section of “The Daily Fail”. You are are 100% correct to “nip it in the bud” as it very easy to fall down the hill into the level of a bar (pub) brawl from the lofty perch of hardcore intelligent academic discussion.
I read your blog specifically for the hardcore intelligent academic discussions I rarely find anywhere else.
I’d agree too. I value what is mostly serious discussion here and the language can rather undermine it. It risks dropping to the level that too many of our current politicians have dropped to and that cannot be a good sign. We have to be better than that. However tempting it might be.
I also agree and I’ve said so before, albeit not for a while.
One of the delights of this place is that many of your regular commentators are very knowledgeable and erudite, but I find the continuous repetition of the abusive invective becomes a little tiresome. It obscures rather than enlightens their useful comments.
It seems to have been getting worse for a few months and I hope it can be dialled back a notch or two.
Thanks
It’s your blog Richard, you set the rules.
Consider it done at my end.
Thanks
I agree with the plea from your correspondent, but I also appreciate the reason for the use of mis-naming.
It’s a strong political tool. The misnaming reminds us, justly, every time we meet it of why we have such strong distrust and dislike of certain politicians.
Perhaps this this blog is not the place to “insult without citation”, because we are clear about our justification. But the occasional apt reminder should perhaps not come amiss either? Or are we ready to forget the transgressions? It’s an easy step from there to forgiveness.
I am nit asking anyone to ignore what is happening.
I just think there are better and more effective ways to call it out now.
I agree let’s keep it sensible, silly shortcut labels to describe others doesn’t help. Better to make your point i.e “The labour leader, who has reneged on previous commitments, said toady……” So no one is being “cancelled” just use clearer language.
I have used some mildly offensive terms to describe Tory and Labour politicians, and some sweaty words. It is lazy and self indulgent.
As a Scot who supports independence, I find it difficult to feel sympathy for Tory or Labour “victims” of my language when they call me a “gnat” or “seperarist.” Poor souls.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, so I will be more moderate in future.
I have to say though that the current crop of political leaders, in both major British Nationalist parties is, in my view, the worst since the 1920s and 30s. Worse than useless!!
Personally, I judge the blog by the articles and the comments individually on their own merits. Thus, I take the comments by people who put their own name to grammatically careful English the most seriously, and heavily discount the ones that not only don’t use their own name, but deliberately refuse to get anybody else’s name right either.
Like most of us here, I am worried by, and dissatisfied with, the direction Keir Starmer is going in, but, in fairness, he is a serious man in a very important post. Mocking him with distortions of his name is a school bully tactic that says nothing about him, but plenty about the mocker.
You are giving Starmer, a serial, if not a congential liar (& a zionst) respect that is wholly & completely undeserved.
The only area that Starmer is serious about is getting is hands on the levers of power. That is all. There is almost no policy. Taking one example he supports Tory1 in making sure there are more hungry kids in the UK – by supporting the 2 child benefit limit. That is vile, the man is vile & depraved given that he is supposed to be leader of a party that is purportedly socilaist – but as in the time of the warmonger B.lair is now taking the 40 pieces of coporate silver (ref the recent party conf)
But according to various people here – I am supposed to show this person and the party he leads respect and be polite.
Really?
But as PSR notes – it is Richard’s blog & thus his rules.
I have a sense of dialogues being constrained – English politness rules – OK & no room for skewering the liars, sharks, scum that infest the Uk body politi-sick & calling them for what they are.
It was fun whilst it lasted.
I fully agree with “skewering the liars, sharks, scum that infest the Uk body politi-sick & calling them for what they are.” But as I have said to you several times before, doing it by using childish playground names obscures the message. Some of your posts are unintelligible because of your use of your own versions of names. What is the point of that?
I think this point has bneen made now.
Time to move on.
Thanks
Richard
I came to this blog after finding a comment from you elsewhere that challenged my opinion and improved my understanding of complex issues. I keep coming because of that and the quality of the responses. I believe the request to be reasonable and responsible. For me the name calling is a distraction.
.I have no concerns about the terms used by some commentators, although I wouldn’t use them myself in this forum. I think it is up to you to police this Richard, or maybe do one of your polls to judge the views of commentators more widely.
Thank you for calling this out.
I agree with your reasoning and believe there is another dimension to the sort of ‘populist’ name calling approach.
It is sadly becoming the norm’ in the current political climate to fire verbal shots at anyone that seems to veer away from the shooter’s personal ideals in particular relating to a party leader or representative’s comments. Vitriol abounds but sadly understanding is lacking.
To me, the underlying truth is surely that whilst in opposition the fundamental objective for that party is to work towards becoming the party of governance. (Or vice versa to remain in governance)
That means the objective must include the need to persuade the voting public that they will better deliver for their needs and wants than the party in governance (or opposition). This puts a political ‘idealist’ within a massive general target audience, for the politician, and the very specific needs of the idealist are bound to come second best to the primary; and in my view more important; needs of the politician seeking a governance role.
My suggestion to these disappointed people is to stop and think. Is the person likely to deliver a better governed country for us all, not just me or my own specific faction? Will my comment help or hinder my ideal party of governance?
In short, we can never get 100% of or own personal ideals delivered, even for those who like me are members of a political party.
Think all, not some.
Have an opinion certainly, but do not attack, simply explain.
This is nothing to do with stopping criticism of the Labour party, its lack of policies and the duplicity of its leader. That must and (I hope) will continue. This is about using adult phraseology such as calling the Labour party ‘the Labour party’ and not using playground infantile names which makes some posts unintelligible and, frankly, not worth reading.
I feel moved to state my objections to offensive language. It can verge on trolling. I recently wrote a piece on another Blog and flushed out a known troll there and exposed he/she/it’s methods. The troll was banned. Here the criticism pains me a little because it may apply to a very knowledgeable and fine critic and commenter but regrettably often too angry to moderate his tone; but the points being written here are well made.
I don’t really like some of the comments about those of us using labels (as I have done) to describe the behaviours and policies of those who oppress us and rip us off. It’s just piling in I think when a decision has been made for us to reign this in. The point has been made and won and will be observed going forward I’m sure.
For my part, there is a long tradition of treating those in politics who impose unfairness on us with contempt using humour and just being rude. What else do we have sometimes when even the erudition, duty of care and reasonableness of our host seems to fall on deaf ears?
And within a few moments of reading, if you don’t like a post, just move onto the next one? We are empowered to do that at our finger tips. I note today that a video of Jonathan Pie is here? Is some ‘occasional visitor’ going to complain about that next? I hope not. Keep them coming.
So, having ‘given way’, a few suggestions:
Is satire welcome here from posters? We don’t want to be too humourless surely? Things are a bit grim. Some of us write to cheer ourselves up.
Could we share more of what each of us are reading or what are professional background is ? More references as to where we get our knowledge and opinions from? I’ve tried to do that this morning as I respond to our host’s thoughtful content. There are some topics I will always need to know more about and would always welcome some direction as opposed to derision or tut-tutting for example as I value and trust contributors even if I do not always agree with them.
Thank you.
Can I be clear?
I am not saying humour and some poking of fun cannot happen.
But when it becoms habitual – and becomes either a barrtier to entry to some or a bartrie to undertsanding for others it does not help the blog achieve its goals and I think that point was being reached. For example, there seemed to be less traffic on comments – maybe for that reason. So I am banning nothing. But I am asking for care and moderation.
Thanks.
▓ This discussion reminds me to think hard once again about my own online posts.
In particular whether I’m being tone deaf for the specific website.
▓ I confess to skipping over comments authored by someone with a silly name.
▓ Years ago Clay Shirky wrote useful stuff about the group processes involved in maintaining constructive respectful online discussion. (Or spiralling into pointless abuse)
▓ Above all what do most people hope for in joining a thread?
My hopes are: to learn something and be challenged.
Perhaps find signposts/markers/links to people, speech and writing which are helpful and enriching.
Above all, I value collaboration and co-operation on projects which work.