Hammering For Labour In Hartlepool

[Citizen's Nephew]

why is it selfish? This is something the left continually trot out about conservative voters, but conservatism isn't about self at all - that's a myth peddled by the left who think they are somehow making those on the right feel bad.

Having a party that promotes individual freedoms, actively encourages business and maintains the institutions of society isn't selfish, its going about things a different way.

Your comment is lazy and is akin to saying Labour voters are work shy preferring to receive benefits off the back of those that work.

Left and right are two different approaches to the same problem, none are perfect, on some occasions left wing approaches work, on others right wing approaches do. you'd have to be pretty naive to think only one method is better than the other - if it was, governments all over the world would be adherents to that particular approach.

Just imagine what life could be like if we rejected the idea of left and right and just worked together to solve problems ....oh!

[Feedback]

A few points in reply, your response suggests that what I said rattled your cage

not at all, just passing comment that you repeat this point ad nauseum

a bit, also you’ve spent a decade and more telling us on here that right is right,

and given the majority of those posters on here are myopic left wingers, take a wild guess why that was?

so it’s hard to reconcile you with being the reasonable man in the middle seeing both sides of the argument.

its easier to adopt the opinion that all politicians are self serving wankers, no matter whether they are on the left or right. all are equally bereft of empathy for the common man.

However, although I do associate Conservatism with greed (I’ve always thought there is a dividing line between aspiration and greed, but it can be a thin one) and always will do, I was also making a general point that people tend to get more selfish/self absorbed as they get older - I have to admit I have.

hardly surprising as earning potential diminishes as you get older, and you want stability in old age. The same can be said that a lot of young people are dreamers who believe they can change the world. they may as well believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden

[the other bob wilson]

not at all, just passing comment that you repeat this point ad nauseum


and given the majority of those posters on here are myopic left wingers, take a wild guess why that was?

its easier to adopt the opinion that all politicians are self serving wankers, no matter whether they are on the left or right. all are equally bereft of empathy for the common man.

hardly surprising as earning potential diminishes as you get older, and you want stability in old age. The same can be said that a lot of young people are dreamers who believe they can change the world. they may as well believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden

So, you’re either saying that you now think what you told us for a decade and more was wrong or, alternatively, it was a wind up - either way, it’s hard to place much faith in what you say now.

[jon1959]

you can only begin to imagine my shock at reading this.

I know! So many years wasted as 'a conformist, church-going Lib Dem voter'. At least there is a happy ending.

[life on mars]

why is it selfish? This is something the left continually trot out about conservative voters, but conservatism isn't about self at all - that's a myth peddled by the left who think they are somehow making those on the right feel bad.

Having a party that promotes individual freedoms, actively encourages business and maintains the institutions of society isn't selfish, its going about things a different way.

Your comment is lazy and is akin to saying Labour voters are work shy preferring to receive benefits off the back of those that work.

Left and right are two different approaches to the same problem, none are perfect, on some occasions left wing approaches work, on others right wing approaches do. you'd have to be pretty naive to think only one method is better than the other - if it was, governments all over the world would be adherents to that particular approach.

VERY GOOD POST

[Feedback]

So, you’re either saying that you now think what you told us for a decade and more was wrong or, alternatively, it was a wind up - either way, it’s hard to place much faith in what you say now.

not quite a wind up, just ruffling a few feathers for those who refuse to see the wood for the trees.

as for your final comment, given your lack of faith in whatever was written previously, status quo ante bellum springs to mind.

[Feedback]

I know! So many years wasted as 'a conformist, church-going Lib Dem voter'. At least there is a happy ending.

you and I have different ideas of what a happy ending entails

[Citizen's Nephew]

VERY GOOD POST

On what basis?

Saying 'Having a party that promotes individual freedoms, actively encourages business, and maintains the institutions of society isn't selfish, it's going about things a different way' is completely incorrect. Why? A party can do all those things and still be selfish at the same time. In fact, it could be argued that doing those things are the most selfish of all. It can't be argued that because a party does those things it is good for everyone and the environment. It can (and in my opinion) make things much worse.

Going about things a different way? That really doesn't stack up on any level. If we all tried to use that argument we could justify anything.

And I don't understand the part'akin to saying Labour voters are work-shy preferring to receive benefits off the back of those that work' - the first point argues an ideology the second point is an insult.

[Feedback]

On what basis?

Saying 'Having a party that promotes individual freedoms, actively encourages business, and maintains the institutions of society isn't selfish, it's going about things a different way' is completely incorrect. Why? A party can do all those things and still be selfish at the same time. In fact, it could be argued that doing those things are the most selfish of all. It can't be argued that because a party does those things it is good for everyone and the environment. It can (and in my opinion) make things much worse.

Going about things a different way? That really doesn't stack up on any level. If we all tried to use that argument we could justify anything.

And I don't understand the part'akin to saying Labour voters are work-shy preferring to receive benefits off the back of those that work' - the first point argues an ideology the second point is an insult.

You're seeing that from your left wing point of view. You think being called a work shy slacker who relies on others for benefits is insulting, but saying someone is selfish and only interested in themselves isn't.

Bizarre.

Both are wrong of course, unless you only see the world in shades of left or right

[Eric Cartman]

Having a party that promotes individual freedoms, actively encourages business and maintains the institutions of society isn't selfish, its going about things a different way.

I think your frame of reference might be a few years out of date if you are you talking about the Conservative party.

[lisvaneblue]

The history in Hartlepool is fascinating as political trends go

1997 > 26k Huge Peter Mandelson Labour win ,only 3 parties standing then Tories with 18k in second place
2004 > 12.7k Labour win
2005 > 18.2k Labour win ( Tories in 3rd place with 4k )
2010 > 16.2k Labour win ( Tories into 2nd with 10.7k)
2015 > 15.1k Labour win ( Tories back to 3rd place with 8.2k , Brexit Party 2nd with 11k )
2017 > 21.8k Labour win ( Tories back into 2nd with 14.3k)
2019 > 15.4k Labour win ( Tories 2nd with 11.8k )
2021 > 15.2k Tory Win ( Labour 2nd with 8.5k )

Where have the voters gone. Combined labour/ Tory votes 1997.. .. 44K; In 2021.... 24K

[Citizen's Nephew]

You're seeing that from your left wing point of view. You think being called a work shy slacker who relies on others for benefits is insulting, but saying someone is selfish and only interested in themselves isn't.

Bizarre.

Both are wrong of course, unless you only see the world in shades of left or right

You can't say 'your left-wing point of view' and then suggest I see the world in shades of left or right. That's called projection.

[Wash DC Blue]

Politics is horrible really.

I do think that most people want what’s best for society...it’s just been ramped up to such a stage that it’s just toxic.

I’ve certainly contributed to toxicity on here, try my best not to offer a contrarian position or one that will upset someone.
But then suddenly my ire cannot be pacified, I post my opinion in a prickish way....and while I may feel good about it for a short while, I ultimately I regret it.

I think my point here is that nuances, respectful disagreements and finer points are foregone online in favour of a one size “Fitz Hall” my side against yours.

Ultimately, when things are really partisan no one wins.
We are seeing it more and more now and it’s sad.

[Feedback]

I think your frame of reference might be a few years out of date if you are you talking about the Conservative party.

perhaps, but traditional conservatism is about those very things, and whilst the blue corner today may not be a fully paid up member, its about as good as we have hence why some people with conservative values still vote for the blues.

[Feedback]

You can't say 'your left-wing point of view' and then suggest I see the world in shades of left or right. That's called projection.

not its not, its called a point of view.

how many times do you see left wing posters on here refer to the right as evil, nasty, selfish. ditto the right wingers calling the left workshy, scroungers, lazy

neither are true, but you will believe it to be the case if you are firmly entrenched in one camp or the other.

[Feedback]

Politics is horrible really.

I do think that most people want what’s best for society...it’s just been ramped up to such a stage that it’s just toxic.

I’ve certainly contributed to toxicity on here, try my best not to offer a contrarian position or one that will upset someone.
But then suddenly my ire cannot be pacified, I post my opinion in a prickish way....and while I may feel good about it for a short while, I ultimately I regret it.

I think my point here is that nuances, respectful disagreements and finer points are foregone online in favour of a one size “Fitz Hall” my side against yours.

Ultimately, when things are really partisan no one wins.
We are seeing it more and more now and it’s sad.

this is spot on. consensus politics is far better than the partisan crap we are served up daily. Perhaps if we had PR rather than FPTP this would not be the case.

[the other bob wilson]

perhaps, but traditional conservatism is about those very things, and whilst the blue corner today may not be a fully paid up member, its about as good as we have hence why some people with conservative values still vote for the blues.

And here's an example of modern conservatism of the sort Eric Cartman was referring to, it's not a good luck and, in this case especially given the person's background, "greed" seems a more appropriate word to use than selfishness.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-david-cameron

Clearly, out of the people who vote, there are more who vote Conservative than for any other party, but, even in a landslide, there are more who vote against them than for them - throw in those who did not vote in 2019 and the Conservatives don't look as impregnable as they currently seem. The trouble is there is no credible opposition to the Conservatives in terms of forming a possible UK Government with the party best placed to do so, Labour, showing yet again that they appear to place greater emphasis on internal disputes than they do in trying to represent the tens of millions who do not want this Government.

Sludge started this thread calling for a new left of centre party to, essentially, replace Labour, but, I'd rather see an anti Conservative coalition fight the Tories at the next election. The Greens and Lib Dems have some experience where one of their candidates stood aside to give the one with the better chance of winning more of an opportunity, but Labour and the Nationalist parties would have to join in for it to stand any chance of succeeding and I guess that's where the problems start - as someone who was fully persuaded as to the need for some sort of proportional representation at the time of the 2011 referendum, I believe more than ever that a huge opportunity to rid the country of the sort of politics we've seen since then was lost.

[Feedback]

And here's an example of modern conservatism of the sort Eric Cartman was referring to, it's not a good luck and, in this case especially given the person's background, "greed" seems a more appropriate word to use than selfishness.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-david-cameron

Clearly, out of the people who vote, there are more who vote Conservative than for any other party, but, even in a landslide, there are more who vote against them than for them - throw in those who did not vote in 2019 and the Conservatives don't look as impregnable as they currently seem. The trouble is there is no credible opposition to the Conservatives in terms of forming a possible UK Government with the party best placed to do so, Labour, showing yet again that they appear to place greater emphasis on internal disputes than they do in trying to represent the tens of millions who do not want this Government.

Sludge started this thread calling for a new left of centre party to, essentially, replace Labour, but, I'd rather see an anti Conservative coalition fight the Tories at the next election. The Greens and Lib Dems have some experience where one of their candidates stood aside to give the one with the better chance of winning more of an opportunity, but Labour and the Nationalist parties would have to join in for it to stand any chance of succeeding and I guess that's where the problems start - as someone who was fully persuaded as to the need for some sort of proportional representation at the time of the 2011 referendum, I believe more than ever that a huge opportunity to rid the country of the sort of politics we've seen since then was lost.

David Cameron won't be the first ex-PM to use that position to line his own pockets after office and he won't be the last. Cameron is a bum fluff beginner compared to Blair and Brown in this respect, but then I'm not against former PM's making money after public service. After all, they took a job where the pay really is not commensurate with the position and responsibility. The article is mere petty politicking, and serves no purpose other than Tory bashing. It adds nothing to the political debate although the anti Tories such as yourself lap it up as somehow being relevant. It is not.

[Citizen's Nephew]

not its not, its called a point of view.

how many times do you see left wing posters on here refer to the right as evil, nasty, selfish. ditto the right wingers calling the left workshy, scroungers, lazy

neither are true, but you will believe it to be the case if you are firmly entrenched in one camp or the other.

The whole left and right stance originated in 1789 and is subjective, old, and tedious. Something is either true or false. This can't happen under conservatism or any other political dogma/ideology. That's just logic. That's not a point of view.

What you're doing though is exactly the same thing as you're espousing to ridicule. You're doing it to me in every reply, along with a huge dose of assumption and presumption. The internet's so-called argument of 'it's my point of view' is a tired crutch to lean on. A point of view can be totally incorrect, that's how we've ended up with flat-earthers.

If I wrote 'I believe in a positive theory of human flourishing, based upon an ideal of non-coercive consensus building', you'd be closer to my political philosophy.

Yesterday, at 14:45 I posted Just imagine what life could be like if we rejected the idea of left and right and just worked together to solve problems ....oh! followed by a emoji.

I'll leave it there. Have a fab day!

[Citizen's Nephew]

Politics is horrible really.

I do think that most people want what’s best for society...it’s just been ramped up to such a stage that it’s just toxic.

I’ve certainly contributed to toxicity on here, try my best not to offer a contrarian position or one that will upset someone.
But then suddenly my ire cannot be pacified, I post my opinion in a prickish way....and while I may feel good about it for a short while, I ultimately I regret it.

I think my point here is that nuances, respectful disagreements and finer points are foregone online in favour of a one size “Fitz Hall” my side against yours.

Ultimately, when things are really partisan no one wins.
We are seeing it more and more now and it’s sad.

A heart-warming post and one I can relate to. And yes, it is sad. Everything political these days is so f*ng polar. I blame global warming!

[Rjk]

this is spot on. consensus politics is far better than the partisan crap we are served up daily. Perhaps if we had PR rather than FPTP this would not be the case.

yes I agree with both these posts.
our political system is generating this kind of politics- because that's what it incentivises the politicians to do, blame each other, grandstanding and things that will play out well in the media rather than trying to fix things in the long run.

I can't see it being changed anytime soon though, as too many people who would need to be involved in changing it know where their bread is buttered.

[the other bob wilson]

David Cameron won't be the first ex-PM to use that position to line his own pockets after office and he won't be the last. Cameron is a bum fluff beginner compared to Blair and Brown in this respect, but then I'm not against former PM's making money after public service. After all, they took a job where the pay really is not commensurate with the position and responsibility. The article is mere petty politicking, and serves no purpose other than Tory bashing. It adds nothing to the political debate although the anti Tories such as yourself lap it up as somehow being relevant. It is not.

Blair especially has coined it n after he left office, I’m not denying that, but I don’t remember either of them, or any other ex Prime Minister for that matter, becoming a lobbyist for a dodgy sounding individual like Cameron has - that’s the difference that you don’t want to recognise.

You accused me of being lazy earlier, well there can’t be anything much more lazy than just writing off something as “party politicking” because it appeared in Guardian - is this just party politicking as well?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Greensill.html

[WJ99mobile]

David Cameron won't be the first ex-PM to use that position to line his own pockets after office and he won't be the last. Cameron is a bum fluff beginner compared to Blair and Brown in this respect, but then I'm not against former PM's making money after public service. After all, they took a job where the pay really is not commensurate with the position and responsibility. The article is mere petty politicking, and serves no purpose other than Tory bashing. It adds nothing to the political debate although the anti Tories such as yourself lap it up as somehow being relevant. It is not.

I've had bosses that do very little that earn more than what a Prime Minister does

That in itself is a problem

[Citizen's Nephew]

yes I agree with both these posts.
our political system is generating this kind of politics- because that's what it incentivises the politicians to do, blame each other, grandstanding and things that will play out well in the media rather than trying to fix things in the long run.

I can't see it being changed anytime soon though, as too many people who would need to be involved in changing it know where their bread is buttered.

I'd like to see compulsory voting and proportional representation. It's the only way, at present, we can reject the idea of party politics and start electing the best people for society and the environment. In 2012 Gerard Casey wrote, “states are criminal organizations. All states, not just the obviously totalitarian or repressive ones”. I think he has a point.

[A Quiet Monkfish]

I'd like to see compulsory voting and proportional representation. It's the only way, at present, we can reject the idea of party politics and start electing the best people for society and the environment. In 2012 Gerard Casey wrote, “states are criminal organizations. All states, not just the obviously totalitarian or repressive ones”. I think he has a point.

I'll start voting if there's an option 'none of the above'. Proportional representation leads to weak government, deals, parties holding others to ransom. We would still be in the EU if we had it, even though the largest vote in UK history supported leaving.