Unbelievable performance. Nearly got his head kicked-in for his antics.
A must watch on catch-up.

An intelligent and opinionated bloke with not an ounce of emotional intelligence.

He’s a shouty, petulant, infuriating, jumped up little man with the debating skills of Alan Partridge and a self importance of Ronaldo esque levels.

Ultimate w a n k e r

Ruined any important point he was trying to make in his argument and no idea what he was on about in relation to Andrew Neil and the Spectator and I think his argument about the far right -nasty nasty but far left not nasty wears a bit thin-both to me will ruin many lives if they ever get into power.

I do like him, but can't help feeling that the way he does things will turn off more people than it motivates.

But his fundamental points are spot on.

But the way he bangs on about racism you would think it is all one way, white against the rest, and as Michael Portillo pointed out last night for far too long anyone wanting a curb on immigration was dismissed as a racist which I suppose brings in white on white racism not forgetting black on black racism or is that tribalism? The older I get the more confused I become. My son tells me I cannot refer to people as coloured but black-even though on womens hour yesterday an American referred to a lady as one of colour.
Oh and before someone jumps down my throat my reference to colour/black was in reference to one of my gson's team mates a black boy who was one of eight in a team of under 10's playing football with my grandson running rings around the opposition. Easiest way to pick him out was by the colour of his skin unlike Harry Carpenter years ago when he picked out the black boxer against his white opponent by the colour of his shorts-a tad hard when watching in black and white

Makes some good points but comes across as a knob. No tact.

The more I hear him the worse he gets. I used to think he put over some very valid points but more and more he comes over with vitriol in my opinion.
Last night he was the pits when on the couch.

I did think he would have a good career in politics a free years ago but he ruins himself with his tantrums and lack of control.
Whether he is right or wrong he often comes across really poorly on TV. Last night was a perfect example where he was making some very good points and Portillo went after him. Portillo was losing that spat badly when Jones started to make it about his long running fued with Neil. Now Neil is an odious t-wat at the best of times but when you are in control of the microphone there is only going to be one winner and once again Jones walked out of another studio with the audience thinking about his personality rather than the points he was trying to make.

Like most people, he's right about some things, and totally wrong about others.

The weird thing about him is he looks like an identikit young Tory t**t.

He’s a bell.

But everything he said about Andrew Neil and The Spectator is factually correct.

Put up remarkably well with Portillos usual claptrap.
Owen always puts his point across well and accurately

Smug, self-righteous little ******.

He’d be deserving of a good kicking in.

Lancasterclaret wrote:I do like him, but can't help feeling that the way he does things will turn off more people than it motivates.

But his fundamental points are spot on.

Will turn off more people than he motivates? Crickey that must be the understatement of this year so far. He may be intelligent but he needs a course on how to behave when in public. Hes got a runaway mouth. Verbal diahorrea has this one. I just wonder why the London media think he may enhance their bias.

But in the nicest possible way, he's not going to get through to people like you is he?

he might with people like me (ie more inclined to be friendly to Labour) but his constant attacks on people in the centre is really beginning to annoy me.

I wouldn't **** on the **** if he was on fire. An odious little ****.

In a previous era, would have been a Blackshirt. An unpleasant, absolutist, "us vs them" populist.

I'm not a defender of him, but he wouldn't have been a blackshirt under any circumstances

Maybe a Young Oktoberist or a member of the Red Guard, but not a blackshirt!

thatdberight wrote:In a previous era, would have been a Blackshirt. An unpleasant, absolutist, "us vs them" populist.

You do know what a blackshirt was don’t you ?

BurnleyFC wrote:Smug, self-righteous little ******.

He’d be deserving of a good kicking in.

Was you on College Green on Tuesday ?

thatdberight wrote:In a previous era, would have been a Blackshirt. An unpleasant, absolutist, "us vs them" populist.

Wow - when you were googling your other fancy words did you forget to look up Blackshirt ?

Lancasterclaret wrote:I'm not a defender of him, but he wouldn't have been a blackshirt under any circumstances

Maybe a Young Oktoberist or a member of the Red Guard, but not a blackshirt!

Extremist?

joey13 wrote:You do know what a blackshirt was don’t you ?

Yes, "...an unpleasant, absolutist, "us vs them" populist."

Jones has latched on to this era's cause with an unpleasant vigour. He'd have done the same in a different cause in a different era. Whichever populist thinking that happened to be. He's just a "type". The specifics are unimportant.

TVC15 wrote:Wow - when you were googling your other fancy words did you forget to look up Blackshirt ?

It's interesting that you think any of those words are "fancy" or that I'd not be familiar with Blackshirts. It says rather more about you than me, unfortunately. I'll stick to single-syllable words for you next time, to avoid such dandification.

If Gary Lineker & Emily Thornberry had a one night stand he is roughly the end result.

Jones has latched on to this era's cause with an unpleasant vigour. He'd have done the same in a different cause in a different era. Whichever populist thinking that happened to be. He's just a "type". The specifics are unimportant.

The specifics are important!

He's as leftie as they come, they fight the blackshirts!

thatdberight wrote:Yes, "...an unpleasant, absolutist, "us vs them" populist."

Jones has latched on to this era's cause with an unpleasant vigour. He'd have done the same in a different cause in a different era. Whichever populist thinking that happened to be. He's just a "type". The specifics are unimportant.

So you don’t know what a blackshirt was , thanks for clarifying

joey13 wrote:So you don’t know what a blackshirt was , thanks for clarifying

So which bit of that do you disagree with? Unpleasant? Populist? "Us v them"?

Do tell. Should be interesting...

Lancasterclaret wrote:The specifics are important!

He's as leftie as they come, they fight the blackshirts!

I know all that. Which is why I said Jones is just a product of today's politics; in another era he'd have found a different route to take.

Its not arguable that the most extreme parts of the left and the right share many unpleasant characteristics thatberight.

But there are bloody big differences as well!

joey13 wrote:You do know what a blackshirt was don’t you ?

A claret on an away day?

thatdberight wrote:It's interesting that you think any of those words are "fancy" or that I'd not be familiar with Blackshirts. It says rather more about you than me, unfortunately. I'll stick to single-syllable words for you next time, to avoid such dandification.

Please just look up the word rather than carrying on embarrassing yourself....maybe check out your thesaurus under the word facist...you may already have the page bookmarked...who knows !

Oh and btw I was being sarcastic about your “fancy” words....nothing fancy about them at all. I just find it funny when someone is trying to be clever that they make themselves look a tit.

thatdberight wrote:I know all that. Which is why I said Jones is just a product of today's politics; in another era he'd have found a different route to take.

Haha - so in another era he would have found facism ?

Maybe if Adolf was around now he’d be sharing a cup of frappacino with John McDonald ?
stop digging !

Personally I'd get him to try fascist!!!!

TVC15 wrote:Please just look up the word rather than carrying on embarrassing yourself....maybe check out your thesaurus under the word facist...you may already have the page bookmarked...who knows !

Oh and btw I was being sarcastic about your “fancy” words....nothing fancy about them at all. I just find it funny when someone is trying to be clever that they make themselves look a tit.

I checked under "facist" as you suggested. It wasn't fruitful. That's a shame; that knowledge might have made me as clever as you.

thatdberight wrote:I checked under "facist" as you suggested. It wasn't fruitful. That's a shame; that knowledge might have made me as clever as you.

It definitely wouldn’t but here you go anyway. At least you have learnt something today.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Blackshirt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

claretonthecoast1882 wrote:If Gary Lineker & Emily Thornberry had a one night stand he is roughly the end result.

Please post this on ol' Jug Ears Twitter page its hilarious

I know all that. Which is why I said Jones is just a product of today's politics; in another era he'd have found a different route to take.

But those eras involve left v right!

Post war for example

- Russia went communist
- Germany went right after fighting in the streets between communists and the Nazis
- Spain all out civil war which ended up as communists v fascists
- Italy went right
- Yugoslavia, Romania, Greece, Bulgaria etc etc

Only the UK, US and Czechoslovakia really avoided it.

I see the point you are making about the similarities but........

If politics were a circle the far right and far left would be bosom buddies and they do share a desire to muffle any kind of debate and shout down opposition.

I think I understand what thatdberight is alluding to. He is saying that Jones has joined the popular gang of the moment and has religiously signed up to all of the gang's rules.
The gang is the arbiter of all conventional wisdom.
The gang's opinion is the only one that is valid, all other opinions are the product of ignorance and stupidity
Thou shalt no be an "IST" of any description.
Etc. etc.

In another era it could have been a different gang, whichever was the most popular at the time. That is, I believe, thatdberight's premise.

Owen Jones' parents are staunch Labour supporters and trade unionists. He'd have been left wing regardless of the era.

Lancasterclaret wrote:But those eras involve left v right!

Post war for example

- Russia went communist
- Germany went right after fighting in the streets between communists and the Nazis
- Spain all out civil war which ended up as communists v fascists
- Italy went right
- Yugoslavia, Romania, Greece, Bulgaria etc etc

Only the UK, US and Czechoslovakia really avoided it.

I see the point you are making about the similarities but........

If you like; he could equally have been a revolutionary Communist in another era although I think the thought that someone who's now left-wing could never have been right-wing in a different context is just weird. Lots of people who sought power and influence have been happy to adapt to the vehicles available; whether that be the arts, the church, revolution, existing power structures. For me, Jones (not uniquely - he just happens to be understood discussion) comes across as one. Similar to Boris Johnson deciding on a knife edge/based on what he thought was best for his career to be pro/anti Brexit but then being a leading advocate for it. It can't be "Hmm... Not sure" one day and "Call me Mr Brexit" the next.

SammyBoy wrote:Owen Jones' parents are staunch Labour supporters and trade unionists. He'd have been left wing regardless of the era.

Even if he'd been born before his parents?

Out of interest - what was the point he was making about Andrew Neil and the Spectator?

Chobulous wrote:I think I understand what thatdberight is alluding to. He is saying that Jones has joined the popular gang of the moment and has religiously signed up to all of the gang's rules.
The gang is the arbiter of all conventional wisdom.
The gang's opinion is the only one that is valid, all other opinions are the product of ignorance and stupidity
Thou shalt no be an "IST" of any description.
Etc. etc.

In another era it could have been a different gang, whichever was the most popular at the time. That is, I believe, thatdberight's premise.

Thanks for reassuring me my message is not entirely un-understandable and for expounding it more clearly than perhaps I have.

thatdberight wrote:Even if he'd been born before his parents?

This argument has become quite abstract.

To be fair thatberight I got from the start where you are coming from but I still think its not fair on Jones.

To compare him to Johnson is really weak as well. Johnson changed his mind when he saw a chance of power. Owen might well have wobbled (hilariously) for his support for Corbyn but he's been a committed socialist from day one.

I think the only people hates more than centerists are Nazis.

thatdberight wrote:Even if he'd been born before his parents?

Owen Jones has no idea who his father is

The type of person thatdberight describes would use the position of the chattering classes as a litmus test for which gang to join. Hence his assertion that in the relevant era that person could have been a blackshirt.

Someone needs to do a mock up of Owen Jones hanging on to a strut in cloud city while Adolf Hitler leans down and goes

"Yes Owen, I am your father"