Guilt and Fear

[Artimas]

Of course we're not amygdalas on a stick, although some make me wonder.

Idk man, there's a connection. Religious, dogmatic, scared, republicans, amygdala. Guilt fits in there somehow. Whichever environmental stress that causes the one, causes the other, I'm sure.

Guilt man, there is so much guilt on the left, in fact I think that is part of what bothers the right about the left. And certainly they both have guilts. And sure, I did acknowledge that the amygdala is involved, but man you gotta light up the whole brain including a lot of the 'higher' parts to feel guilty.

But are the higher parts missing? Or in addition?

I know for a fact that the insula is missing in the republican case. (Well, not missing, but attenuated)

Watts said the church institutionalized guilt, then the audience uproared in applause. We sinned against god and should feel bad for it.

FWD to 33:19



So what happens is this: we are delivered therefore a gospel which is in fact an impossible religion; it's impossible to follow the way of Christ. All right, many of Christian has admitted it: "I'm a miserable sinner, I fall far short of the example of Christ", but do you realize the more you say that, the better you are because what happened was that Christianity institutionalized guilt as a virtue. [Applause] See, you can never come up to it. Never. And therefore you will always be aware of your shortcomings and so the more shortcomings you feel, the more, in other words, you are aware of the vast abyss between Christ and yourself.

How is this mirrored on the left?

It's a tool to keep ignorance abundant. Depends on how one looks at it, I look at that "sin against God" quote as if it means that one does not let their subconscious guide them on their path to learning and this is to live in death already, to avoid self and their uniqueness. in terms of how the public masses interpret it is more along the lines of; "We need to have faith in God and reject any other information" because they believe knowledge and diversity is a sin, I shit you not. Systematic religion, the philosophy of ignorance to the common man who does not attempt to understand but only adopts, it was cleverly put together. I do not know it's intentions.. If it was meant to enlighten or control. I'd assume control since that is what it more so does.

[Serendipper]

I think you are correct Artimas.

Matthew 11:25

KJV At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

NIV At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

CEV At that moment Jesus said: My Father, Lord of heaven and earth, I am grateful that you hid all this from wise and educated people and showed it to ordinary people.

CJB It was at that time that Yeshua said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you concealed these things from the sophisticated and educated and revealed them to ordinary folks.

AMPC At that time Jesus began to say, I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth [and I acknowledge openly and joyfully to Your honor], that You have hidden these things from the wise and clever and learned, and revealed them to babies [to the childish, untaught, and unskilled].

MSG Abruptly Jesus broke into prayer: “Thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth. You’ve concealed your ways from sophisticates and know-it-alls, but spelled them out clearly to ordinary people.

You get the idea

[Karpel Tunnel]

But are the higher parts missing? Or in addition?

During guilt they are working hard, drawing in blood. And I think you should be able to feel this also. There is feeling sad or scared and there's no higher cognitive stuff going on in some active way. As opposed to say, worry. And as opposed to guilt. Guilt is complicated. You can feel the thoughts coming down on the emotions.

I know for a fact that the insula is missing in the republican case. (Well, not missing, but attenuated)

That's lovely. You think Republicans feeling guiltier the Democrats. You seem to keep trying to reflect guilt to them, with little success. in any case, we talking about guilt, not republicans.

Watts said the church institutionalized guilt, then the audience uproared in applause. We sinned against god and should feel bad for it.

And dnow we have a lot of secular guilts too. A cognitive self-hatred triggering emotions.

[Serendipper]

But are the higher parts missing? Or in addition?

During guilt they are working hard, drawing in blood. And I think you should be able to feel this also. There is feeling sad or scared and there's no higher cognitive stuff going on in some active way. As opposed to say, worry. And as opposed to guilt. Guilt is complicated. You can feel the thoughts coming down on the emotions.

But it's often the case that a cognitive process results in fear, whether it be by guilt or some other mechanism. Right?

Person A perceives stimuli, initiates processing, result is diverted to amygdala.
Person B perceives stimuli, initiates processing and is terminated due to reasoning.

Obviously the problem isn't in the amygdala itself, but lack of mechanism to rationalize the fear response before it is triggered.

I know for a fact that the insula is missing in the republican case. (Well, not missing, but attenuated)

That's lovely. You think Republicans feeling guiltier the Democrats. You seem to keep trying to reflect guilt to them, with little success. in any case, we talking about guilt, not republicans.

Republicans are associated with amygdala and guilt, so there must be a connection.

Watts said the church institutionalized guilt, then the audience uproared in applause. We sinned against god and should feel bad for it.

And dnow we have a lot of secular guilts too. A cognitive self-hatred triggering emotions.

Well, leftists can be pissed about climate change, but not feel guilty because they're doing their part and demanding others also. The rightist should feel guilty once he realizes the damage he may have done.
The leftist can be pissed about trickle-down policies, but not feel guilty.
The only thing I can imagine that leftist may feel guilty about is slavery because slavery was associated with the democratic party, but even that is not really true since only a faction of the democratic party defended slavery.
The leftist homosexual may harbor guilt, but only because of retained rightist impurities that haven't been purged (ie religion).

I hate to seemingly put the left on a pedestal, but the right seems to contain all the problems: fear, guilt, ignorance, authoritarianism. I'm a prisoner of the facts here. What am I supposed to think?

[Karpel Tunnel]

But it's often the case that a cognitive process results in fear, whether it be by guilt or some other mechanism. Right?

Jeez, I really don't know what you're on about. You say guilt is the amygdala, when in fact MRIs show it is a lot of the brain. Sure, cognitive processes or higher brain functions can trigger fears or the amydala. That was what I was saying.

Person A perceives stimuli, initiates processing, result is diverted to amygdala.

Sure, and things that tell you you are bad or you will be ostracized will scare you. Things that tell you that there is a danger will scare you and this may well lead to problem solving. Guilt is a bad process because of what the content of the higher brain has. It initiates a dead end trigger.

Person B perceives stimuli, initiates processing and is terminated due to reasoning.

That's one of many things that can happen.

But then you can't reason, and certainly not socially, without emotions. Damasio showed this.

I don't like the way you pathologize the amydala.

Obviously the problem isn't in the amygdala itself, but lack of mechanism to rationalize the fear response before it is triggered.

It is the content of the thoughts that is the problem, yes.

I know for a fact that the insula is missing in the republican case. (Well, not missing, but attenuated)

That's lovely. You think Republicans feeling guiltier the Democrats. You seem to keep trying to reflect guilt to them, with little success. in any case, we talking about guilt, not republicans.

Republicans are associated with amygdala and guilt, so there must be a connection.

They don't seem to be biting when you keep guilt tripping them about the poor. The left is regularly using guilt in relation to the poor and women and minorities. The far left used guilt in relation to the proletariat or anything that was not for the people. Individualism is seen as a sin. Standing out is seen as a sin.

Well, leftists can be pissed about climate change, but not feel guilty because they're doing their part and demanding others also.

No western leftists are doing their part. Indigenous peoples, some of them, people in third world countries, many of them are doing their part. The West is transforming the earth into garbage. And most of the left feel guilty. That they are white, about native americans, whatever. Original sin still seeps around in the left.

The rightist should feel guilty once he realizes the damage he may have done.

So the right has hypothetical guilt. But you are saying they are more associate with guilt. I don't see it. Seems to me their ideas reduce guilt. They are entitled to what they have. The market will work it out.

It seems to me you are fighting to get them to agree to a guilt they don't feel, over and over here.
The leftist can be pissed about trickle-down policies, but not feel guilty.
The only thing I can imagine that leftist may feel guilty about is slavery because slavery was associated with the democratic party, but even that is not really true since only a faction of the democratic party defended slavery.

I see guilt all over the left. I see them regularly using guilt as a weapon. The right is much more likely to use shame.

I hate to seemingly put the left on a pedestal, but the right seems to contain all the problems: fear, guilt, ignorance, authoritarianism. I'm a prisoner of the facts here. What am I supposed to think?

If you can't see that guilt is endemic on the left and has less bite on the right, then I do not understand how you keep telling the right poeple here what bad people they are and they just laugh it off.

The right is shame based. The religious right has guilt, though precisely in the ways you say the left feel OK about not making things bad, those guys think they are on the wave of God.

And look at all the left pc stuff and all the white coming out and calling themselves racists There is guilt all through lefty culture.

[Serendipper]

But then you can't reason, and certainly not socially, without emotions. Damasio showed this.

Emotions are seated in the most primitive part of the brain and there is no way to circumvent them.

I don't like the way you pathologize the amydala.

I don't like the way you crusade to its rescue while simultaneously pathologizing yourself to your own cause. Why do you want to paint those degenerates in any positive light whatsoever?

I know for a fact that the insula is missing in the republican case. (Well, not missing, but attenuated)

That's lovely. You think Republicans feeling guiltier the Democrats. You seem to keep trying to reflect guilt to them, with little success. in any case, we talking about guilt, not republicans.

What do you mean with little success? Who are the religious???

Republicans are associated with amygdala and guilt, so there must be a connection.

They don't seem to be biting when you keep guilt tripping them about the poor. The left is regularly using guilt in relation to the poor and women and minorities. The far left used guilt in relation to the proletariat or anything that was not for the people. Individualism is seen as a sin. Standing out is seen as a sin.

The left uses guilt as a weapon, but does not feel guilt. The right feels guilt and uses it as a weapon.

Well, leftists can be pissed about climate change, but not feel guilty because they're doing their part and demanding others also.

No western leftists are doing their part. Indigenous peoples, some of them, people in third world countries, many of them are doing their part. The West is transforming the earth into garbage. And most of the left feel guilty. That they are white, about native americans, whatever. Original sin still seeps around in the left.

I acknowledged the left may harbor rightist impurities to feel guilty about, but that's not a leftist thing.

The rightist should feel guilty once he realizes the damage he may have done.

So the right has hypothetical guilt. But you are saying they are more associate with guilt. I don't see it. Seems to me their ideas reduce guilt. They are entitled to what they have. The market will work it out.

If anyone could feel guilty about climate change it could only be a rightist who turned leftist. The rightist doesn't believe in it in order to feel guilt and the leftist never engaged in harmful climate action.

It seems to me you are fighting to get them to agree to a guilt they don't feel, over and over here.
The leftist can be pissed about trickle-down policies, but not feel guilty.
The only thing I can imagine that leftist may feel guilty about is slavery because slavery was associated with the democratic party, but even that is not really true since only a faction of the democratic party defended slavery.

I see guilt all over the left.

List some ways the left feels guilt. Not uses it as a weapon, but feels it.

The right is much more likely to use shame.

Shame is just weaponized guilt.

I hate to seemingly put the left on a pedestal, but the right seems to contain all the problems: fear, guilt, ignorance, authoritarianism. I'm a prisoner of the facts here. What am I supposed to think?

If you can't see that guilt is endemic on the left and has less bite on the right, then I do not understand how you keep telling the right poeple here what bad people they are and they just laugh it off.

That just means dogmatism is a stronger force than guilt. People too stupid to know they're stupid can't feel guilty about what they can't or refuse to understand.

[Prismatic567]

But then you can't reason, and certainly not socially, without emotions. Damasio showed this.

Emotions are seated in the most primitive part of the brain and there is no way to circumvent them.

The most primitive parts are the brain-stem down to the visceral brain.
The parts that triggered emotions are sited in the limbic region, i.e. so-called middle brain.

At present we do not have the ability to manipulate the emotional parts directly. In any case the emotions functions are essential for survival and well being of the individual, i.e. having its pros and cons.

However, since thousands of year ago humans has been developing [& improving on] techniques to strengthen certain inhibitors to modulate the emotional impulses to ensure they positive while dampening the potentially negative ones.

Note Aristotle on emotions with anger as an example;

Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry

with the right person and
to the right degree and
at the right time and
for the right purpose, and
in the right way

- that is not within everybody's power and is not easy

It is not easy but possible for those who know how to modulate the anger and other emotions. This is called Emotional Intelligence. The Buddhists and others has been doing it since 2500+ years ago.

I don't like the way you pathologize the amydala.

I don't like the way you crusade to its rescue while simultaneously pathologizing yourself to your own cause. Why do you want to paint those degenerates in any positive light whatsoever?

If we were to amplify the brain to the size of the Earth, the amygdala could be the size of Australia.

To be precise we cannot state with certainty 'fear' is triggered via the amydala, period!

Recent neuroscience studies are attempting to determine the precise system and paths related to fear in the amygdala, i.e. down to the roads linking the various cities and town in Australia rather just Australia-as-a-whole as analogical to the amygdala.
There are possibilities the emotion of fear is traceable from the amygdala to the visceral regions, the heart, the respiratory system, etc.
This is where my suggestions of breathing techniques as basic is critical.

[Karpel Tunnel]

But then you can't reason, and certainly not socially, without emotions. Damasio showed this.

Emotions are seated in the most primitive part of the brain and there is no way to circumvent them.

It's not the most primitive part of the brain. It's the mammalian brain. But a brain isn't parts, it's a whole, and the whole is damaged when we decide certain parts that are necessary are not. There is a lot of evidence that one cannot reason well with a damaged amygdala.

I don't like the way you crusade to its rescue while simultaneously pathologizing yourself to your own cause. Why do you want to paint those degenerates in any positive light whatsoever?

I believe here I am defending parts of the brain and trying to clarify why I think you misuderstand things regarding the brain. I understand your question in the context of political threads when I have been a kind of devil's advocate (+plus a little other stuff), but here, you are pathologizing me by proxy. And likely yourself.

I know for a fact that the insula is missing in the republican case. (Well, not missing, but attenuated)

That's lovely. You think Republicans feeling guiltier the Democrats. You seem to keep trying to reflect guilt to them, with little success. in any case, we talking about guilt, not republicans.

What do you mean with little success? Who are the religious???

YOU keep tell conservative here in political threads how terrible they are to the poor. You notice much guilt in the people who are supposed to have more guilt - the republicans?

Who do y ou think shows more guilt about the poor or oppressed groups, repubs or dems?

The left uses guilt as a weapon, but does not feel guilt. The right feels guilt and uses it as a weapon.

All the left I know struggle with guilt. So I can only go with my experience. They feel guilty if they don't sort their recycling. They feel guilt about their carbon footprint. They feel guilty for eating the meat they eat. They feel gu ilty they havemoney and the poor do not. And on and on.

Stuff I do not see rightists feeling. I see rightists as more succeptible to shame. For failing for not having stuff and so on....

Gotta go. I'll come back for more.

[Jakob]

The left IS guilty. But of far worse things than they reportedly feel guilty for.
And they have no shame about it. They attack those that fight to undo the sorrows they have caused.

Just to correct your position here.
The right defeated isis. Because the right consists of healthy people who largely have compassion.
The left created isis, along with the slave markets in Libya.
They feel no guilt about this.

I could name there clinical term for such beings but that would do no good.
It is illustrative (and painfully sad) how contemptuous Serendipper is of emotions.

[Serendipper]

The left IS guilty. But of far worse things than they reportedly feel guilty for.
And they have no shame about it. They attack those that fight to undo the sorrows they have caused.

Just to correct your position here.
The right defeated isis. Because the right consists of healthy people who largely have compassion.
The left created isis, along with the slave markets in Libya.
They feel no guilt about this.

I could name there clinical term for such beings but that would do no good.
It is illustrative (and painfully sad) how contemptuous Serendipper is of emotions.

Baloney! The right created isis with their stupid wars for profit! The right created the mess the left is trying to clean up.

And neveryoumind about your pain of my emotions. Get over it!

[promethean75]

The right created isis with their stupid wars for profit!

exactly!

the appeal of the imperialist efforts of the U.S. in the middle-east (which so outraged the people and gave rise to the terrorist groups) originated from the circumstances in which they took place; it appeared as if the 'noble' effort of the U.S. was to democratize the region and free the people from the evil theocratic rule of the dictators holding power there. but this was just an expediency, a script to be followed to get the approval of the people so that the U.S. could occupy the region for other reasons. *nudge nudge*

so really what we witnessed was simply the displacement of one kind of tyranny for another, but it looked good, and it looked good because american 'democracy', pepsi cola, and jordache jeans was something truly revolutionary to the people of the middle east. oh hell yeah! c'mon in, we want some of that. sick of wearing these frickin' burkas and drinking alcohol free beer, know what i mean?

but let's take a time machine back a few hundred years and ask of that region what would have been different had they already revolutionized themselves from the religious nonsense that granted so much power to the theocrats that ruled the region. there would have been no tyranny... so there would have been no political front for the imperialist U.S. to use to justify its occupation for other reasons. *nudge nudge*

everywhere across the entire surface of god's gray earth where we find a stunted or stalled socialist revolution, we find capitalist imperialists worming their way into the mess to exploit it of it's weaknesses. and as long as the people of the world remain ignorant of this travesty, the more naive will welcome such imperialists if they bring pepsi cola and jordache jeans... and the enlightened few will form terrorist groups... founded on the very religious fundamentalism that stalled the regions revolutionary progress in the first place and set up the tyrannies that the imperialists would later on use as an excuse to invade.

see the vicious circle?

god i'm good.

[Serendipper]

god i'm good.

I'll second that! You've definitely got it goin on! Don't hold back now.

everywhere across the entire surface of god's gray earth where we find a stunted or stalled socialist revolution, we find capitalist imperialists worming their way into the mess to exploit it

Precisely!

FWD to 1:41:43



What we call the military budget is the technique by which taxpayers pay the costs of high-tech industry. So that's how you pay off IBM and, you know, electronics industry and aeronautics. Our biggest exports is aircraft, well that's publicly funded. And in fact virtually every functional part of the economy is publicly funded. Of course, everyone knows capitalism is completely unworkable, we try to impose it on 3rd world countries to destroy them, but we don't have capitalism. [Audience laughs] And never have. The military budget is one of the main techniques by which the state intervenes in the economy to funnel money from the taxpayer to the wealthy.

[Karpel Tunnel]

The right defeated isis.

_the neocons knew they were creating IS, memos demonstrate this. They knew that Saudi ARabia was using IS and supplying IS and SA is the neocons other buddy in the region. Despite their policies contributing to the presence, size, success of IS they maintained their policies. Of course IS was created by a whole lot of factors, but NeoCon wars in the region certainly contributed. The Schisms in Islam and all the players fucking with Syria, Western and Middle eastern contributed to IS. The neocons hoped that Syria would collapse earlier, and if HIlary had come in she would have put troops in much earlier. It all got fucked up, in part because of Russia backing the gov there.

[MagsJ]

Of course IS was created by a whole lot of factors, but NeoCon wars in the region certainly contributed.

..with the aid of the then Labour leader Tony Blair, who is now being considered to be charged with war crimes.

Neo Cons.. left-leaning fascists in disguise?

[Serendipper]

Of course IS was created by a whole lot of factors, but NeoCon wars in the region certainly contributed.

..with the aid of the then Labour leader Tony Blair, who is now being considered to be charged with war crimes.

Neo Cons.. left-leaning fascists in disguise?

I was trying to think of a delicate way of putting that since you mentioned on the other thread about the Labour party and shenanigans. I think it's often the case, especially in europe, to be a con in labour clothing. Evidently there is some appeal that the left has with the people over there that doesn't exist in the US.

In Europe they label it socialism to sell it to the people.
In the US they label it socialism to demonize it to the people.

[MagsJ]

I was trying to think of a delicate way of putting that since you mentioned on the other thread about the Labour party and shenanigans. I think it's often the case, especially in europe, to be a con in labour clothing. Evidently there is some appeal that the left has with the people over there that doesn't exist in the US.

In Europe they label it socialism to sell it to the people.
In the US they label it socialism to demonize it to the people.

You're welcome

The current Labour leader is no different.. supporting all the terrorist groups that the world is trying to rid itself of, and calling them his friends, prohibiting peace in our time.. from an upper class background, but with lower than working class views. Perhaps there's money involved.. for him.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Of course IS was created by a whole lot of factors, but NeoCon wars in the region certainly contributed.

..with the aid of the then Labour leader Tony Blair, who is now being considered to be charged with war crimes.

Neo Cons.. left-leaning fascists in disguise?

Like Tony Blair isn't pro-business, pro military. I will be that the social system lost ground under his tenure. IOW he was part of moving the UK away from socialist tendencies. He aligned himself with the queen and with the Neocons. He did their bidding. Just as Clinton did.

[Jakob]

The right defeated isis.

_the neocons knew they were creating IS, memos demonstrate this. They knew that Saudi ARabia was using IS and supplying IS and SA is the neocons other buddy in the region. Despite their policies contributing to the presence, size, success of IS they maintained their policies. Of course IS was created by a whole lot of factors, but NeoCon wars in the region certainly contributed. The Schisms in Islam and all the players fucking with Syria, Western and Middle eastern contributed to IS. The neocons hoped that Syria would collapse earlier, and if HIlary had come in she would have put troops in much earlier. It all got fucked up, in part because of Russia backing the gov there.

Too many assumptions and missing the points about the millions of lives Trump saved.
Just go visit the region like I did. Imagine me, a Jew, embedded with Hezbollah, who weren't knowing I am Jewish but who believed I was there to make their case in the west.
I learned a lot that way. First of all that these weren't people whose case I wanted to make.

Takes a bit of courage, which isn't appreciated here on ILP. Some fanatical troll in my threads I won't mention by name again thinks courage is cowardice and vice versa, and he is kind of a model moderner in that sense. People who never dreamt of leaving their town and yet have big opinions about politics.

Ive never met anyone who talked sense about this stuff that hasn't gathered some experience. Same with any important topic.

[Silhouette]

Just go visit the region like I did. Imagine me, a Jew, embedded with Hezbollah, who weren't knowing I am Jewish but who believed I was there to make their case in the west.

Good on you for going - I'm assuming to a location in the Middle East where there are wars still ongoing. Where was it you went?

I'm not so sure, though, about the attribution to the current US president. It assumes not only a lot about the decision structures of the US, but it might also assume a lot about the intentions of voters.

So firstly, do politicians not heed advice from military personel? Is there only a 1-way dictation from president downwards without any feedback i.e. an Autocratic state? I would hazard the guess that the military expertise at the president's hand would have held the vast majority of the decision making clout, regardless of who the president was. Given the record of the likely alternative had Trump not won the role of figurehead, it's easy to assume Clinton would have pushed for "millions of lives" to be taken in pursuit of her "Democratic goals". It's also easy to assume that even if this was the case, that democratic voters supported her because of such a projection - even more doubtful.

So in response to:

Too many assumptions and missing the points about the millions of lives Trump saved.

I hold that it is reasonable to assume that millions of lives were already saved, regardless of not only Trump, but also the intentions of the US electorate regardless of their political stance. In fact, I would say that the "too many assumptions" apply to you here, Jakob.

But you definitely win points altogether separate from your overall argument, for going over there to find things out for yourself - assuming that's what you did.

[MagsJ]

Of course IS was created by a whole lot of factors, but NeoCon wars in the region certainly contributed.

..with the aid of the then Labour leader Tony Blair, who is now being considered to be charged with war crimes.

Neo Cons.. left-leaning fascists in disguise?

Like Tony Blair isn't pro-business, pro military.

..and Corbyn is the exact opposite.. anti-business and anti-military.. heck, the guy would even get rid of Trident if he ever came into power.

I will be that the social system lost ground under his tenure. IOW he was part of moving the UK away from socialist tendencies. He aligned himself with the queen and with the Neocons. He did their bidding. Just as Clinton did.

He was the first champagne socialist, after-all.. under his watch, the social system was more management-heavy than we had ever had, so multi-millions were being spent on employees that weren't actually needed.. friends of his perhaps? just like Sadiq Khan is doing in City Hall as Mayor of London.

Now this is hilarious..

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1346349/How-Blairs-New-Labour-went-flat-for-champagne-socialists.html

How Blair's New Labour went flat for champagne socialists
By George Jones and Sandra Laville12:00AM BST 03 Jul 2000
WHEN Ken and Barbara Follett, the original New Labour champagne socialists, cracked open a jeroboam on the night of the general election in May 1997 they had much to celebrate.
Mrs Follett, credited with the sharp improvement in the dress sense of Labour MPs, had won a seat in Westminster and Tony Blair, for whom the Folletts had raised millions of pounds, had achieved a majority beyond all expectations.
But the cooling of relations between the Folletts and Mr Blair pre-dated election night when the future Prime Minister and his wife, Cherie, were photographed arriving for what they thought was a private dinner at the Folletts' Chelsea home.

Mr Blair was convinced his publicity-seeking friends had tipped off the media for their own ends. The couple denied the accusation, but the following day spin doctors went out of their way to spread news of Mr Blair's displeasure with the Folletts, appealing to those who had been complaining that the Labour leader spent too much of his time in the company of "champagne socialists".
Nevertheless the Folletts, who were credited with bringing many celebrity supporters and wealthy donors to the Labour fold, had expected to share in the triumph of their party in power. But while New Labour supporters such as Alex Ferguson, Melvyn Bragg and Wahid Ali have been ennobled or knighted, Mrs Follett, the MP for Stevenage, has not been elevated to the Government and Mr Follett is still that, plain mister.