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

[Chindie]

7 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Apparently the May speech is to give our formal notice to withdraw from the EEA (you all remember that question on the ballot paper last June, right? And how Parliament have voted to give her that authority?), and at the same time asking the other members of EFTA whether they'd like to form a shiny, new arrangement instead which does all the same things as they currently have, just without freedom of movement.

So a whole new thing, with a whole new bunch of people to reject unrealistic proposals, made by people who probably wouldn't pass a GCSE in understanding this stuff.

That wouldn't surprise me. We seem to be going into these negotiations like a child, thinking we can just say what we want and get it. The EFTA has even been often a little cold on us even coming in, a big fear being that we might disturb the balance I recall. No wonder if our opening gambit is 'hey guys, your club's great and everything, but we've got these ideas to make it better for us, let us in?'.

The immigration thing needs to die to save this country. The politicians with a brain know it, they know the country needs people coming in. They know EU immigration is about the 'best' they can ask for, because you get either well educated culturally similar people from 'old' Europe (or students), and you get physical workers from Eastern Europe the country desperately needs. In either case they basically are free taxes. They tend to be healthy and working, they don't cost anything. And on the cynical side of things you largely don't notice them - I defy someone to pick out a German walking down a street in London.

But they also know the electorate sees immigration as a singular thing, and hates it. So they shooting the country in the foot to save their careers.

Madness.

Sums up Brexit really. Had the best deal on the EU, bin it because. Desperately flail around trying to fix it whilst saving face.

[darrenm]

3 hours ago, Chindie said:

that's silly talk.

As silly as the right hand side of this?

[bobzy]

It wouldn't continue to happen IMO.

 

There's far too many people who have, for whatever reason, the views of "anyone but Corbyn", "Corbyn is dangerous" etc - and these are, typically, people who don't read into policies and the like but settle on soundbites (which is why I think Theresa May's campaign went so far down that route - the majority of the population are lazy **** who don't want to read into anything to make an informed decision).

The Conservatives didn't even campaign in the GE with any policies and, as your chart above shows, still won more votes than any other party.  That's staggering and, also, why our country is so shit.

[Jon]

4 hours ago, darrenm said:

I don't think so. The Tories have been hugely damaged by the GE. They started from a position of strength with Labour heading for disaster because of an extremely unpopular Jeremy Corbyn.

The campaign from Labour created a huge surge and would likely create a landslide to Labour if done again when starting from a relatively even starting point. Don't underestimate Momentum.

Sadly the Tories are now running scared of this exact scenario. They'll hold out as long as they can, as they know what another GE would bring.  Hence their grubby and possibly illegal deal with the DUP. 

[blandy]

39 minutes ago, bobzy said:

There's far too many people who have, for whatever reason, the views of "anyone but Corbyn", "Corbyn is dangerous" etc - and these are, typically, people who don't read into policies and the like but settle on soundbites (which is why I think Theresa May's campaign went so far down that route - the majority of the population are lazy **** who don't want to read into anything to make an informed decision).

The Conservatives didn't even campaign in the GE with any policies and, as your chart above shows, still won more votes than any other party.

Possibly. But I'm not sure. There's no way I would vote for Labour with Corbyn as leader (and I've previously voted for Labour). I do try and follow things. There are also ( I believe) many Labour MPs who don't hold with Corbyn's views and "qualities" but who clearly are labour people. It's not so simple as there's the left and then a bunch of people who just believe any old tosh written in the tory press and vote tory or vote against Labour. Sure these people exist, but it's much broader than that, IMO.

I don't think May's campaign going down the "Corbin is a clown" route worked much, if at all. And to the extent it had any effect it was probably counter productive, in much the same way the rest of her campaign was. She's inept beyond belief.

Fortunately, my vote is utterly irrelevant as it counts for nothing where I live. So although I always vote against the tories, more than really for anyone with any chance of winning, the system is so broken that as Chindie says, not much will change if there's a election any time soon. Though I expect the tories would lose more seats, but I couldn't see Labour winning yet. And if they did it would be a poisoned chalice - they'd get the massive grief of their have it both ways Brexit stance and the actual result of Brexit would be blamed on them, as they'd be the current government.

[darrenm]

44 minutes ago, bobzy said:

It wouldn't continue to happen IMO.

 

There's far too many people who have, for whatever reason, the views of "anyone but Corbyn", "Corbyn is dangerous" etc - and these are, typically, people who don't read into policies and the like but settle on soundbites (which is why I think Theresa May's campaign went so far down that route - the majority of the population are lazy **** who don't want to read into anything to make an informed decision).

The Conservatives didn't even campaign in the GE with any policies and, as your chart above shows, still won more votes than any other party.  That's staggering and, also, why our country is so shit.

Yep, agreed on the reasons. But Momentum have just ensured 2 Corbyn supporters got elected to the NEC and caused more Labour members to vote for it than the whole of the Conservative Party. They do lots of door-knocking in marginals which always makes the biggest difference. A lot of the 'anyone but Corbyn' people just call him names and don't have a clue what they don't like about him and tend to be the weakest minded. The moment anyone actually knocks on their door, or they see a big gathering in the town, or their friends don't share their view, they tend to change their minds.

The Tories did worse than campaign without policies, they campaigned with really bad policies. But the rise of Labour has to be put into the context of the 2 medias vs each other. Print media overwhelmingly against Corbyn and Labour, social media the opposite. Twitter is pretty much a no-go if you like your right-wing politics. Facebook half and half as it also has your racist uncle on there.

Tories know that next time they're **** which is why the ill-fated Activate was started. They have no grassroots apart from a few public schools whereas Momentum has most of the Labour party membership willing to do almost anything they say. They'd be terrifying if they weren't trying to remove a dangerous government.

[tonyh29]

 

20 minutes ago, darrenm said:

. A lot of the 'anyone but Corbyn' people just call him names and don't have a clue what they don't like about him and tend to be the weakest minded

Im curious to know if those that made regular comments about Maybot and even commented on her appearance on test match special get filled under comments by the strongest minded 

In other news , I see the cat is out the bag that Corbyn had offered the DUP a better deal than the £1bn in the event he had secured enough seats and needed them to prop up his government ... I wonder if they would have been so abhorrent had they done so ?

 

[darrenm]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

 

Im curious to know if those that made regular comments about Maybot and even commented on her appearance on test match special get filled under comments by the strongest minded 

In other news , I see the cat is out the bag that Corbyn had offered the DUP a better deal than the £1bn in the event he had secured enough seats and needed them to prop up his government ... I wonder if they would have been so abhorrent had they done so ?

 

Well as May makes my skin crawl and Corbyn doesn't I would sway one way more than the other wouldn't I?

But I'm specifically talking about people influenced by the media without any reasoning as being the weakest minded. They are that by definition surely?

Got a link for the DUP thing? I can't see it personally, it doesn't make sense. Even Corbyn didn't expect to get anywhere near being able to form a coalition with a 10 seat party.

[tonyh29]

35 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Got a link for the DUP thing? I can't see it personally, it doesn't make sense. Even Corbyn didn't expect to get anywhere near being able to form a coalition with a 10 seat party.

Was in the Indie

But Mr Paisley also dismissed criticism from Labour of the Government’s £1bn deal with the DUP. “To those members of the Labour Party who chide about the £1 billion deal, your party would quite happily have cut a deal that would probably have been better for us,” he said.

“That's the discussions we had in advance of the last election, and to chide us, you only hurt public servants in Northern Ireland who are benefiting from that £1 billion deal that will allow us to allocate this money to relieve these costs.

 

[darrenm]

26 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Was in the Indie

 

 

Ok, that's exactly what you said then 

[darrenm]

They've sunk to a new low

 

[bickster]

3 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

In other news , I see the cat is out the bag that Corbyn had offered the DUP a better deal than the £1bn in the event he had secured enough seats and needed them to prop up his government ... I wonder if they would have been so abhorrent had they done so ?

 

Yes they would, they are abhorrent and anyone that does a deal with them would deserve to be pilloried in the same way the Tories currently are.

But the sceptic in me would say, hold on, at least hear both parties stories before actually making a judgement. I no more believe Paisley Jr as I believed his bombastic ass of a father.

 

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

13 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

I wonder if they would have been so abhorrent had they done so ?

I truly believe they are now all in a race to the bottom,  there is nothing for any party to be proud about these days.

I think they are all vile power mad idiot's.  Imagine the stuff that goes on in Government that we never ever hear of.  In reality I would say nobody should go near the DUP with anything or than a barge poll.

[ml1dch]

10 hours ago, darrenm said:

They've sunk to a new low

 

Just to clarify, which bit do you see as a new low? Abstaining in this particular vote, or saying that it's what they intend to do for future Opposition Day motions?

Edited September 14, 2017 by ml1dch

[darrenm]

4 hours ago, ml1dch said:

Just to clarify, which bit do you see as a new low? Abstaining in this particular vote, or saying that it's what they intend to do for future Opposition Day motions?

Moreso the intention to not attend or vote on any future opposition motions. It's 2 fingers up at democracy.

[Davkaus]

So it turns out that increasing numbers of people living in poverty, depending on food banks is a good thing. This Rees-Mogg prick is presumably the MP that CCHQ have chosen to sacrifice to show that "May isn't so bad"? It's a wonder he gets through each day without a broken nose.

 

 

Edited September 14, 2017 by Davkaus

[blandy]

8 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

So it turns out that increasing numbers of people living in poverty, depending on food banks is a good thing. This Rees-Mogg prick is presumably the MP that CCHQ have chosen to sacrifice to show that "May isn't so bad"? It's a wonder he gets through each day without a broken nose.

I hate it when the media twist stuff like that.  He didn't say what is being alleged. What he said was that people being charitable is good to see.

Yes, he ignored the underlying situation where people are having to rely on charity, or that the cause of much of that is his party's horribleness, but he didn't say that "increasing numbers of people living in poverty, depending on food banks is a good thing", just that there are people who are donating to or working for charity is a good thing (which it is, though it's a shame it's necessary). 

[Davkaus]

Quote

I think there is good within food banks and the real reason for the rise in numbers is that people know that they’re there, and Labour deliberately wouldn’t tell them,

It's an interesting take on the situation, I'll give him that.

[magnkarl]

13 minutes ago, blandy said:

I hate it when the media twist stuff like that.  He didn't say what is being alleged. What he said was that people being charitable is good to see.

Yes, he ignored the underlying situation where people are having to rely on charity, or that the cause of much of that is his party's horribleness, but he didn't say that "increasing numbers of people living in poverty, depending on food banks is a good thing", just that there are people who are donating to or working for charity is a good thing (which it is, though it's a shame it's necessary). 

I wonder how the same people would react if someone was to mention how Corbyn has links to Hamas because he supports their cause even though they commit heinous acts every week. By all means though, let's change what Mogg said and be angry about the edited version.

I thought it was only the "right" that used spin doctors?  

[Chindie]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I hate it when the media twist stuff like that.  He didn't say what is being alleged. What he said was that people being charitable is good to see.

Yes, he ignored the underlying situation where people are having to rely on charity, or that the cause of much of that is his party's horribleness, but he didn't say that "increasing numbers of people living in poverty, depending on food banks is a good thing", just that there are people who are donating to or working for charity is a good thing (which it is, though it's a shame it's necessary). 

I don't know... I think you're being somewhat kind. He says the rise in use of food banks is an awareness issue, heavily implying that poverty is not the problem, and spinning that rise as a lovely thing.

It's the kind of thing a complete clearing in the woods would say. Appropriately.