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

[VILLAMARV]

5 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

It is a politician's job to deliver some media-friendly soundbites that can be played on news reports

Yeah, see, I think it's this thing you appear to base your argument on there that I fundamentally disagree with. And no I'm not suggesting it's not on their current job description. We could get bogged down here though and I assume you didn't mean it in absolutes.

5 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

It's also her job to sound upbeat, thank the party, and create an atmosphere of enthusiasm. It's also probably the proudest moment of her life, or one of them, so on a human level I don't see why she should sound like Eeyore. 

Again though, and humourous aside, aside, No one but you is suggesting she should sound like Eeyore. Even if I do On a personal level, no one is trying to suggest she doesn't enjoy her moment. I'm confused as to where you think I have?

I was simply bemoaning the pithy nonsense she actually did come out with. Same as I bemoan the pithy nonsense on Question Time or when the PM submits to the scrutiny of being interviewed on This Morning. I know it would be foolish to expect anything of actual substance, but isn't that a real problem we face right now across the political spectrum? I thought it might be 'fun' to watch him squirm, and the cameraman kept him in shot the whole time too........... but her droning on sapped all the 'fun' out of it. That was all I was saying.

Quote

We'll never know what proportion of people voted because of her 'positive Liberal message'.

No we wont. However I guarantee you, that when I speak to the people I know up there who will have voted Liberal not a single one of them will say "Well, i read their manifesto and their positive Liberal message was what did it for me Marv!" and I think you're acutely aware of that in reality. Even the people I know who are in the Liberal Party (And will have displayed a number of those orange signs over the last few weeks bicks has been driving past) aren't that silly. And if they'd attempted to connect with people on the doorstep in that manner they would have been laughed out of town.

Choose to ignore that if you wish, it's purely anecdotal after all, but based on the experience of living there for over 20 years of my life, having worked and lived in various places around Powys and from having friends and family that still work, live and vote there. The coal industry closure and the dismantling of the manufacturing sector since the days of Thatcher has left a once dominant Labour party a complete irrelevance there and since the late 80's the Liberal Party has, in it's various guises, provided the opposition vote to an otherwise dominant Conservative voter base.

Again, it highlights the hypernormalisation aspect of it all. imo. As does tactical voting itself - It's literally gaming the system. I hate that too fwiw.

5 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

But the Conservatives have, nationally, declined from 43% of the vote in the 2017 GE to an average of the mid-high-20's in opinion polls now, so they've lost 30-40% of their support. It seems churlish to assume that *absolutely none* of that disillusionment can be found in Brecon, and that *literally the only* reason anyone voted for her was dislike of Davies' corruption, so why shouldn't she try to draw some positives from winning an election? 

Where have you got this absolutism from? You're inferring something I haven't written. Of course people are disillusioned with the current status quo.

Is that not evident in the lowest % turnout in that constituency in over 100years? (yes I know by-elections generally have lower turnouts etc)

And in Davies's own vote count (Down almost exactly 8000 votes - his majority from 2017). The liberal vote in contrast increased by around 1750 odd votes and with Plaid not standing this time their 1300 votes from 2017 were up for grabs and, unless those voters stayed at home, were encouraged to vote Liberal. (Literally to keep the Tories out). Labour's count went from just over 7000 in 2017 to just over 1500, UKIP's paltry 500 odd was halved to 250 last night (Behind the Loonys ). And the Brexit party got 3300 odd and were obviously not there last time around. 

Here's what I had to say beforehand

On 01/08/2019 at 17:07, VILLAMARV said:

Anyway, most people I know will be voting for the new Liberal lady candidate to keep the tories out, whatever their political leanings, but then they did that last time and it didn't work. Might be a case of actually wanting the Brexit vote to rise from the UKIP one a few years ago as it's only the Tories they'll damage round there. Corbyn kind of caused a resurgence in the always inconsequential Labour vote round there last time out which was allied to the anti-liberal sentiment post Clegg, the UKIP vote fell off a cliff as the Farmers went back to the Tory fold after the referendum.

I think BJ turning up in Brecon for a bit and Moggy doing the rounds in Crickhowell says a lot. Rarely will you see the 'big guns' out up there and I think the Tories are worried. They need to be able to rely on their core vote or they'll lose it and the recent Euro elections saw a lot of votes swing back the way of the Brexit types.

So it's pretty obvious to see what I actually think. And none of it is based upon an anti-corruption narrative , which is that, rather amusingly to me, The Brexit Party just took enough votes off of Davies to cost him his seat. Had those 3000odd voted Tory (and I'm not assuming they *absolutely all* would) then he would have been back in with a majority of around the 2000 mark.

I get it, I got a bee in my bonnet about something rather inconsequential in the great scheme of things (Wont be the last time I'll wager ) and all she did was play it with a straight bat. But if an intelligent soul like yourself can't see the inherent harm in the tacet approval of something so unsubstantial it genuinely makes me a little sad inside. Especially when were talking about Governance.

 

[snowychap]

I see the lying Priti Patel is at it again - this time in the Daily Mail claiming that she has never been an 'active' supporter of the death penalty (not quite sure what she means by 'active' other than using it as an attempt to weasel out of what she has previously said without actually rejecting it completely).

She is also maintaining that what we've all seen her say on QT, i.e. what she is quoted as saying, may have been 'clipped' to change the way in which it was presented.

[bickster]

55 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I see the lying Priti Patel is at it again - this time in the Daily Mail claiming that she has never been an 'active' supporter of the death penalty (not quite sure what she means by 'active' other than using it as an attempt to weasel out of what she has previously said without actually rejecting it completely).

She is also maintaining that what we've all seen her say on QT, i.e. what she is quoted as saying, may have been 'clipped' to change the way in which it was presented.

She can’t help herself

[VILLAMARV]

She's also apparently been quoted as saying she wants people to "literally feel terror" at the thought of breaking the Law.

Interesting choice of words there.

I have visions of her being sent to some faraway land to do media training and finding Yoda and him saying "She is too old, yes, too old to begin the training!"

 

 

[chrisp65]

Perhaps that terror will be spread equally and impact the funders, supporters and MP's of the tory party.

Oh, didn't they put a convicted fraudster up for re election on Thursday?

[VILLAMARV]

All the bits I've seen so far are saying she wants [criminals] to literally feel terror. I'm intreagued as to what word(s) actually lie under those square brackets

[Chindie]

Patel doing lowest common denominator stuff. The base will devour it.

Vile populist bullshit from a cynical sinister word removed that has no place being in the position she is.

[chrisp65]

Absolutely all the evidence points to proper rehabilitation being the route to reducing crime. Investing in properly trained prison staff to educate people out of their economic and social problems.

But we're not in an age of experts. or evidence or facts. We're in the age of shock n awe revenge terror by celebrity politicians against a nebulous 'other'. Lock 'em up and get someone from G4S on a short term gig contract to monitor them remotely via a not quite adequate cctv system.

 

[bickster]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

Absolutely all the evidence points to proper rehabilitation being the route to reducing crime. Investing in properly trained prison staff to educate people out of their economic and social problems.

But we're not in an age of experts. or evidence or facts. We're in the age of shock n awe revenge terror by celebrity politicians against a nebulous 'other'. Lock 'em up and get someone from G4S on a short term gig contract to monitor them remotely via a not quite adequate cctv system.

 

Criminals are profits

[Chindie]

Quote

Lastly, let’s be honest about this: if Labour was in power right now, the front pages would almost certainly be screaming about a run on the pound already.

In September 2017, then-chancellor Philip Hammond warned that a Corbyn government would lead to “a crash in the value of the pound, causing a shock wave of inflation”, and most of the press nodded sagely at his wisdom about the threat John McDonnell posed to the economy.

For the last three years, Hammond’s own party has presided over exactly that sort of a crisis – yet both the Tory party and its cheerleaders in the press seem remarkably relaxed about the pressure on hard-working British families. Funny that, isn’t it?

New Statesman

The press in this country needs to stop suckling on Tory teets and grow some objectively again.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

21 hours ago, bickster said:

Criminals are profits

+ jobs,  a lot of jobs.

[bickster]

1 hour ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

+ jobs,  a lot of jobs.

Sooner or later, the Tories will realise that more police means more arrests an more convictions. That in turn leads to profits for Group 4 etc

[peterms]

Thread.

Same old stuff.  Lying announcements about extra money.  Announcing the same money many times over. 

Always held in thrall to the beancounters and their concept of what is "responsible", always based on their idea of "money" as something finite, gathered in like apples from trees.

 

[peterms]

That such utter no-marks as Johnson and Barclay, Patel and Truss can be nominated to represent us is surely a matter of national shame, greater even than Thierry Henry's famous handball.

Though of course in both cases, it was Ireland that lost, so that's consistent at least.

[welnik]

14 hours ago, peterms said:

Thread.

Same old stuff.  Lying announcements about extra money.  Announcing the same money many times over. 

Always held in thrall to the beancounters and their concept of what is "responsible", always based on their idea of "money" as something finite, gathered in like apples from trees.

 

What ? Wait............. You mean money is INfinite?

[bickster]

59 minutes ago, welnik said:

ou mean money is INfinite?

Here we go again.

[peterms]

3 hours ago, welnik said:

What ? Wait............. You mean money is INfinite?

The constraints facing the NHS are things like availability of suitable staff to be recruited, materials to be used for buildings or services, and choices made by government, not whether there is "no money left".

[welnik]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

The constraints facing the NHS are things like availability of suitable staff to be recruited, materials to be used for buildings or services, and choices made by government, not whether there is "no money left".

So where does the money come from ?

 

[peterms]

8 minutes ago, welnik said:

So where does the money come from ?

 

From the government issuing it.  It can then decide also to issue bonds to match that ("borrowing"), or not, if it wishes to allow the money supply to increase.  Either way, government spending doesn't depend on gathering it in from the private sector.

[welnik]

31 minutes ago, peterms said:

From the government issuing it.  It can then decide also to issue bonds to match that ("borrowing"), or not, if it wishes to allow the money supply to increase.  Either way, government spending doesn't depend on gathering it in from the private sector.

Or, to put it plainly! from tax and/or borrowing.The only problem is, there isn't enough money from tax to go around, and any money you "borrow" has to be paid back. And how much is enough?

Edited August 5, 2019 by welnik