Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
I'm curious who the Tories will end up having to blame for their continuously intentional feck ups once we no longer have any immigrants in the country? It obviously can't be poor people because we'll all be poor as feck. Even middle class cnuts like me will probably have to buy those sub-£10 bottles of plonk for our dinner parties.
Will they just blame woke people? Like, that's exactly how they'll phrase it. "Woke people with their wokeness are stripping Britain of its Britishness, which is affecting our economy for some reason." And then they just bring out Priti Patel on her fat person wheelbarrow to eat Cornish pasties outside a Ladbrokes to really confuse folk so they have no clue what the feck is going on.
Yes, we have discussed what might be called the 'nuance effect' before and maybe disagree about certain aspects, but that is how we (individually) see things. I believe politicians (in general) give nuance a 'bad name', but lets not go down that route again.
I don't think you are old fashioned as you put it, for wanting the truth, from anyone, not just those who rule us; but the world as an entity these days seems to accept only 'versions' of the truth.Therefore quite often it is depending on who is telling it, proposing it and/or from what perspective they take; hence the fake news we hear about.
My personal complaint is that this situation has come about through a combination of 24/7 rolling news and social media outlets that tend to become 'echo chambers'.
It is a long time since I heard anyone actually just.... read the News. On TV, the News Readers became News Correspondents, who became Specialist News Editors, etc. it is (in my opinion) why people tend to only read and to go off headlines alone, because usually everything that follows is just someones own view of what has happened and what might result from something that has happened.
Of course News editors, reporters, journalists of almost any description probably do have the inside track and hence can make comment , or feel they can... but of course, their code of honour stops them revealing their 'sources'... yes very convenient, you might think?
You are right about excusing lying, and you are right that I don't approve of excusing lying, I am simply saying what I see in front of me, or perceive from what I hear.
An old colleague of mine (fairly cynically) use to tell me "The public don't want the truth...they couldn't live with it". sometimes I think about that and wonder.
I enjoy our exchanges, thank you very much.
The majority of the UK media do not question these lies. They regurgitate them as fact. The most trusted culprit being the BBC, but there are the obvious suspects such as the Daily Mail, The Sun etc.
I agree on your point re: the compulsive lies from government. They have certainly gone beyond spin and broken all conventions of truth.
Politicians have always been known to lie. Historically the media would highlight this to the voting public. Without that, democracy breaks down.
And I very much echo your last point. It is clear that you care about things and are not afraid to say what you believe.Yes, we have discussed what might be called the 'nuance effect' before and maybe disagree about certain aspects, but that is how we (individually) see things. I believe politicians (in general) give nuance a 'bad name', but lets not go down that route again.
I don't think you are old fashioned as you put it, for wanting the truth, from anyone, not just those who rule us; but the world as an entity these days seems to accept only 'versions' of the truth.Therefore quite often it is depending on who is telling it, proposing it and/or from what perspective they take; hence the fake news we hear about.
My personal complaint is that this situation has come about through a combination of 24/7 rolling news and social media outlets that tend to become 'echo chambers'.
It is a long time since I heard anyone actually just.... read the News. On TV, the News Readers became News Correspondents, who became Specialist News Editors, etc. it is (in my opinion) why people tend to only read and to go off headlines alone, because usually everything that follows is just someones own view of what has happened and what might result from something that has happened.
Of course News editors, reporters, journalists of almost any description probably do have the inside track and hence can make comment , or feel they can... but of course, their code of honour stops them revealing their 'sources'... yes very convenient, you might think?
You are right about excusing lying, and you are right that I don't approve of excusing lying, I am simply saying what I see in front of me, or perceive from what I hear.
An old colleague of mine (fairly cynically) use to tell me "The public don't want the truth...they couldn't live with it". sometimes I think about that and wonder.
I enjoy our exchanges, thank you very much.
The point about the public not wanting to hear the truth is a valid one, regrettably.
It is a human trait that we hear what we want to hear.
But that is why we elect people into positions of responsibility, because they are supposed to be able to see the big picture. And they are supposed to be capable of leading the country, sometimes in a difficult direction. And proper leaders should feel comfortable telling us what we need to hear. Not what we want to hear.
Labour tried beating them to the travelling community blame game, so they'll probably try and double down on that.
Divide and conquer has worked for Britain over centuries in many countries. The ruling class will always find a group to blame, at home or abroad.
I agree, also I believe we are told only what those in power want us to hear! That is why I am always doubtful (doubting Thomas) about what exactly is an absolute truth, at least in terms of politicians utterances.
I suppose its true that we get the politicians we deserve. From my early thirties up to my mid fifties I always, certainly at every GE, made a point to attend any public meetings where prospective candidates for my vote were due to speak, in an attempt to find out what each candidate really believed, not just the party publicity material. I have to say it generally wasn't much help, even when on one or two occasions I managed to get a couple of questions in from the floor, I very rarely left such meetings any the wiser. Nowadays all such events seem to be all practiced and choreographed and it is even less enlightening.
The only politician I felt really comfortable with was Labour's Frank Field. I wasn't one of his constituents, but I happened to be working on Merseyside at the time, so went along to one of his public meetings. He was impressive in his responses, although I didn't agree with everything he said I thought him 'an honest man' and had I lived in his constituency would probably have voted for him.
Effective leadership and politicians, in my experience rarely go together, although again whilst I disagreed with much of Margaret Thatchers idealism, she did (or tried to do) everything she said she would, we all had fair warning with Maggie. The phrase " the lady's not for turning" was a brutal truism at times. but very apt.
Frank Field and Margaret Thatcher may seem an 'odd coupling' but in my lifetime and personal experience these are the only two politicians that would come anywhere near to meeting your request to be told... what you needed to hear, rather than what you wanted to hear
I have zero time for anyone that says this. What exactly are you struggling with? It’s easy to find his position on literally anything. Perhaps it’s not been spoon fed to you, but you can forage for it and feed yourself.
100%. It's very easy for people to say "I have no idea what he stands for" when the same line has been repeated in mainstream media for months on end. Perhaps if they did a bit of research they would know.
He's got those 10 Pledges and everything. Yes he's gone back on most, if not all, of them but they're still easy to find.
Labour 2024 campaign slogan - I have zero time for anyone.
Good political leaders don't make you work hard to clearly understand their priorities and positions on key issues.
The Labour party conference is less than three months away. I've a feeling it will be very rancorous indeed, but he will be under the spotlight then, his views should be more apparent at least.
yeah I'm sure it'll be fairly and widely reported.It will get the usual treatment from the media I'm sure, but I'm replying to people who are professing to have an interest. They will have an opportunity to watch the conference and make their own minds up.
That is quite interesting to read. And to find that we actually have more in common than expected.
My interest in politics was the reason I became a shop steward in the 1970's. I only did it for a few years because I wanted to understand the root cause of the terrible industrial relations problems that were damaging the very fabric of our country. Don't know why, but I have always had a leftist leaning and have always considered myself working class. At the time, I strongly opposed Mrs Thatcher and all she stood for. But as I matured, I came to accept some of the things she did. And having watched the TV programmes about her and her struggles within her party, had a modicum of respect for her.
I too attended some of the election campaigns (of the Labour candidates) and wasn't even mildly impressed. But voted for them nonetheless and always have.
I was a big fan of Tony Blair and actually attended a meeting he was at in Bristol. Razor sharp brain and he could see things very quickly. I even supported the policy on the Iraq War. And despite many calling him a war criminal and a liar, it is significant that none of the inquiries found any evidence that he lied to the British people.
I was very much against Jeremy Corbyn. Didn't agree with his policies or his leadership and wasn't at all surprised at the election result.
Our local MP is a complete waste of time. I have written to him on many occasions and all I ever get back is a standard policy statement.
Pretty disillusioned with politics I have to say. And dislike the way Boris treats the truth as an option only to be used when he cannot think of a much better lie.
Thank you.
I think herein lies the problem. He doesn't stand for anything in particular other than the promise of a slightly less extreme status quo with government.
The fact he has backtracked on 10 core pledges also means he is hard to trust. In that respect he is definitely as electable as Boris, but without the charisma.
That's great thank you for your reply.
I think we might have been on some sort of parallel road to politics. I too was a shop steward. but started slightly earlier 1967. I was twenty one years old and at that time the youngest steward in the local area. I only became shop steward because no one else wanted the job. A friend had introduced me to a local branch of AUEW when I was 16 and I had enrolled as an apprentice in Section 4 (blue card... still have it somewhere!) at 20 I was transferred to the Toolroom to finish off my apprenticeship as a toolmaker. ('Time-serving' was still the norm then not competence based as now).Anyway to cut a long story short at 21 I became the official Steward for the Tool room and the Press shop, mainly because the previous incumbent fell out with the the Press Tool Setters and wasn't too popular with the Toolroom personnel either.
Hence my introduction to politics. I was very wet behind the ears and could not understand why in the workplace all the arguments were about shift work, pay rates, pool bonuses, holiday rotas, etc., but when I attend Union meetings at the local Branch it was all about politics; at the time very strong communist influences, wild cat strikes almost every month, for a while the branch disassociated its self with the local labour party.
I too have been always left leaning, but came to believe the Labour party had an aversion to power, never seemed to go about achieving it the right way. I admired Blair but not all his policies and I was never at ease with his personal approach, and some of the company he kept. however I also believe he had no choice over Iraq and had to 'stay Bush's hand', otherwise a nuclear conflict might have commenced in the middle east (still might to be honest.)
I know I have upset some people on here by referring to the 'loony left', which for me is more to do with a lack of 'reality checking', rather than out and out policy that Corbyn and others pursued. The Tories have been given a massive boost because of the LL and my children and grand children will have to suffer for it. Boris plays the 'Buffoon' to a tee, being economical with the truth is in fact for many part of his endearment, but wait until the real Tories decide to ditch him, which will be as soon as he looks like losing an election, then they will turn on him, but I am sorry to say Labour will not be the beneficiaries.
...enjoyed swapping stories.
You obviously don't like to hear the truth then. And despite all the evidence, you know better. My hero.
Rather than bore everyone else, I will message you.
The "dodgy dossier", nuclear weapons that never existed and which they knew didn't exist, manufactured ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, even though Saddam had no ties to AQ. The list goes on.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...t_Propaganda_Deception_and_the_'War_on_Terror'
What did you expect Chilcot to find? The UK isn't going to criminalize its self. It was still plenty damning though.
Wow. Even in retrospect with all the information available you are stuck in the early 00s lie!?
Ok speak later.
Ok. Tell you what.
You provide the evidence that Tony Blair lied to the British people over the Iraq War and I will personally apologise to you.
Can't say fairer than that.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
So please quote me where it said that the PM lied to the British people. And if you can, I will personally apologise to you and accept that what I said was wrong.
And as you will have read, the enquiry concluded that Blair had nothing to do with the dodgy dossier.
The thing is that politics are a giant set of cogwheels. Even if you're straight and honest you wont and can't change much of real politics.
At best a few token regulations to appease the mass. But the international politics is already set in stone by some invisible mechanism no matter who's in charge.
For better or for worse
I hate politicians. Without exception.
Oh Boris. If you thought that eating cat sh1t would make you popular, you would eat it for breakfast, lunch and tea.
Despicable cnuts.
If you want a real laugh, check out the world's most cringeworthy politician Jacob Rees Mogg doing the John Barnes World In Motion lyrics, spoken in his best upper class English in the HoC.
You will love it (assuming you have a sense of humour).
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...wqsBegQIBxAE&usg=AOvVaw2KRB_QOuk-9T1K88Qaov7f
You will love it (assuming you have a sense of humour).
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...wqsBegQIBxAE&usg=AOvVaw2KRB_QOuk-9T1K88Qaov7f
These cnuts are going to ride the national wave of the Euros positivity all the way to a big poll boost aren't they ? Half makes me want to get beat to spite the horrible feckers. Come on Rashford, say something to put them in their place again lad.
Yes, I think I would tend to agree, but our precious vote is the only interface and chance we have of making a difference, so we ought to collectively try to distill who to trust and how far?
As my old boss use to say "At every GE I vote against the Government.... but they keep getting back in!"