The Wish They Were All Dead Tory Cunt Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HCZ_Reborn

Calling someone a fascist just makes you sound silly.

I’m not a Tory voter and I never have been, I was a Labour Party member until six years ago you silly person :lol:

What I’m saying is I resent having this progressive alliance forced down my throat as if instantly any party that is non Tory is preferable to the Tories. And if for instance I voted Labour under PR, that shouldn’t be taken as a tacit assumption that I want a Labour, Lib Dem, Green, SNP coalition

Using your logic 2015 taking the UK as a whole the majority voted for right wing parties (Tory, UKIP and DUP) but your logic is thin because it assumes that people vote for parties such as Labour, Liberal Democrat or Greens as a block Anti Tory vote and I don’t think it’s reasonable to make that assumption of the electorate. And when I say this is a Conservative country, I mean that consistently more people vote for that party than any other one single party.

---

I did not call you a fascist. I already knew elements of your history with labour.

My argument is the view that the system isn’t democratic and needs to be reformed.

A conservative country would involve a majority of the electorate voting for right of centre and further to the right parties to the tune of at least 50%. The country does not and the Conservatives get more votes than other parties because the right is less fragmented. Most of the right wing factions are within that party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xhaka Can’t

I did not call you a fascist. I already knew elements of your history with labour.


My argument is the view that the system isn’t democratic and needs to be reformed.

A conservative country would involve a majority of the electorate voting for right of centre and further to the right parties to the tune of at least 50%. The country does not and the Conservatives get more votes than other parties because the right is less fragmented. Most of the right wing factions are within that party.

---

You said you sound like a fascist, which either way is silly

One of the reasons Labour won by such a big majority in 1997 was the level of tactical voting that took place between Labour and Lib Dem voters. So it’s fair to say if parties felt there was a need for an alliance or that their voters would accept that, they would do this in FPTP.
The reason it’s fragmented is because these parties don’t feel they have anything in common. And I agree with them. As much as I’d rather have a Labour government than a Tory government right now…I’d vote Tory to keep the Greens or the SNP out of power in Westminster. And I don’t think I’m alone in that.
Plus the Lib Dems are of late the recipient of votes from disillusioned Tory voters, who are sick of the right wing lurch the Tory party has taken but believe the Lib Dems to be more fiscally conservative. They also get what I’d call the NIMBY vote.

Unless you can tell me what over arching link there is between all these non Tory so called progressive parties, I can see no reason to think there is a majority in this country for left wing/progressive ideas

What you said sounded fascist - a particular point - clearly referenced.

I’m not going to tell you of a link because I never inferred a link. I have referred to parties with a minority of the vote having unrepresentative majorities in parliament.

The rest of your post is an argument against what you’re arguing for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xhaka Can’t

What you said sounded fascist - a particular point - clearly referenced.

I’m not going to tell you of a link because I never inferred a link. I have referred to parties with a minority of the vote having unrepresentative majorities in parliament.

The rest of your post is an argument against what you’re arguing for.

---

I’m not arguing For anything, I’ve been consistent all along what I’m against. And that is The assumption that there is anything in common between non Tory parties that suggests that the majority of the electorate have voted for this progressive coalition that has been stymied by our electoral system.

And my argument is that as a result the Conservatives deserve to be the government because the majority of the time more people vote for them than any one single party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xhaka Can’t

This has wider ramifications because it highlights the flaws in our electoral system.

---

Well, sure. But given that is our system and it’s not going to change, I think Sunak is the best we could have hoped for, given the available credible options. It’s like Liverpool winning the CL. That is bad, but holy shit can you imagine if Spurs had? :sick:

I completely agree about our system. I have long argued for a more proportional system, but our system guarantees a duopoly and neither of the 2 big parties would want to change it. Cameron grudgingly gave the Lib Dems a referendum on AV as part of the coalition deal, knowing it was probably too complicated for a lot of people to understand, and relying on people’s natural tendency to not want change (he then went double or quits with the Scottish Independence one and then went for the hat-trick with the Brexit one, the stupid bastard).
It’s a shame AV was voted down as that does yield more proportional results. That was the one chance to get some change to our system, it’s unlikely to be repeated.

I don’t see how anyone can defend our system. It disenfranchises the majority of the population and it means people are forced to vote tactically rather than with their convictions. The election before the Brexit vote UKIP got 12% of the popular vote. They got 1 MP. Whatever you think of UKIP, an electoral system were 1 in 8 people vote for a party and get basically no representation can’t be a good one. And if we had a more proportional system then a lot of those people might not have voted for UKIP anyway, a lot of it was probably a protest vote.

The argument for FPTP is it yields a strong government. Well that’s going well…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HCZ_Reborn

I’m not arguing For anything, I’ve been consistent all along what I’m against. And that is The assumption that there is anything in common between non Tory parties that suggests that the majority of the electorate have voted for this progressive coalition that has been stymied by our electoral system.

And my argument is that as a result the Conservatives deserve to be the government because the majority of the time more people vote for them than any one single party.

---

Well why are you arguing that with me, when I never referred to a progressive coalition nor believe there to be one. If anything I think there are uneasy coalitions within the two major political parties - and indeed the Scottish Nationalists - coalitions that would splinter under a different electoral system. The voter (if they could be bothered to look it up) would know much more about what and who they actually vote for.

At no point have I said or even hinted at an assumption of anything in common between non Tory parties. My argument is that the electoral system almost never produces governance that reflects the actions of the electorate at the ballot box - and if anything, this was even more pronounced during the Blair years where people in many instances didn’t even vote for what they wanted because what they wanted most was for the Tories to be hounded from office and after that the finer details could be worked out.

In 1997 that is what I did - I looked at which party was likely to defeat Portillo in Enfield Southgate and voted accordingly. That is stupid, because I ought to vote for what I actually want.

My argument is not that the party that gets the most votes shouldn’t be in government, but the power of that party should not be near absolute because that disenfranchises the majority of the electorate that havent voted for them - just as it did when Labour got huge majorities of the back of a minority vote that was organised because it coincided with an informal process where centre and centre left parties voters voted tactically.

Around 12:30 in, a view is given on the loss of tax revenue.

https://youtu.be/wO2lWmgEK1Y

If only we had a need for that £40bn.

Finally some good news!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63409687

There is loads of good news. The government produced a wonderful 100+ page document on the benefits of Brexit:

https://assets.publishing.service.go...-of-brexit.pdf

I often have to write reports at work - and in an aim to emulate the better report writers, I like to get killer points to support my case or demonstrate the reason why people should read and get in to the detail of my report. The author of this report clearly agrees - that is why we see very early on - after the table of contents and the PM’s forward (well 2 PMs ago), these killer benefits to demonstrate why it was such a wonderful idea to reduce the size of our economy by hundreds of billions of pounds. It’s all there in pages 6-7:

Reintroduced our iconic blue passports. All new British passports are now blue, a return to their original appearance, with the colour first introduced in 1921, and updated to be the most technologically-advanced and secure British passports ever, with the carbon footprint from their manufacture reduced to net zero.
● Reviewing the EU ban on imperial markings and sales. This will give businesses and consumers more choice over the measurements they use. Imperial units like pounds and ounces are widely valued in the UK and are a core part of many people’s British identity.
● Enabling businesses to use a crown stamp symbol on pint glasses. The Crown Stamp is a proud emblem of our heritage that people remain fond of. We have begun the process of allowing it to be used once again, a fitting tribute to Her Majesty’s Platinum Jubilee.

To be fair - these are the last few benefits on a long list of benefits - which sure as fuck don’t look like benefits.

The document goes on and on for over 100 pages - apparently there are environmental benefits as well - presumably about our new found freedoms for water companies - often owned by Europeans to pump raw sewage into our waterways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xhaka Can’t

Well why are you arguing that with me, when I never referred to a progressive coalition nor believe there to be one. If anything I think there are uneasy coalitions within the two major political parties - and indeed the Scottish Nationalists - coalitions that would splinter under a different electoral system. The voter (if they could be bothered to look it up) would know much more about what and who they actually vote for.

At no point have I said or even hinted at an assumption of anything in common between non Tory parties. My argument is that the electoral system almost never produces governance that reflects the actions of the electorate at the ballot box - and if anything, this was even more pronounced during the Blair years where people in many instances didn’t even vote for what they wanted because what they wanted most was for the Tories to be hounded from office and after that the finer details could be worked out.

In 1997 that is what I did - I looked at which party was likely to defeat Portillo in Enfield Southgate and voted accordingly. That is stupid, because I ought to vote for what I actually want.

My argument is not that the party that gets the most votes shouldn’t be in government, but the power of that party should not be near absolute because that disenfranchises the majority of the electorate that havent voted for them - just as it did when Labour got huge majorities of the back of a minority vote that was organised because it coincided with an informal process where centre and centre left parties voters voted tactically.

---

My point is not whether you’re arguing for it or not but what you’re likely to get as a result

Where as I think it makes far more sense to give power to a party that a large plurality of voters want, or to make it fairer introduce the concept of AV. Where you are able to express preference in regards to parties which then require a individual representing a party to get over 50% of the vote based on preferences. Then there would be no argument over democratic legitimacy.