The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[Rugeley Villa]

1 minute ago, meregreen said:

Your either very young or have a short memory. I lived through an era of 3,000,000 unemployed with those bastards. They hid many of them by actively encouraging people to register as sick, so removing them from the statistics. These days they still show little to no sympathy for those out of work, seeking to hide them by means of forcing people into zero hours contracts and bogus self employed status. I'll sleep well when the British people find their sense of decency again and dump the self serving perfidious cretins.

33 years of age brought up in a Tory household. 

[darrenm]

39 brought up in a Tory household :-)

[meregreen]

I'm 62 and brought up in a Tory household , but made my own mind up through watching the Tories ruin lives and communities without a trace of compassion. 

[HanoiVillan]

On 4/29/2017 at 19:34, Awol said:

I'd say that's a pretty literalist interpretation and read it as more likely to mean 'you're going to get an ear full so don't bother', rather than 'I'll stab you in the face' or some such.

The trend to embrace the literal interpretation and deliberately ignore other potential meanings of a word or phrase is something I've noticed more and more recently, particularly in the media, and usually when it provides an opportunity for faux outrage. I'm not accusing you of that in your post, it's just a general observation.

Quite a lot of people disapprove of Corbyn's stance towards terrorists in general. I'm surprised some folks are surprised about that. 

You're right, it is a literal interpretation. If I, as a Labour canvasser, knocked on his door anyway, would I get hit, or would I get an earful? I can't know, hence I don't knock, which is of course the point. 

But I think I'm not making myself clear enough. Mr Squaddie is very secondary to my concerns. I don't like his sign, and if I were designing a perfect world, threatening signs would have no part of it, but he's hardly the first to put up something like this. My main objection is to his MP uncritically tweeting it out. She should know better. 

[blandy]

12 hours ago, darrenm said:

Surely it should all be about policies? How you feel about someone as a person is completely ambiguous from a distance. I can't stand some footballers but I bet some are alright if I got to know them.

It would be better if everyone had to blind vote by doing something similar to I side with. The vast majority of people are far more left wing than they think and Tory policies are far more right wing than they expect.

I sympathise, but very much disagree that it should be 'all about policies'. Personally it's more complex than just policies. It isn't a presidential election, yet there's an element of assessing the abilities and integrity of the various leaders. There's also an element of assessing the abilities of the various cabinet/ shadow cabinet / spokespeople. Then there's past history to think about, for example have they previously actually achieved what they said in their policy manifestos?  Did they start any stupid wars? for example, or did they cheerlead any stupid wars? How did they respond to unexpected events?

"policies" can also sound great, but actually be unachievable, or come to be quickly outdated, or just be highly contradictory with each other. The most obvious examples being a policy of leaving the EU, and protecting the NHS or jobs, or remaining in the EU and controlling immigration (last Tory government). In this particular election Brexit and all the issues around it are particularly relevant. How has the official opposition, led by Corbyn, responded? How has the government acted, how have the other parties acted.

and another thing for me is willingness to cooperate, both in terms of within the uk, and then internationally  has a standing government been working well with other nations to solve or ease problems?, have they been propping up despots?

Populism can be appealing, but frankly highly dangerous - trump,  le pen, ukips etc.

the result of all the above is that, for me, tories, labour, ukips completely unsupportable.

But luckily none of that matters, as I live in a safe seat.

 

[mockingbird_franklin]

18 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

The walking soundbite strikes again.

Having watched it, seems Ms Robotnic appears to need a reboot, her core operating system seems to have become very buggy and jittery and important programs such as speach appear to be stuck in loops, endlessly repeating, her input ports appear to be misinterpreting data an supplying totally unrelated and unsatisfactory output via her audio port

Edited May 1, 2017 by mockingbird_franklin
grammar

[darrenm]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

I sympathise, but very much disagree that it should be 'all about policies'. Personally it's more complex than just policies. It isn't a presidential election, yet there's an element of assessing the abilities and integrity of the various leaders. There's also an element of assessing the abilities of the various cabinet/ shadow cabinet / spokespeople. Then there's past history to think about, for example have they previously actually achieved what they said in their policy manifestos?  Did they start any stupid wars? for example, or did they cheerlead any stupid wars? How did they respond to unexpected events?

"policies" can also sound great, but actually be unachievable, or come to be quickly outdated, or just be highly contradictory with each other. The most obvious examples being a policy of leaving the EU, and protecting the NHS or jobs, or remaining in the EU and controlling immigration (last Tory government). In this particular election Brexit and all the issues around it are particularly relevant. How has the official opposition, led by Corbyn, responded? How has the government acted, how have the other parties acted.

and another thing for me is willingness to cooperate, both in terms of within the uk, and then internationally  has a standing government been working well with other nations to solve or ease problems?, have they been propping up despots?

Populism can be appealing, but frankly highly dangerous - trump,  le pen, ukips etc.

the result of all the above is that, for me, tories, labour, ukips completely unsupportable.

But luckily none of that matters, as I live in a safe seat.

 

OK, stances. How you identify with the aims and ideology of the parties. As you say, policies can be promised but be ultimately unachievable, but they show the aims of the party.

I personally don't think brexit should be top of the list in this election, even though the Tories are trying to make it that way. We have far higher priorities like stopping the rolling privatisation of the NHS, stopping people freezing to death on the streets, stopping our schools being unfit for purpose.

I know you're a big supporter of staying in the EU. Me too. But that ship has sailed. So 2 stances to compare - Conservative: May being completely incompetent but trying to force the hardest brexit possible with no hope of getting anything from them* Labour: a de-facto remain in the EU as they will offer full rights to EU nationals, return a vote on the final details to parliament, and seek to remain in the single market. 

* The looming disaster described in this Twitter thread here: 

 

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, mockingbird_franklin said:

Having watched it, seems Ms Robotnic appears to need a reboot, her core operating system seems to have become very buggy and jittery and important programs such as speach appear to be stuck in loops, endlessly repeating, her input ports appear to be misinterpreting data an supplying totally unrelated and unsatisfactory output via her audio port

I've still not watched Marr, but I watched Peston last night. She really is very lucky there's nobody out there at the moment that will go in for the kill.

He became a caricature of himself in the end, but I can't help feeling Paxman on his game could have ended her career.

[blandy]

5 hours ago, darrenm said:

OK, stances. How you identify with the aims and ideology of the parties. As you say, policies can be promised but be ultimately unachievable, but they show the aims of the party.

I personally don't think brexit should be top of the list in this election, even though the Tories are trying to make it that way. We have far higher priorities like stopping the rolling privatisation of the NHS, stopping people freezing to death on the streets, stopping our schools being unfit for purpose.

I know you're a big supporter of staying in the EU. Me too. But that ship has sailed. So 2 stances to compare - Conservative: May being completely incompetent but trying to force the hardest brexit possible with no hope of getting anything from them* Labour: a de-facto remain in the EU as they will offer full rights to EU nationals, return a vote on the final details to parliament, and seek to remain in the single market. 

* The looming disaster described in this Twitter thread here: 

 

Again, I sympathise and understand where you're coming from, Darren, but don't have the same take on it myself. I get and agree with the horror of the tories. I absolutely loathe them. I'm not trying to make any party political point in my wider answer, but to talk about reasons for voting whatever way. Oh, and also just to correct one thing "you're a big supporter of staying in the EU" - overstates things a lot. I voted remain, reluctantly. Soft brexit wouldn't be a disaster, and would have some upside, hard brexit is suicide is my take on it.

Anyway, labour defacto remain in the EU?  No way pedro . Labour has utterly bottled it on Europe. Meekly campaign against leaving, then enthusiastically vote for triggering article 50, supporting the tory timetable and plans, all over the place on immigration, incoherent and lacking any definitive approach to the single market.....useless.

None of which is to talk up the tories. I agree with you, on May.

In terms of stances and aims of parties, to me that's something that can be looked at in two ways, neither of which are massively helpful to me. Either it's like "Labour...NHS, Tories...big business...etc" which is so binary, so stereotypical as to be almost meaningless, these days, or alternatively it's a means to conceal a lack of thinking (by parties). To say (for any party) "we like apple pie, kittens, freedom, choice, good schools and hospitals...strong and stable....weak against the strong and strong against the weak..." Is sloganeerring without detail.

On parties specifically, May is a malevolent speak your weight machine leading a bunch of mostly self regarding buffoons and ideologues. Corbyn has less nasty policies, but no team of remotely competent people. Dianne Abbott? McDonnell? Etc. The only competent ones want rid of Corbyn, who sadly isn't up to the job if leading a party, let alone a country.

The other parties are all no hopers, though I hope they do well, apart from UKIPs.

It's desperate,truly desperate, we're run by utter efftards with no one stopping them from the harm they're doing.

 

[VillaChris]

2 hours ago, mockingbird_franklin said:

Having watched it, seems Ms Robotnic appears to need a reboot, her core operating system seems to have become very buggy and jittery and important programs such as speach appear to be stuck in loops, endlessly repeating, her input ports appear to be misinterpreting data an supplying totally unrelated and unsatisfactory output via her audio port

Didn't Cameron use a similar line when Paxman sprung the foodbank question before the last election. Said along the lines because it was now available people who didn't really need it were using foodbanks?

Here in the Torygraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11511944/David-Cameron-should-not-be-afraid-to-talk-about-food-banks.html

Quote

If a charge sheet were to be written against David Cameron, listing the social ills that have crept in over the past five years, food banks would be placed at the top. Everyone from Ed Miliband to the Archbishop of Canterbury seems to regard their very existence as an outrage, giving the lie to Mr Cameron’s talk of an economic recovery. If Britain is prosperous, runs the argument, why has the number of food banks quadrupled? What kind of society cuts tax for the richest, while those at the bottom are forced to queue in church halls for the very basics?

Jeremy Paxman went a stage further last week: did the Prime Minister actually know how many food banks there are? He didn’t – proof, to his critics, that he didn’t care much either. The Scottish National Party has been using food banks to prove that Britain, as a country, does not work any more. Alex Salmond talks about them as a disease spread from Westminster. After independence, say the placards, “the only banks we will lose are food banks”. And now Labour is promising that they will be a casualty of Ed Miliband’s government.

 

[mockingbird_franklin]

The more I see Ms May doing anything, the more the words weak and wobbly spring to mind with every scripted strong and stable she utters.

[darrenm]

She seriously looks out of her depth. And that's without my rose tinted spectacles on. I wonder if the people behind pulling the strings are starting to worry that their frontwoman is not up to it. She's been kept away from the public as it is but she can't completely hide until the election. Every time she goes on TV she loses the Tories 5 points.

Edited May 1, 2017 by darrenm

[tonyh29]

Kinda amusing how when Brown was stuggling with the PR people complained about Pop Idol politics ...and now it seems pop idol is the measuring stick

 

All May has to do is avoid a bigoted lady type mistake , not get ambushed by a Storer or fall over on brighton beach and she is home free ... by the end of the 6 week election lead most people will have forgotten the robot like replies given on a TV show they didn't watch.

Edited May 1, 2017 by tonyh29

[StefanAVFC]

14 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Kinda amusing how when Brown was stuggling with the PR people complained about Pop Idol politics ...and now it seems pop idol is the measuring stick

 

Oh come off it.

This isn't just about May's image or how she comes across. You do a disservice to people (particularly on this forum) if you think that's all they care about. May getting hammered is not down to her image.

She's wooden when it comes to answering questions, she doesn't have answers even when prepared, the only policies we've heard from her in nearly a year has been dog whistle soundbites, and quite frankly she is not an inspiring leader. None of that is Pop Idol politics.

Edited May 1, 2017 by StefanAVFC

[mockingbird_franklin]

don't worry Tony, nobody is suggesting That Corbyn will defy the far right media bias and Ms May won't crush the saboteurs and ride triumphant through London on a unicorn to adulation of 99% of the population, just pointing out the comedic value in such a weak as piss poor wobbly robot talking about strong and stable,  

[mockingbird_franklin]

in fact here is something less wooden than ms Robotnic (probably stronger and more stable too)

 

[mockingbird_franklin]

23 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

While it was Kinda amusing how when Brown was stuggling with the PR people complained about Pop Idol politics ...i don't find it amusing now it's Ms T Mark 2

 

All May has to do is avoid doing anything other than controlled propaganda and let the Far right media fight for their own self interests and she is home free ...  most people will be too busy watching the latest reality tv porn or crap talent shows to observe the reality of ms Robotnic being at odds with the very 'pop idol' image being peddled, .

Fixed your post for you Tone,

The real amusing bit is even with all this, preferential press treatment, heavy PR and micro management, the true Ms May is shining through and its quite clearly at odds with what they are trying to portray, currently shes making Ian Donut Smith look sincere and competent, something i never thought i'd ever type or say. There has been real focus to play pop idol politics by the Tory party including the very election announcement and with Ms May marketed as some sort of genius hard nosed negotiator, but to anyone with an even slight observational skills and the remotest ability to think it's failing miserably unless they are wearing very blue specs. fortunately for ms mayhem, that still leaves her 90% of the population to lap up soundbites and rhetoric as fact in oblivious dumb downed heaven which unfortunately isn't remotely amusing seeing as it means another 5 years of a far right extremist radical government.

[tonyh29]

45 minutes ago, mockingbird_franklin said:

don't worry Tony, nobody is suggesting That Corbyn will defy the far right media bias and Ms May won't crush the saboteurs and ride triumphant through London on a unicorn to adulation of 99% of the population, just pointing out the comedic value in such a weak as piss poor wobbly robot talking about strong and stable,  

I wasn't arguing that she wasn't being robotic , just my amusement at the apparent change of view 

[StefanAVFC]

1 minute ago, tonyh29 said:

I wasn't arguing that she wasn't being robotic , just my amusement at the apparent change of view 

There hasn't been a change of view and your assertion that people having an issue with May only because of 'Pop Idol politics' is frankly insulting.

[ml1dch]

5 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I wasn't arguing that she wasn't being robotic , just my amusement at the apparent change of view 

Care to offer a single piece of evidence of these people changing their views?