Tory Lies, Corruption and Hypocrisy- Add Them Here

[TxRover]

Conservatives wish to rule, not represent. Their power comes from a mindset among the electorate that since they are businesspeople and millionaires/billionaires, they must be best for the economy and making the country stronger. This same electorate sees the social safety net as excessive and unnecessary except those portions that directly impact them. So how then do the Tories distract these people from their attacks on things they do rely upon, by giving them someone else to s**t upon. Like all good fascists, the Tories identify smaller groups to identify as "the problem".

In the U.S. the Republicans/Conservatives have acquiesced to Trump's calling his opponents vermin and suggesting immigrants (illegal AND legal) are poisoning the blood of 'Merica. It's a matter of time before this rhetoric makes it way into the Tory handbook...the light of Western democracy is guttering in the gathering darkness. 

[coprolite]

33 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

As I understand it the nutters will seek to pass legislation terminating the application of these various treaties in the UK. 

I might be an optimist but I can't believe they'd be so staggeringly stupid. The UK would be joining the happy band of Russia, Belarus and North Korea in the world's moral toilet. Jeezo, I'd impose sanctions on the UK and I FKKN live here!

Russia and Belarus got kicked out of the ECHR. We’d be the only c***s to explicitly reject it.

I didn’t think they’d/we’d be stupid enough to leave the EU, but here we are. 

There’s a toxic mix of arrogance, ignorance and exceptionalism fed by our gutter press, tv and online echo chambers that’s a perfect breeding condition for authoritarianism. I don’t think we’re there yet but it’s looking more like a question of “when”than “if”.

[DA Baracus]

20 hours ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

people rarely think that these things will effect THEM, in their minds things like;

due process & right to a fair trial = scumbags getting off with crimes they ought to be punished for. 

trade unions keep lazy/ incompetent people from getting the sack

Most people don't think there will ever be a malicious complaint made against them or they will have an arsehole for a boss who might try to blade them for their own f**k up.

You see headlines of people complaining about long lines at passport control with " this isn't the brexit we voted for" or "eu punishing brits for leaving"  well, I'm sorry but yes it was the brexit you voted for, you demanded that freedom of movement was ended and it was, the fact that you didn't think it would be your  freedom of movement affect too, is on you i'm afraid

This type of logic also applies to those who voted against Scottish independence. They'll say they didn't vote to be taken out of the EU, they didn't vote to support a Conservative government who are sprinting towards fascism, they didn't vote to have rights taken away (when that inevitable happens) and that they didn't vote for whatever horrors are to come under this and future Conservative governments.

But they did vote for that. Even then it was obvious the way things were going. 

Edited November 16, 2023 by DA Baracus

[Wee-Bey]

Of course it's funny to see these cretins get telt, but his is the result they wanted surely ?

[HulltoonDee]

If the Tories could get just a decent leader, and actually stop those boats, the election is there for the taking. Labour are unelectable. Both leaders are multi millionaires, nothing in common whatsoever with voters. 

[Big Rider]

1 hour ago, HulltoonDee said:

If the Tories could get just a decent leader, and actually stop those boats, the election is there for the taking. Labour are unelectable. Both leaders are multi millionaires, nothing in common whatsoever with voters. 

Well, vote for Scottish Independence ya peh!

[GHF-23]

13 hours ago, Ziggy Sobotka said:

Of course it's funny to see these cretins get telt, but his is the result they wanted surely ?

How much accelaration do you think they can manage in c.9 months or whatever it'll be to the next election? I reckon a lot tbh

[Florentine_Pogen]

[Pocketman]

4 hours ago, HulltoonDee said:

If the Tories could get just a decent leader, and actually stop those boats, the election is there for the taking. Labour are unelectable. Both leaders are multi millionaires, nothing in common whatsoever with voters. 

Constantly being told that the top 5 Tory priorities are what "the country wants". Stopping the boats is a priority supported by the right wing media, racist, gammons, old folks and simpletons. I would be very surprised if immigration had significantly risen in folks' priorities since this (below) ONS study - and if it had, I would hazard a connection between that and the disproportionate alarmist reporting that goes along with it.

I wonder where immigration would figure in a Scotland only survey? I for one could not give a monkeys as to the number of boats that pitch up. Probably my own top 5 priorities are Brexit, Cost of Living, Climate/Environment and International Conflict. My fifth is Other and relates to being governed by corrupt right wing Tories.....

 

 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2023 by KingRocketman II

[dirty dingus]

They should send all the Scottish down in England home and replace them with prune skinned pensioners from the Costa del fry-up then erect a hard border. That would be just dandy.

[Wee-Bey]

2 hours ago, GHF-23 said:

How much accelaration do you think they can manage in c.9 months or whatever it'll be to the next election? I reckon a lot tbh

Yeah, it all depends on how much of a chance they think they have in the election, as they will want to hold something back to campaign on, which is why the wingnuts want a snap 'small boats election'. 

[scottsdad]

1 hour ago, KingRocketman II said:

Constantly being told that the top 5 Tory priorities are what "the country wants". Stopping the boats is a priority supported by the right wing media, racist, gammons, old folks and simpletons. I would be very surprised if immigration had significantly risen in folks' priorities since this (below) ONS study - and if it had, I would hazard a connection between that and the disproportionate alarmist reporting that goes along with it.

I wonder where immigration would figure in a Scotland only survey? I for one could not give a monkeys as to the number of boats that pitch up. Probably my own top 5 priorities are Brexit, Cost of Living, Climate/Environment and International Conflict. My fifth is Other and relates to being governed by corrupt right wing Tories.....

 

 

 

 

Covid still polling at 25%. With FPTP the coronavirus might end up as our new PM. 

[GHF-23]

1 hour ago, Ziggy Sobotka said:

Yeah, it all depends on how much of a chance they think they have in the election, as they will want to hold something back to campaign on, which is why the wingnuts want a snap 'small boats election'. 

Assuming you mean campaigning on stopping the small boats in the next parliament rather than on having achieved it, on the flip side if they have come to terms with the fact that the writing's on the wall for the next election then there's the calculation of do the opposition campaign on or attempt once in power to revoke it if they can bring it into being.

I honestly doubt it and not even in a RED TOARIES/the Labour Right exists to lock in the gains of progressively more insane Conservative Governments way - if the Tories can get it over the line through whatever means necessary in the coming months then it could be disastrous for Starmer politically to oppose it at all in some very important seats. The only way they could lose is failing to do it and then Starmer deciding to campaign on Yvette Cooper being the one finally man enough to push all asylum seekers off a big cliff, which seems a bit unlikely

[Wee-Bey]

4 hours ago, GHF-23 said:

Assuming you mean campaigning on stopping the small boats in the next parliament rather than on having achieved it, on the flip side if they have come to terms with the fact that the writing's on the wall for the next election then there's the calculation of do the opposition campaign on or attempt once in power to revoke it if they can bring it into being.

Yeah, not just the small boats, but the rest of it like ditching the ECHR and the woke Supreme Court and so on. Not sure that there's enough time to make a significant dent in immigration numbers and introduce a new British Bill of Rights or whatever, properly. 

If they make a c**t of it (high probability tbh) it makes it easier for Labour to point and say, 'this is their big thing and it's a shambles' without explicitly having to campaign against it or commit to reversing it.

There's also the internal Tory conflict to consider, Sunak's faction (Hunt, Cameron etc.) are in charge and very much represent that traditional Tory base of British Capital, (whatever is left of that, that isn't wholly foreign owned now) the CBI, BOE, 'the markets' etc. who are very much opposed to further diversion from the EU.

 

[carpetmonster]

6 minutes ago, Ziggy Sobotka said:

 

There's also the internal Tory conflict to consider, Sunak's faction (Hunt, Cameron etc.) are in charge and very much represent that traditional Tory base of British Capital, (whatever is left of that, that isn't wholly foreign owned now) the CBI, BOE, 'the markets' etc. who are very much opposed to further diversion from the EU.

 

If you spoonerise those you get c**t and Hameron, which made me snicker, albeit I’m not the most sophisticated punter. 

[effeffsee_the2nd]

On 15/11/2023 at 20:22, TxRover said:

Conservatives wish to rule, not represent. Their power comes from a mindset among the electorate that since they are businesspeople and millionaires/billionaires, they must be best for the economy and making the country stronger. This same electorate sees the social safety net as excessive and unnecessary except those portions that directly impact them. So how then do the Tories distract these people from their attacks on things they do rely upon, by giving them someone else to s**t upon. Like all good fascists, the Tories identify smaller groups to identify as "the problem".

In the U.S. the Republicans/Conservatives have acquiesced to Trump's calling his opponents vermin and suggesting immigrants (illegal AND legal) are poisoning the blood of 'Merica. It's a matter of time before this rhetoric makes it way into the Tory handbook...the light of Western democracy is guttering in the gathering darkness. 

I've mentioned this before, I think a lot of people on here get that bit wrong quite often.  I think quite a large number of voters don't actually care about the background of individuals or groups of individuals running for office, it's usually;

A- They like the policy's of a particular party or candidate

B - They believe that they and their families will do best under a particular parties government

C- A combination of both

[Lofarl]

[coprolite]

1 hour ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

I've mentioned this before, I think a lot of people on here get that bit wrong quite often.  I think quite a large number of voters don't actually care about the background of individuals or groups of individuals running for office, it's usually;

A- They like the policy's of a particular party or candidate

B - They believe that they and their families will do best under a particular parties government

C- A combination of both

I don't think that contradicts @TxRover's point.

I think that your category A people are in the minority, and generally limited to single issue choices (brexit, indy etc). 

I think that category B people make up a bigger part of the electorate. 

People don't make choices about what's best for them based on a dispassionate cost benefit analysis (in general, no doubt some nerds will cost out the manifestos on a spreadsheet). People will decide their preference based on a mix of subconscious and conscious factors.

Among the subconscious thoughts will be the aspirational associations that make celebrity endorsement into big business.

People might not say that they've voted Tory because they're associated with wealth but they may well feel attracted to the brand that reflects their aspirations to wealth back at them. 

Then when the decision is made the conscious  will construct the narrative as to why that decision made sense. 

If someone has already decided that their self image is of being wealthy, that Tories are wealthy therefore they like Tories, and justified that with the narrative "tax cuts will make me better off" then no amount of logic or appeal to reason will make them believe otherwise. 

Imo, the policies and their effects follow from the branding and market positions, not the other way around. 

[effeffsee_the2nd]

2 minutes ago, coprolite said:

I don't think that contradicts @TxRover's point.

I think that your category A people are in the minority, and generally limited to single issue choices (brexit, indy etc). 

I think that category B people make up a bigger part of the electorate. 

People don't make choices about what's best for them based on a dispassionate cost benefit analysis (in general, no doubt some nerds will cost out the manifestos on a spreadsheet). People will decide their preference based on a mix of subconscious and conscious factors.

Among the subconscious thoughts will be the aspirational associations that make celebrity endorsement into big business.

People might not say that they've voted Tory because they're associated with wealth but they may well feel attracted to the brand that reflects their aspirations to wealth back at them. 

Then when the decision is made the conscious  will construct the narrative as to why that decision made sense. 

If someone has already decided that their self image is of being wealthy, that Tories are wealthy therefore they like Tories, and justified that with the narrative "tax cuts will make me better off" then no amount of logic or appeal to reason will make them believe otherwise. 

Imo, the policies and their effects follow from the branding and market positions, not the other way around. 

I know what you mean and you're right that it's a bit more nuanced than I've made out. But to give you a couple of anecdotes, A man I worked with once said plainly that the snp had his vote because of free university as he had two children who were coming up to school leaving age and wanted to go to uni, he also said he wasn't to sure about independence.  Another man said he voted tory in 2015 because of the pension freedom reforms of that year as he had long service in a final salary scheme and wished to take it out, another voted tory because he and his wife had a property portfolio and the conservative's were more friendly to landlords both in tax and law.  These are just ordinary people

Multiply that over the rest of society and you see where I'm coming from

[TxRover]

1 hour ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

I've mentioned this before, I think a lot of people on here get that bit wrong quite often.  I think quite a large number of voters don't actually care about the background of individuals or groups of individuals running for office, it's usually;

A- They like the policy's of a particular party or candidate

B - They believe that they and their families will do best under a particular parties government

C- A combination of both

As @coprolite says, it’s actually not very far off that. There is a pervasive mindset that associates the Tories with business success and higher income. The similar situation with a belief that the Republicans can handle the economy better in the U.S. is bemusing as a Democrat President has almost always given better market and economic returns. People have biases which only slowly morph, and the actual party manifesto often bears little resemblance to what the average punter believes it says. There’s still a mindset of Labour being the party of the sick, old man of Europe while the Tories are the party of Maggie and whipping the Unions into line. The facts are often opposed to voter belief/sentiment.