Tory Lies, Corruption and Hypocrisy- Add Them Here

[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

[Cheese]

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.

[coprolite]

12 minutes ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

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

I'm sure these people are out there. Probably quite a lot too. 

On the other hand i've heard people say they'd vote Tory because you can't trust Corbyn.

Speaking for myself, i know i'll never vote Tory because of the negative associations. I don't want to be a c**t, even by association.  In the unlikely event that they changed all of their policies to ones that were objectively good, i think i'd still struggle. As it is though, their policies give me a nice dissonance free narrative to go with my subconscious preference. 

[oldbitterandgrumpy]

38 minutes ago, coprolite said:

I'm sure these people are out there. Probably quite a lot too. 

On the other hand i've heard people say they'd vote Tory because you can't trust Corbyn.

Speaking for myself, i know i'll never vote Tory because of the negative associations. I don't want to be a c**t, even by association.  In the unlikely event that they changed all of their policies to ones that were objectively good, i think i'd still struggle. As it is though, their policies give me a nice dissonance free narrative to go with my subconscious preference. 

Yeah, but if they changed all their policies to ones that were objectively good, you still wouldn’t trust them. Their credibility (if they ever had any) is way beyond repair. 

Edited November 17, 2023 by oldbitterandgrumpy

[Florentine_Pogen]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/nov/18/unfinished-business-cosy-world-lord-david-cameron-chipping-norton

'Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton'

[coprolite]

4 minutes ago, Florentine_Pogen said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/nov/18/unfinished-business-cosy-world-lord-david-cameron-chipping-norton

'Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton'

I'm not really a nationalist and i generally find English people to be a similar mix of good guys and wanks as any other population. But just the sound of place names like "Chipping Norton" makes me want to kilt up and start beheading morris dancers with a two handed broadsword. 

[tamthebam]

13 hours ago, coprolite said:

I'm not really a nationalist and i generally find English people to be a similar mix of good guys and wanks as any other population. But just the sound of place names like "Chipping Norton" makes me want to kilt up and start beheading morris dancers with a two handed broadsword. 

Chipper Norton surely....

[blackislekillie]

4 minutes ago, tamthebam said:

Chipper Norton surely....

Chippy Norton you utter deviant! 

[doulikefish]

Hunt saying that cutting benefits for the sick and disabled helps cure there illness this morning on the TV is some look obviously not challenged by Laura k 

[Molotov]

22 hours ago, coprolite said:

I'm not really a nationalist and i generally find English people to be a similar mix of good guys and wanks as any other population. But just the sound of place names like "Chipping Norton" makes me want to kilt up and start beheading morris dancers with a two handed broadsword. 

I spent 20+ years working down in England. Some incredible names of towns and villages down there. 

I remember being on the Reading to Waterloo line one morning about 7am heading to London when we pulled into Staines.

Whereupon I heard this Scotsman wake up from his slumber and started saying “Staines fcuking Staines! That’s whit we used to fling at windaes!” 

Made me laugh loudly but the other commuters were less than chuffed. 

[KirkieRR]

19 minutes ago, doulikefish said:

Hunt saying that cutting benefits for the sick and disabled helps cure there illness this morning on the TV is some look obviously not challenged by Laura k 

He's a former Health Secretary  y'know.

[Melanius Mullarkey]

Great to see arbiter of impartiality and Speaker of the House having a laugh with the Tories on Racist TV.

What a fucking rabble.

[GordonD]

37 minutes ago, Molotov said:

I spent 20+ years working down in England. Some incredible names of towns and villages down there. 

Billy Connolly used to do a routine about Husbands Bosworth - he thought it sounded like a line from a folk song.

"How much are my husband's baws worth?"

[carpetmonster]

Two protesters were “reasonable” in calling Iain Duncan Smith “Tory scum” outside the Conservative party conference, the high court has ruled, in a rejection of an attempt to overturn their acquittal.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/nov/21/protesters-iain-duncan-smith-tory-scum-reasonable-court-rules