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

[bickster]

2 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

Maybe. Perhaps it's something Plaid Cymru should go hard on, then, but it doesn't seem to be a winning strategy if you want to win power over the whole country.

Going back to this, when did Labour come out and say "deface Churchill Statues." You appear to be falling for the oldest trick in the book here

As far as I can see and remember, they've been asked about it and said it's wrong every time. Do you know of a quote where Labour said it was ok to do or even organised an event where it happened? All I can see is quotes where they said it was wrong and it was very rarely Labour that initiated that conversation

And this isn't me sticking up for Labour, it's me saying you seem to have been manipulated by lies and media bias

[Panto_Villan]

21 minutes ago, bickster said:

Going back to this, when did Labour come out and say "deface Churchill Statues." You appear to be falling for the oldest trick in the book here

As far as I can see and remember, they've been asked about it and said it's wrong every time. Do you know of a quote where Labour said it was ok to do or even organised an event where it happened? All I can see is quotes where they said it was wrong and it was very rarely Labour that initiated that conversation

And this isn't me sticking up for Labour, it's me saying you seem to have been manipulated by lies and media bias

When did I say that Labour endorsed defacing Churchill statues?

[HanoiVillan]

30 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

When did I say that Labour endorsed defacing Churchill statues?

The sentence was 'I suspect if you went to an ex-mining town and asked the locals what they think about not being allowed to like Churchill any more because he was a racist you might get some quite rude answers', which wasn't about defacing statues but to be honest I don't think anybody in the Labour party has told anyone they 'are not allowed to like Churchill any more'. If they have, I missed it.

[bickster]

15 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

When did I say that Labour endorsed defacing Churchill statues?

 

8 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

Quite a few former Labour supporters I know basically just roll their eyes when those topics come up, and they are very well educated people. I suspect if you went to an ex-mining town and asked the locals what they think about not being allowed to like Churchill any more because he was a racist you might get some quite rude answers.

Ok it wasn't defacing statues, it was calling Churchill a racist... exactly the same applies (and the debate is the same debate). This Churchll "thing" is completely made up, it was started by Johnson and the media have run with it. This isn't something Labour have been doing, its something the press have been asking them about, its a complete non-story unless you are Kahlid Mamood using it as an excuse to grandstand. The whole cult of Churchill thing is utterly bizarre. Labour do not have a policy on Churchill and I rather think most Labour MPs would rather the press stopped going on about it. Johnson started the whole thing

It's quite nutty. The lengths some journalists have gone to to turn a subject into a Churchill debate

"We're here today to unveil Labour's manifesto pledge on housing"

"WIll there be any statues of Churchill on these housing estates, you propose to build?"

 

[Panto_Villan]

3 hours ago, bickster said:

 

Ok it wasn't defacing statues, it was calling Churchill a racist... exactly the same applies (and the debate is the same debate). This Churchll "thing" is completely made up, it was started by Johnson and the media have run with it. This isn't something Labour have been doing, its something the press have been asking them about, its a complete non-story unless you are Kahlid Mamood using it as an excuse to grandstand. The whole cult of Churchill thing is utterly bizarre. Labour do not have a policy on Churchill and I rather think most Labour MPs would rather the press stopped going on about it. Johnson started the whole thing

It's quite nutty. The lengths some journalists have gone to to turn a subject into a Churchill debate

"We're here today to unveil Labour's manifesto pledge on housing"

"WIll there be any statues of Churchill on these housing estates, you propose to build?"

 

3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

The sentence was 'I suspect if you went to an ex-mining town and asked the locals what they think about not being allowed to like Churchill any more because he was a racist you might get some quite rude answers', which wasn't about defacing statues but to be honest I don't think anybody in the Labour party has told anyone they 'are not allowed to like Churchill any more'. If they have, I missed it.

Again, I didn't say the Labour party (by which I mean the parliamentarians) ever called Churchill racist. I didn't even say that Labour voters called Churchill racist, although there certainly seems to be some consensus among the progressive wing of Labour party voters that he was a racist and two minutes on Twitter should provide plenty of evidence for that. But that's only relevent in the sense that Labour don't want to lose their votes.

My point is that there's been a steady drum beat of coverage in various pieces of media about "woke" topics in recent years, and not just in places you'd expect it like the Daily Mail or the Guardian.  I don't want to bring personal politics into things here because its beside the point; you may agree with all of the coverage or some of the coverage or none of the coverage, but the point is that it's fairly in your face even if you're not someone who goes looking for it on Twitter. Here's ITV running a story where an academic compares Churchill to Hitler. Here's the current two stories on the BBC news frontpage talking about discrimination against aboriginal culture in Australia, and one about how the armed forces are racist. Here's the prior story from three days ago about how university is racist. Here's a story from two days ago about how the reason why black people have a low vaccine uptake is because of racism. Lots of coverage about race even on sites that don't cater to a specific political view.

The key thing is that you know exactly where the Tories stand on this matter, right? They've positioned themselves to pick up votes from people who think woke culture has gone too far. Where does Labour stand on the issue? As you say yourself, they don't want to talk about it - after all, they know it's a wedge issue between progressives and some of the other parts of their party so they just give some lukewarm reply that doesn't lean too far in either direction. That might minimise vote loss, but it I don't think it wins votes.

The result is when some academic comes out and says Churchill was as bad as Hitler and some patriotic ex-miner who liked Churchill decides that's unfair, he ends up voting for the Tories. I think elements of the progressive left are overreaching themselves in the eyes of the general public and it's driving voters into the hands of the Tories.

Edited May 8, 2021 by Panto_Villan

[HanoiVillan]

Or alternatively, there's an entire media industry dedicating to keeping pensioners hating their grandchildren because if they didn't, they might pause for a second and wonder if it's fair that their grandchildren can't buy a house or get a job with a proper contract that guarantees them any permanence.

Guess it amounts to much the same thing.

[bickster]

Quote

Not a single European country has decided to support the UK government’s controversial asylum plans, with the UN on Saturday night criticising the proposals as so damaging they risked Britain’s “global credibility”.

Six weeks after the home secretary, Priti Patel, unveiled a sweeping immigration overhaul that included deporting migrants who enter the UK illegally to safe countries such as “France and other EU countries”, sources have said the Home Office has been unable to persuade any European state to sign up to the scheme.

The UN’s refugee agency will soon publish its detailed legal opinion into Patel’s asylum proposals that is likely to conclude her plans infringe international legislation and are unworkable. Despite this, Patel’s asylum proposals are to feature in the Queen’s speech on Tuesday, which lays out the government’s legislative agenda for the next year.

Guardian

No shock there then

[Genie]

I’m surprised there’s no discussion of this story, it possibly sums up the situation with Boris. Just another example of corrupt or dishonest behaviour for the pile.

Quote

Boris Johnson is being investigated by the MPs' standards watchdog over the funding of a Caribbean holiday in 2019.

Commons standards commissioner Kathryn Stone has confirmed she is looking into whether the prime minister correctly declared how the trip was paid for.

Mr Johnson has previously declared he received accommodation worth £15,000, covered by Carphone Warehouse co-founder David Ross.

————————

Mr Ross initially said he had not paid "any monies" for the trip Mr Johnson took with his partner Carrie Symonds to the private island of Mustique - part of St Vincent and the Grenadines - between Boxing Day 2019 and 5 January 2020.

He later clarified that he had "facilitated" accommodation for the prime minister.

Just another wealthy business person wanting to give Boris loads of money for no particular reason.

[blandy]

On 08/05/2021 at 20:53, Panto_Villan said:

I think elements of the progressive left are overreaching themselves in the eyes of the general public and it's driving voters into the hands of the Tories.

I agree. I think it's because of priorities (the public's) and what they perceive as Labour's core issues in terms of what they see and hear them speaking about compared to the Tories.

The Tories might be (ok, are) lying about "levelling up" and so on being their main task and priority (if they were they wouldn't be shafting Grenfell type residents, Nurses and so on), but they talk about making things better. A lot of people perceive Labour as being more concerned with the latest kerfuffle over Trans-rights, or Palestine or Venezuela, or Russia, or Brazil or Jews...and they think "what's that got to do with me?".

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, Genie said:

I’m surprised there’s no discussion of this story

I'm not. What else is there to say? He's corrupt, and nobody cares.

[bickster]

Part-time council Leader and part-time MP. Two full time paid jobs. Also the same MP last year quit his parliamentary private secretary job as he wanted to spend more time with his family

 

[Follyfoot]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

I'm not. What else is there to say? He's corrupt, and nobody cares.

Bet that Symonds is filth mind 

[Genie]

1 minute ago, Follyfoot said:

Bet that Symonds is filth mind 

She looks the type to kick him into touch if he stops meeting her needs

[Follyfoot]

1 minute ago, Genie said:

She looks the type to kick him into touch if he stops meeting her needs

[chrisp65]

6 minutes ago, Genie said:

She looks the type to kick him into touch if he stops meeting her needs

‘Needs’ as in tory funded credit card?

 

[Genie]

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

‘Needs’ as in tory funded credit card?

 

Absolutely, she ain’t in it for his looks or personality.

[Genie]

I wonder if Boris could get a generous Tory donor to pay his child support?

[Chindie]

Looking to bring in US style voter suppression laws.

**** these words removed.

[Panto_Villan]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

I agree. I think it's because of priorities (the public's) and what they perceive as Labour's core issues in terms of what they see and hear them speaking about compared to the Tories.

The Tories might be (ok, are) lying about "levelling up" and so on being their main task and priority (if they were they wouldn't be shafting Grenfell type residents, Nurses and so on), but they talk about making things better. A lot of people perceive Labour as being more concerned with the latest kerfuffle over Trans-rights, or Palestine or Venezuela, or Russia, or Brazil or Jews...and they think "what's that got to do with me?".

Yup, I agree with that. But I think also some of the issue comes from the perception of "fairness", which is most obvious in the debates about racism since the BLM movements started imo.

I think most voters (and I suspect that includes a surprising number of Tory voters) accept that life is harder for black people, and particularly that your interactions with the police are likely to be more frequent and less cordial than if you were the average white person. I think most people also accept there are still genuine racists in the country - particularly if you follow football and see some of the stuff people message to black footballers. There's probably a lot of bipartisan support for dealing with significant instances of racism.

However, I think one of the perception problems for Labour is that their anti-racism stance can look a lot like favoritism when they talk about "smaller" issues than that, or more abstract concepts like structural racism. There's plenty of disadvantaged white communities here too - and although I'm not entirely sure, I'm assuming a reasonable section of the "red wall" seats fall into that category. I imagine it goes down like a lead balloon any time that Labour or left-wing activists attribute to racism anything that also affects disadvantaged white communities, or when they complain about something that seems incredibly trivial to someone who is white but still has a tough existence. You probably don't want to give the impression you're more interested in ethnic minorities than white people if you want hard-up white people to vote for you.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Panto_Villan

[StefanAVFC]