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

[bickster]

32 minutes ago, Graham t said:

Blimey, you are a sad and bitter lot on here aren't you. Just take a look back at your posts.....the same individuals 

Maybe 'they' are right and you are wrong?

Keep smiling,

VLD.

As posts go, this one is pathetically shit. It offers nothing, zero, zilch, nowt, nada

More I'm right you're wrong buffoonery without actually saying why.

It seems like you have a hunch and you're sticking with it because... well only you'd know that

I mean this is the Tory Party that CUT 21,000 POLICE POSTS and that is something you appear to care deeply about

Ever thought it's you that just might be wrong?

 

Keep staring into the blue abyss and seeing no reflection

WALOOB

 

[StefanAVFC]

On reflection, the sad truth is that stuff like bullying, rape allegations, racism, lying; are things that some Tory voters would want to get away with if they could, so seeing their government get away with it only stirs them on.

[StefanAVFC]

Hi Graham,

If you could answer my questions below, it would be appreciated. As I'm not sure you're engaging in good faith here:

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

What have the Tories done in the last 10 years of power, talking tangible benefits; that:

1) Benefited you?

2) Benefited those less fortunate than you?

3) Benefited the nation as a whole?

 

 

[Graham t]

11 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

I've said it before, but I think there are a lot of people who think voting Tory is an aspiration. 

As in poor people vote Labour, and rich people vote Conservative. 

So voting Tory is almost like you've made it. You're rich enough to vote Tory.

Not quite me old cocker...

Most people who are 'rich' were aspirational first.....

Good try though.

As Eric Morcambe said...

All the right words, but not necessarily in the right order...

VLD

[StefanAVFC]

Most people who are rich either came from money, or had a head start.

Pulling yourself up from nothing in the modern day is very much the exception, not the rule. 

The gap has grown due to less opportunities and growing costs for the basics that previous generations didn't have to endure (uni fees, housing/rent costs etc)

[HanoiVillan]

51 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

I've got it - suggest that maybe Brexit might not be a wholly brilliant thing?

Since the only person in the cabinet who has been sacked by this government is Sajid Javid, this is probably sort of true, and truer if extended to 'have a political disagreement with the PM or Cummings'. Clearly they have taken a decision that they won't sack or accept resignations from anyone for anything as a rule. Whether the likes of Williamson and Jenrick survive a reshuffle is another question.

[chrisp65]

(Just think of it as a recruiting sergeant bot.)

I remember thinking at the time of the last election, that my local tory MP had been implicated in the collapse of a rape trial. As information slowly but surely emerged in the lead up to the election it transpired that a female working for the tory party locally had made a rape allegation. The local tory office had done nothing about it so she went to the police. A witness at the trial that worked directly with my MP, said stuff he knew he wasn’t supposed to say in court, in the judges opinion, the case had been deliberately compromised and collapsed.

My MP claimed he knew nothing about any of it, then, as always happens it came out week by week he knew all about it but had chosen to do nothing.

I thought at the time, surely nobody can vote for a man implicated in the collapse of a rape trial? Not that people will switch to Labour or Liberal or whatever, just that they won’t bother going to the polls to endorse this man.

But they did.

People are just selfish and horrible.

 

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

(Just think of it as a recruiting sergeant bot.)

I remember thinking at the time of the last election, that my local tory MP had been implicated in the collapse of a rape trial. As information slowly but surely emerged in the lead up to the election it transpired that a female working for the tory party locally had made a rape allegation. The local tory office had done nothing about it so she went to the police. A witness at the trial that worked directly with my MP, said stuff he knew he wasn’t supposed to say in court, in the judges opinion, the case had been deliberately compromised and collapsed.

My MP claimed he knew nothing about any of it, then, as always happens it came out week by week he knew all about it but had chosen to do nothing.

I thought at the time, surely nobody can vote for a man implicated in the collapse of a rape trial? Not that people will switch to Labour or Liberal or whatever, just that they won’t bother going to the polls to endorse this man.

But they did.

People are just selfish and horrible.

 

I don't disagree with the conclusion, but I also think the proportion of people who know about these things is probably tiny.

[chrisp65]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

I don't disagree with the conclusion, but I also think the proportion of people who know about these things is probably tiny.

You’d have had to be wilfully ignorant* at the time locally not to know about it. Hell, even the BBC got to the point where they felt they had to do a 6 o clock news article driving around asking people if they’d seen him since the rape trial.

* but I totally accept people only register what they want to, people are wilfully ignorant.

I’d be fairly confident they all knew how dangerous the Labour Party were with their crazy Marxist policies of 4 day weeks, nationalising the steel works, accessible broadband. But would express ignorance of the rape trial, as it wouldn’t fit with the internal monologue of what’s good and what’s bad.

Johnson turned up at the beach one day, gurning with a 99 in his hand. There were traffic jams to get over there and see him, rock star stylee. Tipped off by social media. But somehow those same people missed all the social media about the trial.

Yes, yes, some woman got raped in the local tory party office, but look, icecream and Union Jack socks!

 

 

[StefanAVFC]

21 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Since the only person in the cabinet who has been sacked by this government is Sajid Javid, this is probably sort of true, and truer if extended to 'have a political disagreement with the PM or Cummings'. Clearly they have taken a decision that they won't sack or accept resignations from anyone for anything as a rule. Whether the likes of Williamson and Jenrick survive a reshuffle is another question.

Speaking of Saj,

How the **** is this allowed?

[Nicho]

20 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Most people who are rich either came from money, or had a head start.

Pulling yourself up from nothing in the modern day is very much the exception, not the rule. 

The gap has grown due to less opportunities and growing costs for the basics that previous generations didn't have to endure (uni fees, housing/rent costs etc)

I really do hate the tories but the notion that the system is designed this way just seems too maniacal to me. (Not that that is what you were saying).

The system is configured against the working class and for the benefit of the rich. Based on everything I see this is more out of people with money having non earnt wealth (inherited or born into connections) and stupidity, greed, short sighted ness and just the general lack of ability to be in the position they are in. 
 

There is also the benefits that wealth gives you, if you have loads would you really share?    And really think about how you should be helping the ones who have less when you don’t understand what it is like to be in that position.

Maybe I’m just naive.

[StefanAVFC]

Just now, Nicho said:

I really do hate the tories but the notion that the system is designed this way just seems too maniacal to me. (Not that that is what you were saying).

The system is configured against the working class and for the benefit of the rich. Based on everything I see this is more out of people with money having non earnt wealth (inherited or born into connections) and stupidity, greed, short sighted ness and just the general lack of ability to be in the position they are in. 
 

There is also the benefits that wealth gives you, if you have loads would you really share?    And really think about how you should be helping the ones who have less when you don’t understand what it is like to be in that position.

Maybe I’m just naive.

I think it's a tricky situation all around.

A use case that sticks out in my mind is a girl I went to school with. She runs an incredibly successful business, but was lucky enough to be born into money/connections. From seeing her online presence, she absolutely works her arse off and deserves every success, but for every business like hers, the other 9/10 who didn't have the start up money or connections to get going, even with the same level of hard work, would probably fail.

[Nicho]

On the flip side, the under funding of public services to profit from the collapse, removal of support functions for poor areas that keep them down and contracts to firms not fit for purpose is undeniable.

Rich fools, rich sociopaths or rich opportunists the outcome seems to be the same

[Nicho]

29 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I think it's a tricky situation all around.

A use case that sticks out in my mind is a girl I went to school with. She runs an incredibly successful business, but was lucky enough to be born into money/connections. From seeing her online presence, she absolutely works her arse off and deserves every success, but for every business like hers, the other 9/10 who didn't have the start up money or connections to get going, even with the same level of hard work, would probably fail.

That’s fair, I’m not saying all people with money are arse holes or lazy scrounges.

As you rightly point out she’s is working hard to make it a success, that financial support or fall back is obviously a good thing to have to make it successful but not necessarily the primary driver of the success.

Its more the political ideals of a party which is also happens to be ruled by the filthy rich. It’s why a party ideal is dangerous against the wills of individuals. 

[snowychap]

39 minutes ago, Nicho said:

There is also the benefits that wealth gives you

There's one which I saw pointed out in a tweet yesterday via an excerpt from Pratchett about the cost of being poor:

Edit: It was the day before yesterday.

Edited August 18, 2020 by snowychap

[Nicho]

7 minutes ago, snowychap said:

There's one which I saw pointed out in a tweet yesterday via an excerpt from Pratchett about the cost of being poor:

Edit: It was the day before yesterday.

Trickle down economics is upwards not down 

[StefanAVFC]

9 minutes ago, snowychap said:

There's one which I saw pointed out in a tweet yesterday via an excerpt from Pratchett about the cost of being poor:

Edit: It was the day before yesterday.

This is so bang on, it's painful. And there are so many examples past boots.

[HanoiVillan]

'Buy cheap, buy twice'

[Chindie]

41 minutes ago, snowychap said:

There's one which I saw pointed out in a tweet yesterday via an excerpt from Pratchett about the cost of being poor:

Edit: It was the day before yesterday.

 Pratchett.

His best stuff has lots of this kind of thinking. Asides on the 'pride' of poverty, class, leadership etc.

[bannedfromHandV]

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

(Just think of it as a recruiting sergeant bot.)

I remember thinking at the time of the last election, that my local tory MP had been implicated in the collapse of a rape trial. As information slowly but surely emerged in the lead up to the election it transpired that a female working for the tory party locally had made a rape allegation. The local tory office had done nothing about it so she went to the police. A witness at the trial that worked directly with my MP, said stuff he knew he wasn’t supposed to say in court, in the judges opinion, the case had been deliberately compromised and collapsed.

My MP claimed he knew nothing about any of it, then, as always happens it came out week by week he knew all about it but had chosen to do nothing.

I thought at the time, surely nobody can vote for a man implicated in the collapse of a rape trial? Not that people will switch to Labour or Liberal or whatever, just that they won’t bother going to the polls to endorse this man.

But they did.

People are just selfish and horrible.

 

Some, a minority of people will be selfish and horrible.

But I’ll wager that many of the voters didn’t even know about the rape trial you’re referencing, and this is the problem, people vote for things they don’t understand these days, it’s all too easy, a tick in this box, a push of this green button.........I think I preferred it when not many people bothered voting.

I actually think you should have to pass some form of an exam before you’re allowed to vote, which I know goes against a lot of other civil liberties etc but if you’re going to have a say in the direction of the country you should at least be able to demonstrate some basic understanding of the matters at hand.