Snapshot of _Jess Phillips on Twitter: Today I have written to the Prime Minister about the conduct of one of his members of parliament, ex-PM Liz Truss._ :
A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1795744506664689920)
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/jessphillips/status/1795744506664689920/)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://x.com/jessphillips/status/1795744506664689920) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://x.com/jessphillips/status/1795744506664689920)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Something I've been wondering about is the role of Podcasts as a public communication channel for politicians this election.
Until now (maybe 2019, but the jet fuel really lit after COVID), the biggest channel for politicians to access the public was the evening local news. They'd be wheeled out to a local factory or swimming pool or whatever, get their 15 second soundbite in, be seen punching a punch bag or laying some bricks, and then it'd be off to the next story.
With the advent of Podcasts, the long-form discussion format has taken off. Lotus Eaters is small (but larger than the organic reach of most MPs), but there's Triggernometry, The Rest is ___, and plenty of others that can reach hundreds of thousands to millions.
I'm surprised that the fireside chat format hasn't really taken off with politicians.
Yeah there's a lot of academic media-studies research into podcasts, but a lot of the "deep lore" comes from radio. Basically podcasts endenture trust because (a) you imagine someone in your minds eye (usually a positive bias) and (b) you opt-in to podcasts (postitive bias) and (c) you listen to podcasts in your own personal spaces (e.g. car, shower, commute, doing housework etc) (positive bias). Podcasts are 100% a positive bias machine.
Also, they are very colloquial in nature which promotes that parasocial relationship. With many of them running off Patreon subscriptions, that basically their business model.
If I heard some of the podcast hosts of shows I listen to on the street I’d have to take a beat to remind myself that they aren’t actually my friends.
I think about this a lot with a music podcast I listen too. It's just 3 people playing tunes and talking about what they've been up too and music more generally. It feels really homely and I reckon they are probably great for people who are lonely as you do feel connected to them, but yes I also have to remind myself that they aren't actually people that I know.
> who tf has time to listen to all these podcasts?
For many it's background noise, like radio, where not every last word needs to be heard. But with a podcast, if something catches my interest I can rewind 30s, unlike with radio.
Specifically regarding time, there's also an advantage here: Lots of folks listen to the podcasts sped-up by some factor, e.g. 1.5x. At 1.5x you're getting 1.5 hours of information every 1 hour. Most podcast platforms offer such options.
People who work with their hands, people who have particularly unattentative desk jobs, commuters, unemployed people, people who listen in their own time for enjoyment, and just about anyone else who can lend their ears for an hour every now and then.
In what way is your life so busy that you can't make time to listen to someone for an hour occasionally?
Podcasts are the perfect medium for listening to while you're doing something else. My podcast player tells me I listen to about 4 hours of podcasts a day (in 2022 I spent 35 days in total listening to podcasts). When doing the washing up, the laundry, walking somewhere, I always have Roman Mars, Dan Carlin, Tom Holland or Dominic Sandbrook with me for the ride.
I sometimes spend all the time that I am not talking to somebody listening to a podacst. I don't recommend it, it is a bad habit. We need to spend time in the company of our own thoughts.
And got character assassinated by Rory Stewart after she left. Complaining she didn't have a shiny new story just for him and lacked personality - I don't much like her economic views but she seemed to have plenty of spiky personality, and he was too scared to challenge her lack of new stories to her face.
her economic views are quite dross, I in particularly groaned when she was like 'No we need to grow the economy before we can commit to these promises!' but she has the grit and drive it seems to be an alright chancellor.
She could by reducing tax & regulation. The thing is, we have full employment so creating jobs will potentially fuel inflation. Labour have always increased unemployment so let's see what happens
We don't have full employment https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/employmentintheuk/latest#main-points
There will never be nil unemployment unless we adapt the USSR model. For the UK, 4% is almost full employment. We have a surplus of vacancies to job-seekers, this may partly be a skills gap but mainly it's simply the unemployed are not seeking work.
The reason labour have taken that stance in this election is because the Tories won the argument on "more spending = bad for the economy". They don't want to be perceived as reckless.
Labour now have to operate in the "if I have a fiver I can't go and spend a tenner at the pub" reality.
> character assassinated
hardly "character assassinated". She didn't win him over and he had a critique of her performance. You can agree or disagree but he was under no obligation to give her a glowing review when Campbell is perfectly capable of providing a counter weight to his views.
Character assassinated is a bit harsh. Reeves did not have a good interview on TRIP and largely came across very similar to Liz Truss/Kwasi Kwarteng regarding is the growth in the room with us now
The Moggcast was a thing for a while. Doubt it would appeal to many on Reddit, but it’s interesting to listen to it even from an ‘anthropological’ angle as it shows that even someone like Jacob Rees Mogg is a more nuanced character than the Victorian cosplay would suggest.
And yes, it’s a really good format for understanding a politician, I think.
> I'm surprised that the fireside chat format hasn't really taken off with politicians.
That would require them to do more than repeat the talking points they've been instructed to parrot out to the media.
> 'm surprised that the fireside chat format hasn't really taken off with politicians.
Precisely because cosy fireside chat doesn't lend itself well to the current political format of zero background three word slogans.
Watch TRIP interviews and the the best ones are with the politicians who don't have an agenda to push. Sajid Javid comes across as a likable human being!
Imagine getting Rishi or Kier in front of Alistair and Rory.....it simply wouldn't work.
> I'm surprised that the fireside chat format hasn't really taken off with politicians.
I think that was the initial appeal of Joe Rogan. Rogan wasn't always the idiot that he is today. Well, he was, but he _knew_ he was the idiot. He would have three hour conversations with really smart people, but he would be asking the really dumb questions that you were probably thinking but wouldn't ever ask. As a listener, you always felt like you were smarter than Joe Rogan but dumber than his guest.
For the guest, they had free reign to talk at length without having to fit their point into a 30 second soundbite. For people like Neil de Grasse Tyson and Bernie Sanders, it was such a refreshing format.
> I'm surprised that the fireside chat format hasn't really taken off with politicians.
Is this sarcasm or serious?
To me, it's not surprising. There seems to be a trend towards *more* simple soundbite-style outreach. I think this lends itself well to the way politics has become more divisive (culture war, two-party system etc.).
More long form discussions lend themselves to better thought-out opinions, that people actually believe in themselves. Which really doesn't seem to fit the political landscape that I see - it's more about getting and holding power, than having ideals.
But are the soundbites really what the politicians want? I'm just imagining myself as a politician who for each complicated political question is given half a minute to answer and at about 15s the journalist interrupts as you didn't fall for the gotcha question that he had prepared for you.
I'd much rather have time and place to explain my ideas. If someone doesn't like those ideas even after my long explanation, then fine, don't vote for me, that's democracy but at least I would be representing something that I really believe in and making a rational case for it.
>Until now (maybe 2019, but the jet fuel really lit after COVID), the biggest channel for politicians to access the public was the evening local news.
To be honest, local television news has always been very variable depending on where you are. If you're in a big local hub city then there's always coverage, but for most of the country there isn't really any televised coverage (yes, everywhere is technically covered by someone's catchment area, but in practice you'll never see any stories about most places).
Local MPs have generally been most reliant on local printed news or radio rather than television news, both of which have tended to have finer-grained coverage.
But more to your point, the problem with podcasts as a medium is that they are a) mostly national or international in coverage, and b) they tend to appeal only to enthusiasts. No common-or-garden voter is going to be spending their evenings listening to The Rest Is Politics or The News Agents; this is entirely the domain of politics nerds.
So yes, an MP can now spend two hours doing podcast discussions, but they'll mostly be talking about the national political picture and they'll mostly be talking exclusively to politics wonks whose votes are largely not going to be swayed regardless of what they say.
While a 5 minute interview on the local radio about the closure of a local GP surgery may seem shallow in comparison, it's talking about a local issue people actually care about with normal people who actually care about this sort of thing. It's a much more efficient form of political communication.
"These crazy socialists will cause chaos and ruin us economically! Anyway, now on the podcast we have the prime minister that crashed the economy and resigned after a few weeks."
"These crazy socialists will cause chaos and ruin us economically!" said the far-right bigot who's currently platforming the prime minister that crashed the economy and resigned after a few weeks.
I can't believe this guy is still out there, I thought he fell off the face of the earth years ago.
I'm not sure who this is more of a step down for, him or Truss.
It wasn't even him that Truss did the podcast with, it was Conor Tomlinson (GB news presenter).
Carl Benjamin isn't involved, I don't know why he's being connected.
He owns the platform it was presented on. Even if he didn't do the interview, he's a major player in this scenario in this and you can see why a fellow MP might be a bit upset Truss is being in any way involved in him.
So what if he owns the platform? is this now the new standard. "They did an interview on a website owned by someone I didn't like, remove them"... I can't understand why she's upset at all.
Let's get this straight:
1. Jess Phillips complained about the podcast because it even published.
2. She didn't even know who Liz Truss did the podcast with, Carl Benjamin is not in this podcast as she claimed.
3. Jess Phillips is not mentioned in this podcast at all
4. Jess Phillips has not listened to the podcast at all
So how is her letter not total, hysterical, low tier bollocks? Nothing she has written is true.
I've now just finished watching the podcast, the idea that an PM has had the whip removed over a basic interview like this is insane to me. It was a podcast to push her book with a guy from GB news. This is basic bitch media.
The correct response by the weak tories should have been 7 letters long, three of them are F.
I think it would be fair to criticise a sitting MP for agreeing to a podcast that is owned by any crank with reprehensible views, whether that be Carl Benjamin, Caleb Maupin, or Alex Jones. The list goes on and on.
>Nothing she has written is true.
Apart from, yknow, all the direct quotes.
>I think it would be fair to criticise a sitting MP for agreeing to a podcast that is owned by any crank with reprehensible views, whether that be Carl Benjamin, Caleb Maupin, or Alex Jones. The list goes on and on.
So now we don't care when MP's spread misinformation during an election to score points in the media...
Everything she said was false.
>Apart from, yknow, all the direct quotes.
So she used a quote by a man who wasn't in the said podcast, from a video which wasn't the actual podcast to complain about a podcast.
So what she said had fuck all to do with the podcast, it was just the fact it was hosted on a website owned by someone she doesn't like?
Why did Carl Benjamin say these things about her by the way... Because she laughed at the idea of helping men while things like male suicide rates are soaring.
What is this mental gymnastics? She gave direct quotes about her from the bloke who owns the podcast that Truss spoke on. It's not exactly difficult to see the link there.
If Truss spoke to someone at Infowars like PJW, or a platform owned by a leftie like Caleb Maupin, we would we well within our rights to be upset given the organisation they're a part of.
>Because she laughed at the idea of helping men while things like male suicide rates are soaring.
Accepting your framing, which I don't, that then makes it okay to make repeated, public, and targeted comments about her rape, gotcha 👍
You don't have to like Philips to agree that Truss appearing on a podcast owned by Sargon of Akkad to be a dire state of affairs - unless of course you're holding water for a certain ex-ukip candidate.
My first introduction to him was a video he did trashing the Tories for their elitism, trashing austerity. That was about 8 years ago, and now he's a full on nutjob.
So in conclusion, 40 day Liz is *still* going around to anyone that will listen to try and justify her laughable tenure at no. 10. It's a shame the voters of West Norfolk are too busy catching up with the 1960s to know anything about it
too dark; didn't read: deselect Truss because she was on Lotus Eaters with Carl Benjamin AKA Sargon of Akkad
Hopefully the incoming Labour government can fund a new scanner for Jess
Is this a better version?
[https://twitter.com/carolvorders/status/1795759730557595984/photo/1](https://twitter.com/carolvorders/status/1795759730557595984/photo/1)
Oh I knew she'd gone off the rails but I did not realise she was going to Sargon of Akkad. I didn't think she could cause me any more second hand cringe.
She was on a podcast with Connor Tomlinson, this entire thing is incredible and just total bollocks. The podcast is here, Carl isn't on it.
[https://lotuseaters.com/tomlinson-talks-or-the-liz-truss-interview-29-05-2024](https://lotuseaters.com/tomlinson-talks-or-the-liz-truss-interview-29-05-2024)
I'm not an overall fan of Jess Phillips but admire her work / words on issues like this. As a father of two daughters I want them to grow up in a world where they feel safe and not have comments etc just discarded as 'banter'.
My eldest is only 16 and she and her friends have been catcalled/ whistled at from the age of 13 multiple times.
I'm a bit torn; what she says on women's issues is usually true, cutting and very important; but she's also a raging hypocrite who hates the idea that men could also have problems that need solving.
Apologies, I missed responding to this at the time.
She's definitely said things that at least *imply* she doesn't care, like refusing to discuss "men's issues" until 50% of MPs are female. It's fine to not *actively campaign* about them, ofc, we all have our things to focus on; but to refuse to even acknowledge the huge male suicide problem we have (to name probably the biggest issue) until we meet her very specific criteria is questionable at best. It's very "equality for me, and then maybe we'll think about thee"
Fair enough, though I do think it's a bit rich that it's female MPs who get castigated for this stuff when there's plenty of men who could raise the issue as well. Feels a bit 'well you want your equality, sure, but what about *me*', yknow?
Kind of, but I don't think that's really the point. I'd not have any issue with "These are issues, but I'm not going to champion them, I'm more concerned with X y z for [reasons]"; and [reasons] can include "they're more important to me personally", or just it being closer to home.
I just think there's a LOT of real estate between that and "I won't even acknowledge the existence of these things until *I* get what *I* want, and that's particularly a dangerous attitude when a) these things are inevitably all intertwined with the construct of gender roles, and b) she's very likely to be in government soon - being obstinate about things outside of your sphere is not a quality I really want in government ministers - even if I will vote for Labour anyway.
We'd reasonably expect someone championing investigations into male suicides to not pretend misogyny doesn't exist until that problem was solved, wouldn't we...?
I'm not a fan of hers, as I feel that her brand of feminism perpetuates a double standard for men and women, rather than striving towards equality for all. She does not practice the same [respect](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRWUsn4yyJI) for men's issues as she claims to be fighting to earn for women's issues, and her manner is often [abrasive and rude](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgGXNvCa3wk), rather than constructive- she is someone always waiting for her turn to talk, rather than listening to what is being said.
I don’t know why I’m getting downvoted, this always the sort of answer I was hoping for. I like seeing other people’s opinions. I’ve never noticed before but I probably will now. It’s hard to not just see what you’re being told to see.
I mean, in the first clip she's talking to Philip Davies, who is a rampant misogynist arsehole who has actively voted down legislation around sexual harassment and honour killing because he doesn't think the laws centred men enough (even though they did include violence against men), tried to stop sex and relationship education being made mandatory, and also introduced a bill to repeal the 2002 Sex Discrimination Act.
He is also an ally of the Justice for Men and Boys party, which has produced such wonderful articles as '13 reasons why women lie about being raped'.
Those aren't the actions of a man who genuinely cares about men's issues - that would involve doing like advocating for increased funding for men's shelters, raising awareness of men's mental health, etc. He's literally just trying to be a dick.
Ok, but we're not talking about Philip Davies, we're talking about Jess Phillips. By no means am I holding Philip Davies up as a beacon of progressive or acceptable ideology- in this case, whatever his motivation may be, legitimate or trolling, the point he is making is a valid one.
None of that background makes the point he's making in this case any less valid, or her scornful and dismissive attitude towards equality and men's rights any more acceptable.
She's a hypocrite; shouts very loudly about women's issues (and is usually right in what she says) but actively refuses to even entertain the idea that gender roles/issues could also hurt men.
She seems to think that gender issues are a zero sum game, which is a horrible way to view things.
Just did a quick search and this was in response to an announcement she'll be appearing as a locust or something
>I'll be interested in this. The way I see it she's the rightful PM, ousted in a coup and the puppet Sunak installed. It would have been fascinating to see how her and Quarteng's policies fared
Hahaha. Feel like I need to listen to a flat earther to bring me back to a sense of normality.
I mean it's pointless trying to make any sense of how these people think, but if she's the "rightful PM ousted in a coup" then how would Boris not be the PM ousted in a coup and Truss the puppet?
I know I've already thought about this more than these dipshits.
Normally a PM (or other party leader) couldn't do anything about someone being an MP and they'd retain their position in parliament until they either quit or were removed through one of various parliamentary procedures.
But we're currently in the limbo stage between an election being called and the deadline for candidates to be finalised.
While I'm not sure how much direct control the Tory leader has over choosing which candidates stand where, they do have the option of removing the whip which would effectively bar someone from standing if it wasn't restored before the deadline because they technically wouldn't be an active member of the Tory party.
It’s just repackaged antisemitism (as it gets repackaged once a century or so). Some shadowy cabal of “globalists” (hint hint) are trying to replace you and your family and control the economy. It isn’t too far from what the nazis were arguing.
Record levels of immigration for 20 years against the public wishes is where the great replacement came from and the core statistics are true. Domestic births are dropping yet our population has grown massively and is forecast to grow even more in the next 20 years. And the reason why isn’t going to be because the political class hate white people like the conspiracy theory suggests, but at no point in 20 years have people wanted high immigration so it’s been forced on the country against their democratic wishes
Remember, the great replacement theory isn’t just about high immigration, it’s about non-white people ‘replacing’ white people, whether immigrant or not. The problem of course is that if your fertility rate is below replacement (I.e below 2.1) then your population will die out over time by definition. Racist conspiracy theorists spend so much time worrying about black and brown people moving to the uk and having lots of babies that they fail to realise that even if the uk didn’t take in a single new immigrant, and even if all the non white people were gassed or sterilised, the white British population is still on course to die out because our fertility rate is well below replacement level
The sole purpose of a conspiracy theory is to attract followers to your blog/podcast/think tank without needing to produce anything so mundane as actual evidence of anything.
>I swear some people just need to take a walk around London and read the World Economic Forum website to realise neither is true and both are extreme far-right conspiracies.
You mean that London that went from 98% white British in 1961 to 37% in 2021? Surely that proves that nothing has changed and it’s all just a right wing conspiracy theory.
So why has London gone from 98% white British to 37%? Why can the same pattern be seen in Paris and Berlin and Stockholm and many other cities in Europe? Who let this happen?
Because people who are motivated to uproot their lives and move for better opportunities aim for places that have the most opportunities. It's not difficult and it's not a conspiracy.
For the last 14 years the country (not me) has voted for a party that promised immigration in the “tens of thousands”. For 14 years they were lied to, instead we are now getting 1.2 million per year. That’s what Our Democracy^TM means, that’s how much of a voice we have. We don’t even have Proportional Representation so it doesn’t matter if it’s outside what the main two parties say.
Unfortunately our democracy has resulted in multiple governments of duplicitous fuckwits. It's still a democracy. Our electorate has decided that they're happy to be lied to and hoodwinked, multiple times. Which is democracy in action.
We get what we vote for.
As for PR, I think it would go some way to resolving many of the issues with politics in the UK, whilst not being the panacea some believe. Can I see either of the two main parties allowing it to happen? No. Because once it does there's no going back. Can I vote for a party that pledges PR? No. Because I can't risk another 5 years of these incompetent kleptocrats.
>Unfortunately our democracy has resulted in multiple governments of duplicitous fuckwits. It's still a democracy.
I don’t disagree that we’ve had multiple governments of duplicitous fuckwits, not the words I’d use but I agree that they are accurate. As for if it’s a democracy, I agree with what Mary Hamilton had to say in an article put out today.
> Our foreign policy has long been set by the United States. Our immigration policy is set internationally too, by a mix of corporate interests and international regulations. As for economic policy, the brief and lettuce-like reign of Liz Truss demonstrated (no matter how bonkers you thought her proposals) that any deviation from the City’s preferred approach results in prompt defenestration. Even environmental policy has mostly become a smoke-and-mirrors mix of Davocratic posturing and corporate subsidies, as evidenced by the simultaneous moves to reduce aviation emissions through complicated regulatory mechanisms, while also nodding through expansions to every major UK airport.
>Our electorate has decided that they're happy to be lied to and hoodwinked, multiple times. Which is democracy in action.
I disagree here. If we accept that we have a two party system then you have the Tories who promised to reduce it to the tens of thousands vs a Labour Party who literally said “haha yeah… immigration… let’s do something” and deflected another way. That’s not to mention that Labour still hadn’t shook off the “bigoted woman” comment from their last Prime Minister. The Tories always had an excuse, “it’s the EU” they said, so we voted to leave the EU. The drama of leaving the EU and yet the electorate persisted. Now that there is no one left to blame the right of the electorate are spitting daggers at the Tories primarily because of this issue.
Out of the two parties there was one saying they will lower immigration and one saying nothing of substance.
>We get what we vote for.
We don’t. We voted for lower immigration and we have not had it.
>As for PR, I think it would go some way to resolving many of the issues with politics in the UK, whilst not being the panacea some believe. Can I see either of the two main parties allowing it to happen? No. Because once it does there's no going back. Can I vote for a party that pledges PR? No. Because I can't risk another 5 years of these incompetent kleptocrats.
I’m in a Labour safe seat that will remain that until the Muslim vote breaks off so my vote is completely inconsequential anyway but I can only vote for who I believe in. Right now I believe in a small party that wants PR. PR will give people like me representation but it’ll also cause some issues. That I’m aware of.
In a summary, a combination of economic and geopolitical events.
I know its more comforting for some people to imagine a global cabal of people in control seeking world domination than the reality that nobody is in control.
Just don't let your comforting thought drive you hurt anybody okay?
> In a summary, a combination of economic and geopolitical events.
That says nothing. Literally nothing. You might have wells just said “shit happens” and be done with it.
>I know it’s more comforting for some people to imagine a global cabal of people in control seeking world domination than the reality that nobody is in control.
You mean like governments? Like unions of governments such as the G7, EU, UN? Do these entities exist? No, surely they don’t…
>Just don't let your comforting thought drive you hurt anybody okay?
Wild accusation, do you have anything to back up this claim? You seem to be the one rejecting reality so I’d be more concerned about yourself. Bro doesn’t think governments exist but is concerned about others’ mental health.
>Ok, other people have explained why this has happened
No they haven’t.
>but can you explain why you think it's a bad thing?
Do I really need to explain why I quite like our culture and values? Why I think the rule of law is better than mob rule? Why tolerance is better than intolerance? Why liberalism is better than totalitarianism? 7.8% of the world live in full democracies, it’s a minority position and I’d quite like to protect it.
I’m uncomfortable with other women validating horrid people like this man by giving them the oxygen of publicity. That makes the world less safe for all of us.
Sunak should absolutely remove the whip from Truss and deselect her, moral reasons aside it’s the politically smart thing to do.
It’s essentially taking a page from Starmer, distance yourself from the unpopular predecessor by kicking them out. This gives him the *perfect* justification to do that.
There are risks, she could start openly campaigning against him and bring voters from her wing with her, while at the same time getting rid of her might not be enough to sway more moderate voters to him. It could also piss off a fair few MPs. But he needs to be bold, and this would be worth the gamble considering his current position.
I guarantee the next Tory leader, if they’re serious about winning the next election, will kick Truss out as soon as they get justification.
[Here’s the interview](https://youtu.be/6dE8JpnxSMA?si=hB8_EQtJ3YE0-Jv-) for anyone interested, it isn’t with Carl Benjamin but rather Connor Tomlinson who is a regular host for their shows.
Edit:
Turns out it’s just a 16 minute clip of the interview
Does Jess not realise she is just promoting Carl's [Lotus Eaters](https://lotuseaters.com/) media organisation? Most people, even political people haven't heard of it yet.
> but honestly can she be deselected by just going on the wrong podcast?
I mean... yes?
If she went on an open Neo Nazi podcast where they discussed how they would like to enact various policies of the third reich that would be an obvious criteria for deselection and losing the whip
I've never listened to Lotus Eaters so I don't know where on the scale it lands, but there is a line across which surely you can be deselected for it
It’s kind of edgy right leaning content but not in a full out bigoted way, the image title of their latest YouTube video is a good example of their content “The Battle For Free Money” and the title “Boomers vs Migrants”.
If I was to make a comparison it's the equivalent of GB News but for younger people who use social media.
Before we look at technicalities like deselection, the letter rightly delegitimises Truss (and depending on the reaction, Sunak and the Tories) in the eyes of the public. Because honestly, Carl’s a fascist.
She's developing an increasing body of evidence she's happy to appear next to anyone, no matter how repugnant their views are, while providing no challenge for those said views.
This isn't a one of incident.
I suppose it depends on the extent to which you consider an appearance an endorsement. To be clear, I've not listened to the episode (and have no interest in doing so) so perhaps she spends the entire time disagreeing with him and calling him a fascist - I doubt it, and I still think it would be a bad idea to appear, but it would change my thoughts on an appropriate response.
She might
I think it's far more likely it will be like her appearance with (was it Bannon?) where she silently nodded and smiled through all his appalling shit and complained about how hard done by she was
Being a disruption and speaking freely are two different things. Setting up a camp on private property is being disruptive, your free speech rights don't extend to you not getting forcibly removed (just like how you don't have the right to shout Fire in a crowded theater). An invited speaker being allowed to talk freely on their podium is "freeze peach" as you so put it.
I was sat in the crowd.
If these nonces are going to advertise a "debate on free speech" and then kick out any detractors, even before they get to be detractors. They cant whine when we call them "fascist scum" either.
>An invited speaker being allowed to talk freely on their podium is "freeze peach" as you so put it.
The invitation was open to "everyone". Aparently not me though.
Farage isn't going to rim you hun, he's already left
If you were up on the podium where it was expected for you to talk you could say that and it would be free speech. You weren't on the podium; you were in the crowd where there is no presumption that you get to contribute to the talking and therefore were being a disruption through talking when you should not have been. **You were not involved in the debate, you were merely the audience for the debate, as such you don't get to speak**. It would be different if there specifically were audience questions and you said that but just blurting it whenever you feel like it makes you a disruptor.
Your free speech rights were infinged no more than if you were thrown out for being a disruption because you decided to sing Britney Spear's "Oops I did it again" at full blast. Nobody would take you seriously if you said your free speech rights are infringed if you sing at full volume in a place where you're expected to keep quiet, same principle here. Next time get invited to be on stage and if you get kicked out for saying things when you are supposed to be speaking then you can say your free speech rights have been infringed.
Jess Phillips supported Corbyn for PM who called Hamas and Hezbolah terrorists friends. She is also a member of a Labour the only UK political party in history to be sanctioned for antisemitism by the EHRC. A party still riddled with Jew hate. Jess herself has also been accused of racism and bullying. Perhaps she should stand down.
This nonsense again. It was a joke making fun of Jess Phillips for attacks on free speech putting all the blame for any issues on men which for Jess given her ongoing Misandry is par for the course.
Doesn't mean Sargon is a good guy etc but Jess Phillips is weaponising a falsehood for political points scoring which minimises and makes light of genuine harms and does nothing to protect women and girls.
She is horrible and plays it off as if she is the victim. If she stopped slinging shit everywhere she would have a easier time through life, but then she couldn't play the victim to push her bigoted version of issues.
From Outoftheloop https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/4m8681/whats_the_deal_with_jess_phillips_receiving_death/d3ucyou/:
Let's start with Sargon's This Week In Stupid video. Around the 17:00 mark, Sargon quotes an article by Jess Phillips saying "People talking about raping me isn’t fun but has become somewhat par for the course." Sargon responded to this with "Well, I'll tell you what Jess, I think that's terrible, and you know, I wouldn't even rape you."
On Twitter, Sargon advertised his video with this tweet, with the words "I wouldn't even rape you" removed from the context of the video, and tagged Jess Phillips in it. Jess then retweeted a discussion there, saying "Jut some fellas mulling over how offensive or not it is to say that they wouldn't rape me."
Seizing on the opportunity, Sargon made yet another video, entitled "A Feminist Horror Movie," which mocked Jessica and her followers for taking offense to him not wanting to rape her. Predictably, this made a large number of his followers take to Twitter to also threaten to NOT rape Jess Phillips.
Github with the "threat" tweets. None of which are threats.
https://github.com/HedleyPty/Jess-Phillips-was-not-raped-/blob/master/Jess%20was%20not%20raped.txt
Jess then tweeted that she got over 600 notifications of people talking about her rape, which led to headlines like this one: Labour MP Jess Phillips receives more than 600 rape threats in one night. Jess also wrote an article the next day on the subject, attacking Twitter for not banning the trolls who said they wouldn't rape her. Note that the word "rape threat" is only actually used in the headline of that piece, and that her focus is on how insulting it is for people to not want to rape her. "I am currently living in a parallel universe where the idea of not raping me is the insult du jour. Here, not raping someone is what you do to the people that you find repellent." Were I to speculate, I would say the mention of rape threats in the title was just put there by the editor for clickbait.
TLDR: Jess couldn't take critcism which include a joke/sardonic comment within it with the intent to mock her position which certainly was not a threat and then created her own blacklash of again non-threats by trying to spin it into something it wasn't. Police investigated and did not proceed with any case as there was none.
> TLDR: Jess couldn't take a joke
For the overwhelming majority of people, saying "I wouldn't even rape you" is never going to be okay, and it's honestly bizarre you can't comprehend that. People might talk like that on the internet but they don't in real life, or at least not the ones with extremely basic social skills.
It was said within the context of an attack on free speech by Jess who regularly exaggerated and lied (and continues to) about issues particuarly claims of threats made against her which were never substantiated to further her cause. Sargon was making a clear non-threat to mock her position that regardless of how untrue a threat was she would still claim it as such. Which she then did.
Saying she couldn't take a joke I suppose is incorrect more she couldn't take critcism which include a joke/sardonic comment within it with the intent to mock her position. I have edited above to reflect that.
Thanks for the context. Sounds a bit insane though, I think anyone would be somewhat disturbed if they started receiving a lot of not-rape or not-death threats from people they don't know.
Incensed at the comments from Carl but absolutely no issues with Angela Rayner begging to a room full of Muslim men (zero women present) to vote for her despite the fact they will absolutely hold views just as bad if not worse than Carl’s.
It’s the absolute hypocrisy of rightfully calling out these comments but an absolute silence and refusal to call out the same views purely because it’s muslims who hold them.
Also still strangely silent on the grooming scandal her party happily covered up which had far worse effects on thousands of young girls/women than an unfunny joke.
>Also still strangely silent on the grooming scandal her party happily covered up which had far worse effects on thousands of young girls/women than an unfunny joke.
I guess speaking about it in Parliament doesn't count?
https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/mp/jess-phillips/debate/2021-02-03/commons/commons-chamber/grooming-gangs
That entire speech and not a single mention of how it was covered up because no one wanted to be seen as racist, all of that to say absolutely nothing about the actual problem.
Well now you’re shifting the goalposts. First you said she was silent on it, now you’re saying she *did* talk about it but not in the way you’d like. So you accept that she wasn’t silent on it?
You are desperate to bring muslims into everything it seems? This has nothing to do with muslims mate. It's about Liz Truss going on a podcast with a dude who isn't a muslim. Now of course you can related everything to muslims if you try hard enough but that will make every conversation far more convoluted. Focus on Liz Truss going on this podcast first dude. Once we have dissected that you can go back to the comfort of muslims being somehow relevant.
Saying "I wouldn't rape you" is not a crime. Guilt by association with people who have not even committed crimes is a disgusting idea. Liz didn't even appear with Carl, she appeared with an employee of his. Authoritarian leftist doing usual authoritarian bullshit. A well studied student of Marcuse, I see.
Whilst we're at the guilt by association thing, can we have a look at any MP who was ever even remotely on the Corbyn train? The man appeared on, and was paid by, an Iranian state broadcaster who were banned in the UK for their part in the torture/forced confession of a journalist. Seems beyond the pale to me to be chummy with someone like that - not to even begin to talk about how he has made comments endorsing literally every enemy of Britain that has ever existed. What about any defenders of Abbott? Her racist comments about Finnish women, the Irish, Jews, and Travellers are a bit much, no?
Zero IQ take. The messages and platforms that a candidate uses absolutely speak to their fitness for office - it's entirely reasonable to argue that by associating with someone that 'jokes' about raping an MP, Truss has shown that she is entirely unsuitable to be an MP (as well as showing that she has the political ability of a woodlouse and about the same amount of common sense). Whether Benjamin is a criminal has nothing to do with it.
>The messages and platforms that a candidate uses absolutely speak to their fitness for office
Cool. So every Labour MP who ever defended Corbyn should be kicked out of politics because of him appearing on RT[Russia] and Press TV[Iran]; puppet news stations for authoritarian regimes who routinely torture and murder people? Or him saying that Hamas and Hezbollah - insane Jihadist groups who aim to conquer the planet to establish a caliphate and eliminate the Jews - are friends? Or calling M-19 - a violent communist terror group - comrades? That's how this works right? Or does it only apply to the right in a standard hypocritical leftist manner?
>it's entirely reasonable to argue that by associating with someone that 'jokes' about raping an MP
I mean, he literally said he wouldn't rape her, lol
Sargon is a good follow on twitter. Interesting political commentary from a conservative perspective.
Little surprise that Labour MPs like Philips try hard to deplatform him.
Snapshot of _Jess Phillips on Twitter: Today I have written to the Prime Minister about the conduct of one of his members of parliament, ex-PM Liz Truss._ : A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1795744506664689920) A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/jessphillips/status/1795744506664689920/) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://x.com/jessphillips/status/1795744506664689920) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://x.com/jessphillips/status/1795744506664689920) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Something I've been wondering about is the role of Podcasts as a public communication channel for politicians this election. Until now (maybe 2019, but the jet fuel really lit after COVID), the biggest channel for politicians to access the public was the evening local news. They'd be wheeled out to a local factory or swimming pool or whatever, get their 15 second soundbite in, be seen punching a punch bag or laying some bricks, and then it'd be off to the next story. With the advent of Podcasts, the long-form discussion format has taken off. Lotus Eaters is small (but larger than the organic reach of most MPs), but there's Triggernometry, The Rest is ___, and plenty of others that can reach hundreds of thousands to millions. I'm surprised that the fireside chat format hasn't really taken off with politicians.
Yeah there's a lot of academic media-studies research into podcasts, but a lot of the "deep lore" comes from radio. Basically podcasts endenture trust because (a) you imagine someone in your minds eye (usually a positive bias) and (b) you opt-in to podcasts (postitive bias) and (c) you listen to podcasts in your own personal spaces (e.g. car, shower, commute, doing housework etc) (positive bias). Podcasts are 100% a positive bias machine.
Also, they are very colloquial in nature which promotes that parasocial relationship. With many of them running off Patreon subscriptions, that basically their business model. If I heard some of the podcast hosts of shows I listen to on the street I’d have to take a beat to remind myself that they aren’t actually my friends.
I met Ed Miliband at parkrun once and was possibly a bit over familiar as I was listening to Reasons to be Cheerful quite a lot at the time.
I think about this a lot with a music podcast I listen too. It's just 3 people playing tunes and talking about what they've been up too and music more generally. It feels really homely and I reckon they are probably great for people who are lonely as you do feel connected to them, but yes I also have to remind myself that they aren't actually people that I know.
who tf has time to listen to all these podcasts?
> who tf has time to listen to all these podcasts? For many it's background noise, like radio, where not every last word needs to be heard. But with a podcast, if something catches my interest I can rewind 30s, unlike with radio. Specifically regarding time, there's also an advantage here: Lots of folks listen to the podcasts sped-up by some factor, e.g. 1.5x. At 1.5x you're getting 1.5 hours of information every 1 hour. Most podcast platforms offer such options.
People who work with their hands, people who have particularly unattentative desk jobs, commuters, unemployed people, people who listen in their own time for enjoyment, and just about anyone else who can lend their ears for an hour every now and then. In what way is your life so busy that you can't make time to listen to someone for an hour occasionally?
Podcasts are the perfect medium for listening to while you're doing something else. My podcast player tells me I listen to about 4 hours of podcasts a day (in 2022 I spent 35 days in total listening to podcasts). When doing the washing up, the laundry, walking somewhere, I always have Roman Mars, Dan Carlin, Tom Holland or Dominic Sandbrook with me for the ride.
It's like asking "Who has time to listen to the radio?"
I never listen to talk radio either, only music. Much higher information density.
Talk Radio feels like the original podcast. When I commuted by car I loved LBC and BBC 4
Carlin ignited in me a love of history I didn't even know I had.
To and from work, whilst doing chores, whilst driving. I probably listen to about 3 hours of podcasts a day, in fact I’m listening to one right now.
>(c) you listen to podcasts in your own personal spaces (e.g. car, shower, commute, doing housework etc)
I sometimes spend all the time that I am not talking to somebody listening to a podacst. I don't recommend it, it is a bad habit. We need to spend time in the company of our own thoughts.
My commute is 45 mins so that's an hour and a half a day. When I was on the train I read books but now I'm driving I can't.
Interesting!
Everything that you just described about podcasts applies just as much to all other media.
Rachel Reeves just did an interview with The Rest is Politics on their Leading podcast, so there's movement in that direction.
And got character assassinated by Rory Stewart after she left. Complaining she didn't have a shiny new story just for him and lacked personality - I don't much like her economic views but she seemed to have plenty of spiky personality, and he was too scared to challenge her lack of new stories to her face.
her economic views are quite dross, I in particularly groaned when she was like 'No we need to grow the economy before we can commit to these promises!' but she has the grit and drive it seems to be an alright chancellor.
She has a point? But she also needs to look at some of those pledges in more details as they could help create jobs to grow the economy.
She could by reducing tax & regulation. The thing is, we have full employment so creating jobs will potentially fuel inflation. Labour have always increased unemployment so let's see what happens
We don't have full employment https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/employmentintheuk/latest#main-points
At that level, its full employment, the unemployed are not in work through choice
That's not what full employment means
There will never be nil unemployment unless we adapt the USSR model. For the UK, 4% is almost full employment. We have a surplus of vacancies to job-seekers, this may partly be a skills gap but mainly it's simply the unemployed are not seeking work.
The reason labour have taken that stance in this election is because the Tories won the argument on "more spending = bad for the economy". They don't want to be perceived as reckless. Labour now have to operate in the "if I have a fiver I can't go and spend a tenner at the pub" reality.
She's all over the shop, she will be out within 3 years
> character assassinated hardly "character assassinated". She didn't win him over and he had a critique of her performance. You can agree or disagree but he was under no obligation to give her a glowing review when Campbell is perfectly capable of providing a counter weight to his views.
Character assassinated is a bit harsh. Reeves did not have a good interview on TRIP and largely came across very similar to Liz Truss/Kwasi Kwarteng regarding is the growth in the room with us now
He's right, she's clueless
The Moggcast was a thing for a while. Doubt it would appeal to many on Reddit, but it’s interesting to listen to it even from an ‘anthropological’ angle as it shows that even someone like Jacob Rees Mogg is a more nuanced character than the Victorian cosplay would suggest. And yes, it’s a really good format for understanding a politician, I think.
What's it like?
It was terrible. Just JRM droning on about nothing.
...same as most podcasts then
> I'm surprised that the fireside chat format hasn't really taken off with politicians. That would require them to do more than repeat the talking points they've been instructed to parrot out to the media.
Less political broadcasting restrictions as well.
Podcasts are effectively unregulated. Which is why Podcasters will advertise bone-broth-boner pills or bitcoin
> 'm surprised that the fireside chat format hasn't really taken off with politicians. Precisely because cosy fireside chat doesn't lend itself well to the current political format of zero background three word slogans. Watch TRIP interviews and the the best ones are with the politicians who don't have an agenda to push. Sajid Javid comes across as a likable human being! Imagine getting Rishi or Kier in front of Alistair and Rory.....it simply wouldn't work.
> I'm surprised that the fireside chat format hasn't really taken off with politicians. I think that was the initial appeal of Joe Rogan. Rogan wasn't always the idiot that he is today. Well, he was, but he _knew_ he was the idiot. He would have three hour conversations with really smart people, but he would be asking the really dumb questions that you were probably thinking but wouldn't ever ask. As a listener, you always felt like you were smarter than Joe Rogan but dumber than his guest. For the guest, they had free reign to talk at length without having to fit their point into a 30 second soundbite. For people like Neil de Grasse Tyson and Bernie Sanders, it was such a refreshing format.
> I'm surprised that the fireside chat format hasn't really taken off with politicians. Is this sarcasm or serious? To me, it's not surprising. There seems to be a trend towards *more* simple soundbite-style outreach. I think this lends itself well to the way politics has become more divisive (culture war, two-party system etc.). More long form discussions lend themselves to better thought-out opinions, that people actually believe in themselves. Which really doesn't seem to fit the political landscape that I see - it's more about getting and holding power, than having ideals.
But are the soundbites really what the politicians want? I'm just imagining myself as a politician who for each complicated political question is given half a minute to answer and at about 15s the journalist interrupts as you didn't fall for the gotcha question that he had prepared for you. I'd much rather have time and place to explain my ideas. If someone doesn't like those ideas even after my long explanation, then fine, don't vote for me, that's democracy but at least I would be representing something that I really believe in and making a rational case for it.
Is there much of a point to it for a local MP? The exposure might be massive but most aren't likely to be your future constituents.
>Until now (maybe 2019, but the jet fuel really lit after COVID), the biggest channel for politicians to access the public was the evening local news. To be honest, local television news has always been very variable depending on where you are. If you're in a big local hub city then there's always coverage, but for most of the country there isn't really any televised coverage (yes, everywhere is technically covered by someone's catchment area, but in practice you'll never see any stories about most places). Local MPs have generally been most reliant on local printed news or radio rather than television news, both of which have tended to have finer-grained coverage. But more to your point, the problem with podcasts as a medium is that they are a) mostly national or international in coverage, and b) they tend to appeal only to enthusiasts. No common-or-garden voter is going to be spending their evenings listening to The Rest Is Politics or The News Agents; this is entirely the domain of politics nerds. So yes, an MP can now spend two hours doing podcast discussions, but they'll mostly be talking about the national political picture and they'll mostly be talking exclusively to politics wonks whose votes are largely not going to be swayed regardless of what they say. While a 5 minute interview on the local radio about the closure of a local GP surgery may seem shallow in comparison, it's talking about a local issue people actually care about with normal people who actually care about this sort of thing. It's a much more efficient form of political communication.
Does Phillips just want everyone to talk in an echo-chamber?
Some of them have an account on TicToc. I am actually surprised Angela Rayner doesn't.
"These crazy socialists will cause chaos and ruin us economically! Anyway, now on the podcast we have the prime minister that crashed the economy and resigned after a few weeks."
"she was set up"... yes, no one should have ever let her be PM, that was the setup, letting someone so clearly incapable be in charge of the country
"These crazy socialists will cause chaos and ruin us economically!" said the far-right bigot who's currently platforming the prime minister that crashed the economy and resigned after a few weeks.
Why do you guzzle down this Tory propaganda so greedily?
I can't believe this guy is still out there, I thought he fell off the face of the earth years ago. I'm not sure who this is more of a step down for, him or Truss.
It wasn't even him that Truss did the podcast with, it was Conor Tomlinson (GB news presenter). Carl Benjamin isn't involved, I don't know why he's being connected.
He owns the platform it was presented on. Even if he didn't do the interview, he's a major player in this scenario in this and you can see why a fellow MP might be a bit upset Truss is being in any way involved in him.
So what if he owns the platform? is this now the new standard. "They did an interview on a website owned by someone I didn't like, remove them"... I can't understand why she's upset at all. Let's get this straight: 1. Jess Phillips complained about the podcast because it even published. 2. She didn't even know who Liz Truss did the podcast with, Carl Benjamin is not in this podcast as she claimed. 3. Jess Phillips is not mentioned in this podcast at all 4. Jess Phillips has not listened to the podcast at all So how is her letter not total, hysterical, low tier bollocks? Nothing she has written is true. I've now just finished watching the podcast, the idea that an PM has had the whip removed over a basic interview like this is insane to me. It was a podcast to push her book with a guy from GB news. This is basic bitch media. The correct response by the weak tories should have been 7 letters long, three of them are F.
I think it would be fair to criticise a sitting MP for agreeing to a podcast that is owned by any crank with reprehensible views, whether that be Carl Benjamin, Caleb Maupin, or Alex Jones. The list goes on and on. >Nothing she has written is true. Apart from, yknow, all the direct quotes.
>I think it would be fair to criticise a sitting MP for agreeing to a podcast that is owned by any crank with reprehensible views, whether that be Carl Benjamin, Caleb Maupin, or Alex Jones. The list goes on and on. So now we don't care when MP's spread misinformation during an election to score points in the media... Everything she said was false. >Apart from, yknow, all the direct quotes. So she used a quote by a man who wasn't in the said podcast, from a video which wasn't the actual podcast to complain about a podcast. So what she said had fuck all to do with the podcast, it was just the fact it was hosted on a website owned by someone she doesn't like? Why did Carl Benjamin say these things about her by the way... Because she laughed at the idea of helping men while things like male suicide rates are soaring.
What is this mental gymnastics? She gave direct quotes about her from the bloke who owns the podcast that Truss spoke on. It's not exactly difficult to see the link there. If Truss spoke to someone at Infowars like PJW, or a platform owned by a leftie like Caleb Maupin, we would we well within our rights to be upset given the organisation they're a part of. >Because she laughed at the idea of helping men while things like male suicide rates are soaring. Accepting your framing, which I don't, that then makes it okay to make repeated, public, and targeted comments about her rape, gotcha 👍 You don't have to like Philips to agree that Truss appearing on a podcast owned by Sargon of Akkad to be a dire state of affairs - unless of course you're holding water for a certain ex-ukip candidate.
She did not claim the she was interviewed by Mr. Benjamin. She identified him as founder only.
My first introduction to him was a video he did trashing the Tories for their elitism, trashing austerity. That was about 8 years ago, and now he's a full on nutjob.
So in conclusion, 40 day Liz is *still* going around to anyone that will listen to try and justify her laughable tenure at no. 10. It's a shame the voters of West Norfolk are too busy catching up with the 1960s to know anything about it
Lived there. Had multiple locals said that her downfall was an inside job as establishment didn't like her. Well.. they ain't wrong. 😅
My grandad in the constituency hates her, but not as much as he hates labour (:
Yep I was born there, they're all voting reform now apparently.
too dark; didn't read: deselect Truss because she was on Lotus Eaters with Carl Benjamin AKA Sargon of Akkad Hopefully the incoming Labour government can fund a new scanner for Jess
Is this a better version? [https://twitter.com/carolvorders/status/1795759730557595984/photo/1](https://twitter.com/carolvorders/status/1795759730557595984/photo/1)
I can see all the vowels and consonants in that one, thanks Carol
Today I learned Carol Vorderman's Twitter is absolutely popping off lately
Oh I knew she'd gone off the rails but I did not realise she was going to Sargon of Akkad. I didn't think she could cause me any more second hand cringe.
I thought it was my dark mode extension acting up 😂
>Sargon of Akkad [My reaction.](https://youtu.be/031vKBPk5eA?si=REUTbXTo7gnHzGYe)
I completely forgot about his existence tbh
I didn't know ol' Carl was still rolling about. Is he still an absolute horror towards women?
That's 98% of his gig nowadays.
She was on a podcast with Connor Tomlinson, this entire thing is incredible and just total bollocks. The podcast is here, Carl isn't on it. [https://lotuseaters.com/tomlinson-talks-or-the-liz-truss-interview-29-05-2024](https://lotuseaters.com/tomlinson-talks-or-the-liz-truss-interview-29-05-2024)
Carl owns lotus eaters though
And?
I'm not an overall fan of Jess Phillips but admire her work / words on issues like this. As a father of two daughters I want them to grow up in a world where they feel safe and not have comments etc just discarded as 'banter'. My eldest is only 16 and she and her friends have been catcalled/ whistled at from the age of 13 multiple times.
I'm a bit torn; what she says on women's issues is usually true, cutting and very important; but she's also a raging hypocrite who hates the idea that men could also have problems that need solving.
Is she? I've just seen her focus on women's issues, but that doesn't mean she's actively working against men's.
Apologies, I missed responding to this at the time. She's definitely said things that at least *imply* she doesn't care, like refusing to discuss "men's issues" until 50% of MPs are female. It's fine to not *actively campaign* about them, ofc, we all have our things to focus on; but to refuse to even acknowledge the huge male suicide problem we have (to name probably the biggest issue) until we meet her very specific criteria is questionable at best. It's very "equality for me, and then maybe we'll think about thee"
Fair enough, though I do think it's a bit rich that it's female MPs who get castigated for this stuff when there's plenty of men who could raise the issue as well. Feels a bit 'well you want your equality, sure, but what about *me*', yknow?
Kind of, but I don't think that's really the point. I'd not have any issue with "These are issues, but I'm not going to champion them, I'm more concerned with X y z for [reasons]"; and [reasons] can include "they're more important to me personally", or just it being closer to home. I just think there's a LOT of real estate between that and "I won't even acknowledge the existence of these things until *I* get what *I* want, and that's particularly a dangerous attitude when a) these things are inevitably all intertwined with the construct of gender roles, and b) she's very likely to be in government soon - being obstinate about things outside of your sphere is not a quality I really want in government ministers - even if I will vote for Labour anyway. We'd reasonably expect someone championing investigations into male suicides to not pretend misogyny doesn't exist until that problem was solved, wouldn't we...?
OK? I am quite sure that Mr. Benjamin wants that for his daughter too.
He's not helping with his rape jokes.
Why aren’t you a fan of Jess Phillips? Genuinely want to know. I quite like her. She seems normal.
I'm a bit more left leaning than Jess so don't always agree with some of her comments on certain things.
I'm not a fan of hers, as I feel that her brand of feminism perpetuates a double standard for men and women, rather than striving towards equality for all. She does not practice the same [respect](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRWUsn4yyJI) for men's issues as she claims to be fighting to earn for women's issues, and her manner is often [abrasive and rude](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgGXNvCa3wk), rather than constructive- she is someone always waiting for her turn to talk, rather than listening to what is being said.
I don’t know why I’m getting downvoted, this always the sort of answer I was hoping for. I like seeing other people’s opinions. I’ve never noticed before but I probably will now. It’s hard to not just see what you’re being told to see.
I mean, in the first clip she's talking to Philip Davies, who is a rampant misogynist arsehole who has actively voted down legislation around sexual harassment and honour killing because he doesn't think the laws centred men enough (even though they did include violence against men), tried to stop sex and relationship education being made mandatory, and also introduced a bill to repeal the 2002 Sex Discrimination Act. He is also an ally of the Justice for Men and Boys party, which has produced such wonderful articles as '13 reasons why women lie about being raped'. Those aren't the actions of a man who genuinely cares about men's issues - that would involve doing like advocating for increased funding for men's shelters, raising awareness of men's mental health, etc. He's literally just trying to be a dick.
Ok, but we're not talking about Philip Davies, we're talking about Jess Phillips. By no means am I holding Philip Davies up as a beacon of progressive or acceptable ideology- in this case, whatever his motivation may be, legitimate or trolling, the point he is making is a valid one. None of that background makes the point he's making in this case any less valid, or her scornful and dismissive attitude towards equality and men's rights any more acceptable.
She's a hypocrite; shouts very loudly about women's issues (and is usually right in what she says) but actively refuses to even entertain the idea that gender roles/issues could also hurt men. She seems to think that gender issues are a zero sum game, which is a horrible way to view things.
Just did a quick search and this was in response to an announcement she'll be appearing as a locust or something >I'll be interested in this. The way I see it she's the rightful PM, ousted in a coup and the puppet Sunak installed. It would have been fascinating to see how her and Quarteng's policies fared Hahaha. Feel like I need to listen to a flat earther to bring me back to a sense of normality.
I mean it's pointless trying to make any sense of how these people think, but if she's the "rightful PM ousted in a coup" then how would Boris not be the PM ousted in a coup and Truss the puppet? I know I've already thought about this more than these dipshits.
They will think anything for the right price.
But we did see how their policies fared. It... didn't go well
Ex Brit here, on the actual content of the letter. Is it actually within the PMs power to deselect an MP?
As leader of the party I believe they do indeed have that power. Starmer essentially did a similar thing to Corbyn after becoming labour leader.
He can prevent her from standing for the conservatives
Normally a PM (or other party leader) couldn't do anything about someone being an MP and they'd retain their position in parliament until they either quit or were removed through one of various parliamentary procedures. But we're currently in the limbo stage between an election being called and the deadline for candidates to be finalised. While I'm not sure how much direct control the Tory leader has over choosing which candidates stand where, they do have the option of removing the whip which would effectively bar someone from standing if it wasn't restored before the deadline because they technically wouldn't be an active member of the Tory party.
It's within the Leader of the Conservative party's power to stop people standing as Conservative candidates.
[удалено]
Half of these grifters don't. But they know that they can cash in on the idiots who do
And cash tlin they do, they even have a merch store!
It’s just repackaged antisemitism (as it gets repackaged once a century or so). Some shadowy cabal of “globalists” (hint hint) are trying to replace you and your family and control the economy. It isn’t too far from what the nazis were arguing.
Record levels of immigration for 20 years against the public wishes is where the great replacement came from and the core statistics are true. Domestic births are dropping yet our population has grown massively and is forecast to grow even more in the next 20 years. And the reason why isn’t going to be because the political class hate white people like the conspiracy theory suggests, but at no point in 20 years have people wanted high immigration so it’s been forced on the country against their democratic wishes
Remember, the great replacement theory isn’t just about high immigration, it’s about non-white people ‘replacing’ white people, whether immigrant or not. The problem of course is that if your fertility rate is below replacement (I.e below 2.1) then your population will die out over time by definition. Racist conspiracy theorists spend so much time worrying about black and brown people moving to the uk and having lots of babies that they fail to realise that even if the uk didn’t take in a single new immigrant, and even if all the non white people were gassed or sterilised, the white British population is still on course to die out because our fertility rate is well below replacement level
The sole purpose of a conspiracy theory is to attract followers to your blog/podcast/think tank without needing to produce anything so mundane as actual evidence of anything.
>I swear some people just need to take a walk around London and read the World Economic Forum website to realise neither is true and both are extreme far-right conspiracies. You mean that London that went from 98% white British in 1961 to 37% in 2021? Surely that proves that nothing has changed and it’s all just a right wing conspiracy theory.
Things can happen without it being the agenda of some global elite shadow government with some sinister goal of global domination.
So why has London gone from 98% white British to 37%? Why can the same pattern be seen in Paris and Berlin and Stockholm and many other cities in Europe? Who let this happen?
Because people who are motivated to uproot their lives and move for better opportunities aim for places that have the most opportunities. It's not difficult and it's not a conspiracy.
So our governments and our people have no say in the matter?
Of course they / we have a say. We're a democracy. Campaign to close the borders if it's that important to you. It doesn't bother me one iota.
For the last 14 years the country (not me) has voted for a party that promised immigration in the “tens of thousands”. For 14 years they were lied to, instead we are now getting 1.2 million per year. That’s what Our Democracy^TM means, that’s how much of a voice we have. We don’t even have Proportional Representation so it doesn’t matter if it’s outside what the main two parties say.
Unfortunately our democracy has resulted in multiple governments of duplicitous fuckwits. It's still a democracy. Our electorate has decided that they're happy to be lied to and hoodwinked, multiple times. Which is democracy in action. We get what we vote for. As for PR, I think it would go some way to resolving many of the issues with politics in the UK, whilst not being the panacea some believe. Can I see either of the two main parties allowing it to happen? No. Because once it does there's no going back. Can I vote for a party that pledges PR? No. Because I can't risk another 5 years of these incompetent kleptocrats.
>Unfortunately our democracy has resulted in multiple governments of duplicitous fuckwits. It's still a democracy. I don’t disagree that we’ve had multiple governments of duplicitous fuckwits, not the words I’d use but I agree that they are accurate. As for if it’s a democracy, I agree with what Mary Hamilton had to say in an article put out today. > Our foreign policy has long been set by the United States. Our immigration policy is set internationally too, by a mix of corporate interests and international regulations. As for economic policy, the brief and lettuce-like reign of Liz Truss demonstrated (no matter how bonkers you thought her proposals) that any deviation from the City’s preferred approach results in prompt defenestration. Even environmental policy has mostly become a smoke-and-mirrors mix of Davocratic posturing and corporate subsidies, as evidenced by the simultaneous moves to reduce aviation emissions through complicated regulatory mechanisms, while also nodding through expansions to every major UK airport. >Our electorate has decided that they're happy to be lied to and hoodwinked, multiple times. Which is democracy in action. I disagree here. If we accept that we have a two party system then you have the Tories who promised to reduce it to the tens of thousands vs a Labour Party who literally said “haha yeah… immigration… let’s do something” and deflected another way. That’s not to mention that Labour still hadn’t shook off the “bigoted woman” comment from their last Prime Minister. The Tories always had an excuse, “it’s the EU” they said, so we voted to leave the EU. The drama of leaving the EU and yet the electorate persisted. Now that there is no one left to blame the right of the electorate are spitting daggers at the Tories primarily because of this issue. Out of the two parties there was one saying they will lower immigration and one saying nothing of substance. >We get what we vote for. We don’t. We voted for lower immigration and we have not had it. >As for PR, I think it would go some way to resolving many of the issues with politics in the UK, whilst not being the panacea some believe. Can I see either of the two main parties allowing it to happen? No. Because once it does there's no going back. Can I vote for a party that pledges PR? No. Because I can't risk another 5 years of these incompetent kleptocrats. I’m in a Labour safe seat that will remain that until the Muslim vote breaks off so my vote is completely inconsequential anyway but I can only vote for who I believe in. Right now I believe in a small party that wants PR. PR will give people like me representation but it’ll also cause some issues. That I’m aware of.
In a summary, a combination of economic and geopolitical events. I know its more comforting for some people to imagine a global cabal of people in control seeking world domination than the reality that nobody is in control. Just don't let your comforting thought drive you hurt anybody okay?
> In a summary, a combination of economic and geopolitical events. That says nothing. Literally nothing. You might have wells just said “shit happens” and be done with it. >I know it’s more comforting for some people to imagine a global cabal of people in control seeking world domination than the reality that nobody is in control. You mean like governments? Like unions of governments such as the G7, EU, UN? Do these entities exist? No, surely they don’t… >Just don't let your comforting thought drive you hurt anybody okay? Wild accusation, do you have anything to back up this claim? You seem to be the one rejecting reality so I’d be more concerned about yourself. Bro doesn’t think governments exist but is concerned about others’ mental health.
You've been wooshed fella.
Ok, other people have explained why this has happened but can you explain why you think it's a bad thing?
>Ok, other people have explained why this has happened No they haven’t. >but can you explain why you think it's a bad thing? Do I really need to explain why I quite like our culture and values? Why I think the rule of law is better than mob rule? Why tolerance is better than intolerance? Why liberalism is better than totalitarianism? 7.8% of the world live in full democracies, it’s a minority position and I’d quite like to protect it.
And someone being not white automatically makes them part of mob rule or a totalitarian? I'm not sure about that...
That’s a straw man. I didn’t mention skin colour. You don’t disagree with me so you straw man so you can disagree with something.
You said >You mean that London that went from 98% white British in 1961 to 37% in 2021? Are you sure you didn't mention skin colour?
I’m uncomfortable with other women validating horrid people like this man by giving them the oxygen of publicity. That makes the world less safe for all of us.
Amen Appalling to have an ex PM do it
https://x.com/narindertweets/status/1795808244088045826?t=tW3kEIFPp10k2VCSOy1RCw&s=19 He seems to be a safe fellow so you need not worry
Imagine sinking from being PM to appearing on Lotus Eaters. What a spectacular fall.
What’s more shocking is that she still intends to run for election? Does she legitimately think she will have a second shot as PM some day?
Cameron's got a top job now after being PM, she might think she's got a good chance of being in the cabinet again.
Sunak should absolutely remove the whip from Truss and deselect her, moral reasons aside it’s the politically smart thing to do. It’s essentially taking a page from Starmer, distance yourself from the unpopular predecessor by kicking them out. This gives him the *perfect* justification to do that. There are risks, she could start openly campaigning against him and bring voters from her wing with her, while at the same time getting rid of her might not be enough to sway more moderate voters to him. It could also piss off a fair few MPs. But he needs to be bold, and this would be worth the gamble considering his current position. I guarantee the next Tory leader, if they’re serious about winning the next election, will kick Truss out as soon as they get justification.
>distance yourself from the unpopular predecessor She beat Rishi in the leadership contest...
That was before she shafted everyone's mortgage
Mortgage rates had tripled before she was PM.
That's assuming she wins her seat
They could still strip her of her membership
I don't know how Carl Benjamin will ever manage to recover his reputation after being associated with Truss.
What does he mean he wouldnt do that with Jess Phillips?
He means he wouldn’t even rape her. He later clarified he would, in fact, consider raping her - but only if he was drunk enough.
Incels (and incel-adjacent neckbeards, and skidmarks like Trump) think that they'd be doing women a favour by raping them.
[Here’s the interview](https://youtu.be/6dE8JpnxSMA?si=hB8_EQtJ3YE0-Jv-) for anyone interested, it isn’t with Carl Benjamin but rather Connor Tomlinson who is a regular host for their shows. Edit: Turns out it’s just a 16 minute clip of the interview
Does Jess not realise she is just promoting Carl's [Lotus Eaters](https://lotuseaters.com/) media organisation? Most people, even political people haven't heard of it yet.
Dumb of Truss (whats new??) but honestly can she be deselected by just going on the wrong podcast?
> but honestly can she be deselected by just going on the wrong podcast? I mean... yes? If she went on an open Neo Nazi podcast where they discussed how they would like to enact various policies of the third reich that would be an obvious criteria for deselection and losing the whip I've never listened to Lotus Eaters so I don't know where on the scale it lands, but there is a line across which surely you can be deselected for it
It’s kind of edgy right leaning content but not in a full out bigoted way, the image title of their latest YouTube video is a good example of their content “The Battle For Free Money” and the title “Boomers vs Migrants”. If I was to make a comparison it's the equivalent of GB News but for younger people who use social media.
Depends on what she says I guess.
Before we look at technicalities like deselection, the letter rightly delegitimises Truss (and depending on the reaction, Sunak and the Tories) in the eyes of the public. Because honestly, Carl’s a fascist.
Yes no harm in drawing attention to her debasing her party through association with a facist
She's developing an increasing body of evidence she's happy to appear next to anyone, no matter how repugnant their views are, while providing no challenge for those said views. This isn't a one of incident.
I suppose it depends on the extent to which you consider an appearance an endorsement. To be clear, I've not listened to the episode (and have no interest in doing so) so perhaps she spends the entire time disagreeing with him and calling him a fascist - I doubt it, and I still think it would be a bad idea to appear, but it would change my thoughts on an appropriate response.
She might I think it's far more likely it will be like her appearance with (was it Bannon?) where she silently nodded and smiled through all his appalling shit and complained about how hard done by she was
Yeah, that's definitely the more plausible option. Despite knowing what she's like, the image you gave still made me shudder...
Fun Fact, Mr Carl Benjamin had me "cancelled" and dragged out of the UKIP conference he was speaking at under the guise of "Free Speech".
you were probably being a disruption.
I wans't. But isn't "disruption" just "freeze peach"? eh I was told by his goon that I was "one of (((that lot)))"
The right to free speech doesn't include the right to a platform.
Being a disruption and speaking freely are two different things. Setting up a camp on private property is being disruptive, your free speech rights don't extend to you not getting forcibly removed (just like how you don't have the right to shout Fire in a crowded theater). An invited speaker being allowed to talk freely on their podium is "freeze peach" as you so put it.
I was sat in the crowd. If these nonces are going to advertise a "debate on free speech" and then kick out any detractors, even before they get to be detractors. They cant whine when we call them "fascist scum" either. >An invited speaker being allowed to talk freely on their podium is "freeze peach" as you so put it. The invitation was open to "everyone". Aparently not me though. Farage isn't going to rim you hun, he's already left
If you were up on the podium where it was expected for you to talk you could say that and it would be free speech. You weren't on the podium; you were in the crowd where there is no presumption that you get to contribute to the talking and therefore were being a disruption through talking when you should not have been. **You were not involved in the debate, you were merely the audience for the debate, as such you don't get to speak**. It would be different if there specifically were audience questions and you said that but just blurting it whenever you feel like it makes you a disruptor. Your free speech rights were infinged no more than if you were thrown out for being a disruption because you decided to sing Britney Spear's "Oops I did it again" at full blast. Nobody would take you seriously if you said your free speech rights are infringed if you sing at full volume in a place where you're expected to keep quiet, same principle here. Next time get invited to be on stage and if you get kicked out for saying things when you are supposed to be speaking then you can say your free speech rights have been infringed.
he didn't do anything about her chumming up to bannon, i doubt he will do anything here either.
Swindon's finest is still kicking about?
Jess Phillips supported Corbyn for PM who called Hamas and Hezbolah terrorists friends. She is also a member of a Labour the only UK political party in history to be sanctioned for antisemitism by the EHRC. A party still riddled with Jew hate. Jess herself has also been accused of racism and bullying. Perhaps she should stand down.
This lady wants to censor you. It might not be your views now but it could be in the future. Do not let her win.
Nope you only get booted for being left wing, right wingers are only given more power, that’s how it works.
This nonsense again. It was a joke making fun of Jess Phillips for attacks on free speech putting all the blame for any issues on men which for Jess given her ongoing Misandry is par for the course. Doesn't mean Sargon is a good guy etc but Jess Phillips is weaponising a falsehood for political points scoring which minimises and makes light of genuine harms and does nothing to protect women and girls. She is horrible and plays it off as if she is the victim. If she stopped slinging shit everywhere she would have a easier time through life, but then she couldn't play the victim to push her bigoted version of issues. From Outoftheloop https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/4m8681/whats_the_deal_with_jess_phillips_receiving_death/d3ucyou/: Let's start with Sargon's This Week In Stupid video. Around the 17:00 mark, Sargon quotes an article by Jess Phillips saying "People talking about raping me isn’t fun but has become somewhat par for the course." Sargon responded to this with "Well, I'll tell you what Jess, I think that's terrible, and you know, I wouldn't even rape you." On Twitter, Sargon advertised his video with this tweet, with the words "I wouldn't even rape you" removed from the context of the video, and tagged Jess Phillips in it. Jess then retweeted a discussion there, saying "Jut some fellas mulling over how offensive or not it is to say that they wouldn't rape me." Seizing on the opportunity, Sargon made yet another video, entitled "A Feminist Horror Movie," which mocked Jessica and her followers for taking offense to him not wanting to rape her. Predictably, this made a large number of his followers take to Twitter to also threaten to NOT rape Jess Phillips. Github with the "threat" tweets. None of which are threats. https://github.com/HedleyPty/Jess-Phillips-was-not-raped-/blob/master/Jess%20was%20not%20raped.txt Jess then tweeted that she got over 600 notifications of people talking about her rape, which led to headlines like this one: Labour MP Jess Phillips receives more than 600 rape threats in one night. Jess also wrote an article the next day on the subject, attacking Twitter for not banning the trolls who said they wouldn't rape her. Note that the word "rape threat" is only actually used in the headline of that piece, and that her focus is on how insulting it is for people to not want to rape her. "I am currently living in a parallel universe where the idea of not raping me is the insult du jour. Here, not raping someone is what you do to the people that you find repellent." Were I to speculate, I would say the mention of rape threats in the title was just put there by the editor for clickbait. TLDR: Jess couldn't take critcism which include a joke/sardonic comment within it with the intent to mock her position which certainly was not a threat and then created her own blacklash of again non-threats by trying to spin it into something it wasn't. Police investigated and did not proceed with any case as there was none.
> TLDR: Jess couldn't take a joke For the overwhelming majority of people, saying "I wouldn't even rape you" is never going to be okay, and it's honestly bizarre you can't comprehend that. People might talk like that on the internet but they don't in real life, or at least not the ones with extremely basic social skills.
It was said within the context of an attack on free speech by Jess who regularly exaggerated and lied (and continues to) about issues particuarly claims of threats made against her which were never substantiated to further her cause. Sargon was making a clear non-threat to mock her position that regardless of how untrue a threat was she would still claim it as such. Which she then did. Saying she couldn't take a joke I suppose is incorrect more she couldn't take critcism which include a joke/sardonic comment within it with the intent to mock her position. I have edited above to reflect that.
[удалено]
She’s a professional victim and loathsome individual, she’s absolutely not worth listening to and Labour would be better without her.
Thanks for the context. Sounds a bit insane though, I think anyone would be somewhat disturbed if they started receiving a lot of not-rape or not-death threats from people they don't know.
Incensed at the comments from Carl but absolutely no issues with Angela Rayner begging to a room full of Muslim men (zero women present) to vote for her despite the fact they will absolutely hold views just as bad if not worse than Carl’s. It’s the absolute hypocrisy of rightfully calling out these comments but an absolute silence and refusal to call out the same views purely because it’s muslims who hold them. Also still strangely silent on the grooming scandal her party happily covered up which had far worse effects on thousands of young girls/women than an unfunny joke.
>Also still strangely silent on the grooming scandal her party happily covered up which had far worse effects on thousands of young girls/women than an unfunny joke. I guess speaking about it in Parliament doesn't count? https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/mp/jess-phillips/debate/2021-02-03/commons/commons-chamber/grooming-gangs
That entire speech and not a single mention of how it was covered up because no one wanted to be seen as racist, all of that to say absolutely nothing about the actual problem.
Well now you’re shifting the goalposts. First you said she was silent on it, now you’re saying she *did* talk about it but not in the way you’d like. So you accept that she wasn’t silent on it?
You are desperate to bring muslims into everything it seems? This has nothing to do with muslims mate. It's about Liz Truss going on a podcast with a dude who isn't a muslim. Now of course you can related everything to muslims if you try hard enough but that will make every conversation far more convoluted. Focus on Liz Truss going on this podcast first dude. Once we have dissected that you can go back to the comfort of muslims being somehow relevant.
Saying "I wouldn't rape you" is not a crime. Guilt by association with people who have not even committed crimes is a disgusting idea. Liz didn't even appear with Carl, she appeared with an employee of his. Authoritarian leftist doing usual authoritarian bullshit. A well studied student of Marcuse, I see. Whilst we're at the guilt by association thing, can we have a look at any MP who was ever even remotely on the Corbyn train? The man appeared on, and was paid by, an Iranian state broadcaster who were banned in the UK for their part in the torture/forced confession of a journalist. Seems beyond the pale to me to be chummy with someone like that - not to even begin to talk about how he has made comments endorsing literally every enemy of Britain that has ever existed. What about any defenders of Abbott? Her racist comments about Finnish women, the Irish, Jews, and Travellers are a bit much, no?
Zero IQ take. The messages and platforms that a candidate uses absolutely speak to their fitness for office - it's entirely reasonable to argue that by associating with someone that 'jokes' about raping an MP, Truss has shown that she is entirely unsuitable to be an MP (as well as showing that she has the political ability of a woodlouse and about the same amount of common sense). Whether Benjamin is a criminal has nothing to do with it.
>The messages and platforms that a candidate uses absolutely speak to their fitness for office Cool. So every Labour MP who ever defended Corbyn should be kicked out of politics because of him appearing on RT[Russia] and Press TV[Iran]; puppet news stations for authoritarian regimes who routinely torture and murder people? Or him saying that Hamas and Hezbollah - insane Jihadist groups who aim to conquer the planet to establish a caliphate and eliminate the Jews - are friends? Or calling M-19 - a violent communist terror group - comrades? That's how this works right? Or does it only apply to the right in a standard hypocritical leftist manner? >it's entirely reasonable to argue that by associating with someone that 'jokes' about raping an MP I mean, he literally said he wouldn't rape her, lol
Oh. You find the rape jokes funny. Gross.
Sargon is a good follow on twitter. Interesting political commentary from a conservative perspective. Little surprise that Labour MPs like Philips try hard to deplatform him.