Why is it with the Tories we have

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: Why is it with the Tories we have

Ye gods....what a shower we have trying to run the UK..and I include all parties.
I have always voted Conservative in my life.....but ...just LOOK at this photo of animated backslapping..Pathetic:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5925[/ATTACH]

Beyond belief...when they reverse what they previously already introduced mostly...and which Liz Truss was sacked for...

A sensible comment: https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...ag-stealth-tax

We need an Oliver Cromwell...or at least vote for the Reform Party....

The Reform party is full of right wing nutters mo

If you belong to that circus probably best you stay in France

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: Why is it with the Tories we have

You lying tory spoilt kid

So this lying old tit and women who have been raped but fear coming forward .....are the same ?

That must be what you think sonny because I don't .....and I know that the old war hero who you trumped up is a bare faced liar who wasn't an ex para , he wasn't even in the scouts!

You are as guilty as him you coward for using his non story to drum up your right wing views

And after being told it was all rubbish you have failed to take the the opportunity to hold your hand up and accept it

This is no surprise , it's you MO , as the detectives would say

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Why is it with the Tories we have

James throws 'bigot' around all the time.

But his own definition says it is about someone 'unreasonably antagonistic' towards people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

James (and pipster) clearly have their own definition of unreasonable (one the High Court wouldn't accept). Mine is closer to yours Sludge. It is absolutely reasonable to be antagonistic to a group of people who enable actions that harm others - through their political choices, the values they promote and the actions they support.

I never liked the Tories (wasn't an enthusiastic supporter of the alternative parties either) but my antagonism towards them was baked in during the Miners Strike. They sometimes throw up some more sympathetic faces, they sometimes make sensible policy decisions, but their default is to wrap themselves in the union flag, wave the King James bible and reduce the state so that those in need are dependent on charity. I am antagonistic toward people who think and behave like that (and for now that includes Starmer and his mates if not the whole Labour Party which still hangs on to some different values).

And when it comes to groups it matters if those are groups you are born into or ones you freely choose to join or support. Anyone who is antagonistic toward people because of their race, ethnicity, gender/sex, religion/culture, disability etc is despicable and sick. We can and should debate the way those inherited characteristics play out - especially the cultural aspects - but where there is no choice the question of reasonableness doesn't arise.

But there is a clear choice about which party programme to support. People are not born Tory, Labour or Plaid. They aren't born to enjoy killing wild animals. They aren't born to exploit or be part of criminal gangs fleecing pensioners of their savings. It is completely right and reasonable to be antagonistic to people who become members of groups that cause harm. I include the Tories in that. James and his friend clearly don't but that is because they like what the Tories do and say - not because they are on the right side of something called bigotry.

Good post Jon.

[JamesWales]

Re: Why is it with the Tories we have

Good post Jon.

It's true that people don't choose their race, which is why we rightly view racism as worse than bigotry. People are not stuck with their religion though. They may be born into it, but it's a personal decision to continue with it, so under the above scenario it is fair game to be antagonistic towards them. And whilst I agree that abuse of unchosen characteristics are worse, surely the issue is behaving like an arse? If someone is abusive to someone, it may be worse for something they have no control over, but it doesn't mean that abuse for other reasons is okay.

Equally, no one doubts the party that has been in power for two thirds of the post war period hasn't don't many bad things. They have. But is it right or fair to abuse anyone who may support them for that? if someone votes Labour, would it be fair to accuse them of turning a blind eye to grooming gangs, or supporting the Iraq war, or rising unemployment or bankrupting the country or any of the other tropes unfairly thrown at them? I would suggest it wouldnt be.

The alternative is a bit of open mindedness, a bit of tolerance, a bit of trying to understand others views, a bit of humility and a bit of civility. That strikes me as the fat better, less ignorant and certainly less bigoted approach to politics.

[TWGL1]

Re: Why is it with the Tories we have

James throws 'bigot' around all the time.

But his own definition says it is about someone 'unreasonably antagonistic' towards people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

James (and pipster) clearly have their own definition of unreasonable (one the High Court wouldn't accept). Mine is closer to yours Sludge. It is absolutely reasonable to be antagonistic to a group of people who enable actions that harm others - through their political choices, the values they promote and the actions they support.

I never liked the Tories (wasn't an enthusiastic supporter of the alternative parties either) but my antagonism towards them was baked in during the Miners Strike. They sometimes throw up some more sympathetic faces, they sometimes make sensible policy decisions, but their default is to wrap themselves in the union flag, wave the King James bible and reduce the state so that those in need are dependent on charity. I am antagonistic toward people who think and behave like that (and for now that includes Starmer and his mates if not the whole Labour Party which still hangs on to some different values).

And when it comes to groups it matters if those are groups you are born into or ones you freely choose to join or support. Anyone who is antagonistic toward people because of their race, ethnicity, gender/sex, religion/culture, disability etc is despicable and sick. We can and should debate the way those inherited characteristics play out - especially the cultural aspects - but where there is no choice the question of reasonableness doesn't arise.

But there is a clear choice about which party programme to support. People are not born Tory, Labour or Plaid. They aren't born to enjoy killing wild animals. They aren't born to exploit or be part of criminal gangs fleecing pensioners of their savings. It is completely right and reasonable to be antagonistic to people who become members of groups that cause harm. I include the Tories in that. James and his friend clearly don't but that is because they like what the Tories do and say - not because they are on the right side of something called bigotry.

In respect of your last paragraph,I take it you also despise Labour ,particularly with the role it played in the conflict in Iraq?

Also Starmer doesn’t appear keen on a ceasefire in Gaza.

[jon1959]

Re: Why is it with the Tories we have

In respect of your last paragraph,I take it you also despise Labour ,particularly with the role it played in the conflict in Iraq?

Also Starmer doesn’t appear keen on a ceasefire in Gaza.

In my opinion Labour still has a different and more progressive DNA than the Tories (and the Lib Dems) but that is eroding.

I despise Blair and Starmer and their groupies, funders and enablers. Despise is not too strong a word for the war crimes of Blair or the war crime enabling of Starmer (and the serial lying).

I was a Labour member for 30 years over 3 spells - most of my adult life - but no longer. I have a lot of time for many ordinary Labour supporters - most of whom are also trades unionists, campaigners or tenant organisers. As long as Labour has its roots feet in the trades union movement I believe passing personalities or policies can be corrected from below.

If Labour cuts its ties to the trades unions and relies for funding and political direction on big donors (the direction of travel as individual subscriptions and donations have dropped drastically to be replaced by rich individuals, corporate donors and lobbyists) it will be no different from other parties - and I won't feel any residual obligation to vote for them. We're not there yet.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: Why is it with the Tories we have

In my opinion Labour still has a different and more progressive DNA than the Tories (and the Lib Dems) but that is eroding.

I despise Blair and Starmer and their groupies, funders and enablers. Despise is not too strong a word for the war crimes of Blair or the war crime enabling of Starmer (and the serial lying).

I was a Labour member for 30 years over 3 spells - most of my adult life - but no longer. I have a lot of time for many ordinary Labour supporters - most of whom are also trades unionists, campaigners or tenant organisers. As long as Labour has its roots feet in the trades union movement I believe passing personalities or policies can be corrected from below.

If Labour cuts its ties to the trades unions and relies for funding and political direction on big donors (the direction of travel as individual subscriptions and donations have dropped drastically to be replaced by rich individuals, corporate donors and lobbyists) it will be no different from other parties - and I won't feel any residual obligation to vote for them. We're not there yet.

I personally feel that in my lifetime that the labour party and the liberals and others will pull through proportional representation

There appears to be a lot of secret talks about it all and it must be done to defeat the tories on a regular basis ....the split in the opposition parties just hands the Tories power by the back door

If it doesn't appear possible then that's fine but if the labour party get in and just sit on a big majority then they can naff off and I will vote green till my toes turn up

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Why is it with the Tories we have

It's true that people don't choose their race, which is why we rightly view racism as worse than bigotry. People are not stuck with their religion though. They may be born into it, but it's a personal decision to continue with it, so under the above scenario it is fair game to be antagonistic towards them. And whilst I agree that abuse of unchosen characteristics are worse, surely the issue is behaving like an arse? If someone is abusive to someone, it may be worse for something they have no control over, but it doesn't mean that abuse for other reasons is okay.

Equally, no one doubts the party that has been in power for two thirds of the post war period hasn't don't many bad things. They have. But is it right or fair to abuse anyone who may support them for that? if someone votes Labour, would it be fair to accuse them of turning a blind eye to grooming gangs, or supporting the Iraq war, or rising unemployment or bankrupting the country or any of the other tropes unfairly thrown at them? I would suggest it wouldnt be.

The alternative is a bit of open mindedness, a bit of tolerance, a bit of trying to understand others views, a bit of humility and a bit of civility. That strikes me as the fat better, less ignorant and certainly less bigoted approach to politics.

All I said was good post Jon, I don’t see any of the things you refer to in his message.

[TWGL1]

Re: Why is it with the Tories we have

In my opinion Labour still has a different and more progressive DNA than the Tories (and the Lib Dems) but that is eroding.

I despise Blair and Starmer and their groupies, funders and enablers. Despise is not too strong a word for the war crimes of Blair or the war crime enabling of Starmer (and the serial lying).

I was a Labour member for 30 years over 3 spells - most of my adult life - but no longer. I have a lot of time for many ordinary Labour supporters - most of whom are also trades unionists, campaigners or tenant organisers. As long as Labour has its roots feet in the trades union movement I believe passing personalities or policies can be corrected from below.

If Labour cuts its ties to the trades unions and relies for funding and political direction on big donors (the direction of travel as individual subscriptions and donations have dropped drastically to be replaced by rich individuals, corporate donors and lobbyists) it will be no different from other parties - and I won't feel any residual obligation to vote for them. We're not there yet.

Ultimately it’s a persons democratic right to vote , but why certain people should use inflammatory language and rhetoric towards a person who doesn’t agree with their political beliefs is beyond and I’m not sure how this is acceptable to anyone.

[jon1959]

Re: Why is it with the Tories we have

Ultimately it’s a persons democratic right to vote , but why certain people should use inflammatory language and rhetoric towards a person who doesn’t agree with their political beliefs is beyond and I’m not sure how this is acceptable to anyone.

I answered your question.

At no point have I advocated or defended 'inflammatory language and rhetoric'. That is all your own work!

[NinianOpinion1927]

Re: Why is it with the Tories we have

'Is post covid Tory Britain worse than post financial crisis Labour Britain?'

To add to Eric's points above, the state has been so hollowed out between 2010 and 2019 (national government as well as local - see the criminal justice system crisis as one example) that there is little collective resilience to provide a net behind individuals and families who have seen wages fall and costs rise over that period. We have a poorer (for most) and weaker country than pre financial crisis. Some of the causes are beyond the control of any government, but the Cult of Austerity was home grown.

Having seen your posts, you're clearly quite far to the left. Has there ever been a time in your life where you've thought the public sector was bloated or wasting money?

[TWGL1]

Re: Why is it with the Tories we have

I answered your question.

At no point have I advocated or defended 'inflammatory language and rhetoric'. That is all your own work!

I don’t think so , take a look at your last paragraph…..ultimately people can vote for who they want without being piled on.

I’m voting conservative next time

[jon1959]

Re: Why is it with the Tories we have

I don’t think so , take a look at your last paragraph…..ultimately people can vote for who they want without being piled on.

I’m voting conservative next time

You surprise me (not).

[jon1959]

Re: Why is it with the Tories we have

Having seen your posts, you're clearly quite far to the left. Has there ever been a time in your life where you've thought the public sector was bloated or wasting money?

I have seen some waste - yes. But unlike some others I don’t think that defines the public sector.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Why is it with the Tories we have

Having seen your posts, you're clearly quite far to the left. Has there ever been a time in your life where you've thought the public sector was bloated or wasting money?

Oh look, we’ve got a new multi.