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

[blandy]

2 hours ago, Xann said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/23/jo-swinson-rules-out-lib-dem-pact-with-labour-under-jeremy-corbyn

You need to run the timeline on this.

You can do it here on the VT political threads.

It's much clearer with hindsight.

“she said the Lib Dems could not join a pact with Labour while Corbyn was leader, even in the event of a hung parliament” so talking about a post election pact, not about 

14 hours ago, Xann said:

a deal with Labour not to contest the closely balanced constituencies

And you can go back further than that and find Corbyn refusing to join with other opposition parties to counter the tories, which was of course his right. The tories do the same. It’s “we’re the two big parties, we don’t stand aside for others, people want to have the choice to vote for one of us”. Their members mostly don’t want candidates to stand aside, either. They’ve always been like that. Swinson was a bit useless, you’re right on that, but the notion that Labour or Corbyn would have stood down candidates if only she’d asked is, well, a bit of a wild one. She didn’t much like the idea, he definitely refused to countenance any such thing. Complete non-starter, sadly.

[blandy]

27 minutes ago, Xann said:

Hope Blandy won't delete any more posts.

One sheep! Once.

[darrenm]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

They've had a massive boost, Labour aren't even close to being in double digit defecit territory

Not really my point though. I hesitate to go over this too much in the wrong thread but the point I was making was if the previous leader was the problem then surely the party would have more potential voters now i.e the polls would be higher. But they're still not higher than Labour were polling under the previous leader.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/07/18/voting-intention-conservatives-36-labour-41-16-17-

Quote

Voting Intention: Conservatives 36%, Labour 41% (16-17 July)

 

[bickster]

Seriously, it's like discussing religion with a Jehovas Witness.

[ml1dch]

35 minutes ago, blandy said:

And you can go back further than that and find Corbyn refusing to join with other opposition parties to counter the tories, which was of course his right. The tories do the same. It’s “we’re the two big parties, we don’t stand aside for others, people want to have the choice to vote for one of us”. Their members mostly don’t want candidates to stand aside, either. They’ve always been like that. 

I also remember quite a lot of talk at the time along the lines of "well, it's written in the Labour stone tablets that we have to contest every seat. So even if we wanted to to enter an agreement with you centrist dicks, the rules tell us we're not allowed to"

[snowychap]

5 hours ago, blandy said:

I am baffled as to how not thinking Tory voters are evil permits anything.

I don't think I said that Tory voters are evil.

I joined the conversation to point out that it was quite bizarre to say that until people have decency dangled in front of them you'd shrug your shoulders and not blame them for what they do vote for.

You want to concentrate on this 'Tory voters are evil' line which someone else has said and ignore the point that I made because it's an easier discussion to have.

I'll repeat that attempting to be all Kofi Anan about it helps the bastards - whoever they may be, i.e. some bastards may be Tory voters, some may not; some Tory voters may be bastards, some may not. If, however, someone votes for people who are bastards and do bastard things then they've got to take some responsibility for that. If they keep on voting for people who keep on doing bastard things then...

I'm sorry that you don't see it that way but it's similar to another discussion we had elsewhere when the projection of your decency on to someone else gave them an out that their own words did not deserve.

[blandy]

24 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I don't think I said that Tory voters are evil.

I joined the conversation to point out that it was quite bizarre to say that until people have decency dangled in front of them you'd shrug your shoulders and not blame them for what they do vote for.

You want to concentrate on this 'Tory voters are evil' line which someone else has said and ignore the point that I made because it's an easier discussion to have.

I'll repeat that attempting to be all Kofi Anan about it helps the bastards - whoever they may be, i.e. some bastards may be Tory voters, some may not; some Tory voters may be bastards, some may not. If, however, someone votes for people who are bastards and do bastard things then they've got to take some responsibility for that. If they keep on voting for people who keep on doing bastard things then...

I'm sorry that you don't see it that way but it's similar to another discussion we had elsewhere when the projection of your decency on to someone else gave them an out that their own words did not deserve.

That’s fair.

The mention of Tory voters being evil was as you say,  before you joined the convo, and I dissented from that assertion, whereupon it seemed like you felt I was giving people a permit, somehow, by not seeing them as evil or deluded. Apologies for misunderstanding.

im not really claiming any sense of decency, though it’s kind of you to say that, more like just trying to espouse a philosophy that says if people with differing political views see each other as evil ( as seems to be the growing case in the USA and Uk ), then we end up in a worse place for democracy, because it turns into defeating an evil opponent, rather than trying to fix things for the better. Me personally, I don’t think voting Tory is the way to solve anything, but if others do, whatever their internal monologue, they’re just “other people” to me, rather than deluded /evil folk.

Other views are available, we’re just chatting sh*t on the internet.

[Xann]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

And you can go back further than that and find Corbyn refusing to join with other opposition parties to counter the tories, which was of course his right. 

Follow the timeline. When it came to the crunch his stance changed just as Farage was thinking to do the same. That's not being flat footed.

Much as I like you, I still think you're trying to justify sitting at home. I expect you to disagree.

Just leave those posts there  

 

[bickster]

11 minutes ago, Xann said:

Follow the timeline. When it came to the crunch his stance changed just as Farage was thinking to do the same. That's not being flat footed.

Much as I like you, I still think you're trying to justify sitting at home. I expect you to disagree.

Just leave those posts there  

 

Any actual evidence on that Dave? It seems to have passed me by completely

[Xann]

23 minutes ago, bickster said:

Any actual evidence on that Dave? It seems to have passed me by completely

It's on the previous page.

The usual suspects were spitting feathers. I quoted the Sun.

Here's the Express

Quote

 

Corbyn refuses to rule out grubby deal with Lib Dems to cancel Brexit to become PM

Mr Corbyn refused to rule out the option, telling an event in Harlow, Essex: "All I can say is, we are campaigning to win this election with a majority Labour Government.

"We are not campaigning to form a coalition with anybody, we are campaigning to go into office to carry out our manifesto."

The Labour leader also dodged questions about whether he would offer continued free movement in talks with Brussels.

Conservative Party chairman James Cleverly said: “When the British people voted to leave the EU it was a vote for change. The Labour Party can’t deliver that change and are a vote for the opposite - more delay and uncertainty.

“Labour would spend 2020 having two referendums; they won’t rule out revoking Article 50 altogether and want unlimited immigration - which would put pressure on our NHS.”

 

 

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, Xann said:

It's on the previous page.

The usual suspects were spitting feathers. I quoted the Sun.

Here's the Express

Yes but neither of those articles say what you're claiming they do. He dodged a question of whether he'd rule out a coalition with the Lib Dems after the election and specifically framed with a question on Brexit, this is absolutely not the same thing as forming an electoral pact to not oppose each other in seats where their combined votes might unseat a Tory

The headlines say one thing, the substance in the article says something completely different. It's just typical shabby pro-Tory journalism

Firstly, he didn't say what they are claiming, he just avoided the question and secondly the question was about a coalition after the election. That isn't what was being talked about in this thread

[Xann]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

Yes but neither of those articles say what you're claiming they do. He dodged a question of whether he'd rule out a coalition with the Lib Dems after the election and specifically framed with a question on Brexit, this is absolutely not the same thing as forming an electoral pact to not oppose each other in seats where their combined votes might unseat a Tory

The headlines say one thing, the substance in the article says something completely different. It's just typical shabby pro-Tory journalism

Firstly, he didn't say what they are claiming, he just avoided the question and secondly the question was about a coalition after the election. That isn't what was being talked about in this thread

I'm taking that as a softening stance.  Not another shot in the 'No' ping pong.

Trying not to cover old ground, again. I got brought in for berating Blandy on his choice to sit at home.

If you thought Joo Hater Jez and Mathematically Blind Abbott were a bigger threat than Boris and the Brexit Gang, and didn't do the minimum to stop it happening? You've got a can to carry, in my opinion.

[bickster]

10 minutes ago, Xann said:

I'm taking that as a softening stance.

It absolutely isn't that. Even St Jez wasn't insane enough to get caught on a post-election coalition question. It's not a softening of anything, it's a standard across most parties throughout history, the exception obviously being the woman whose name escapes me as I type that was leader of the Lib Dems last time out and isn't even an MP now, she ruled out a post-election coalition (which she'd absolutely have walked back if there was a sniff of power because ... well Lib Dem)

[Xann]

We'll have to agree to differ.

It doesn't change the critical equation.

[snowychap]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

im not really claiming any sense of decency, though it’s kind of you to say that

It wasn't about kindness. It was that projecting on to others a way of looking at the world that you may hold isn't necessarily the boon for discussion, debate and democracy that you are making out it is. Indeed, I think it's often a problem.

The whole evil/not evil stuff is, really, a red herring.

If someone voted for this government then they voted for all of the things that come with it. I don't need to call anyone anything in particular to be able to put the case that with that vote comes (some) responsibility for the actions of those for whom that vote was cast.

Of course the people who voted for it are just 'other people' but they are just 'other people who voted for this government' and they should take any (valid) opprobrium that comes with that.

Edited November 22, 2020 by snowychap

[chrisp65]

On a lighter note.

 

[blandy]

2 hours ago, Xann said:

I still think you're trying to justify sitting at home.

I didn’t vote because I couldn’t vote. Cast iron.  And I didn’t sit at home, I was abroad.

[Xann]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

I didn’t vote because I couldn’t vote. Cast iron.  And I didn’t sit at home, I was abroad.

I won't ask what you would've done?

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, Xann said:

I won't ask what you would've done?

Voted green most likely assuming they’d have put someone up here, which I’m not sure they did. Maybe a spoilt ballot, dunno really.

[Xann]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

Voted green most likely

Didn't think I could at that one, it seemed such a critical vote.

It's got proper dark now. Though the web is doing a proper job of making it look darker still.