Political Banter and Debate Thread

Curiosity · **Posted:** Tue Oct 06, 2015 18:56

Cavey wrote:

Curiosity wrote:

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one

Hey, no worries mate. I'll treat you to a drink at the Cottage, assuming the bottle's still intact and has survived its perilous transit.

Sounds delicious. I shall make sure I bring some good stuff

Re: helping those who help themselves, I agree with that principle; I just don't think that the higher echelons of the Tory party are too bothered about whether they succeed on helping those people or not, or those who have tried and failed.

I think we all here want to see a fairer world, we just fundamentally disagree on the best way of achieving that.

MaliA · **Posted:** Tue Oct 06, 2015 18:59

Cavey wrote:

MaliA wrote:

oh. Fucking hell.

Heh. Incredible to think that, with all due respect to her, someone who is quite so completely and utterly mediocre could actually seriously consider themselves up for being the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom...? Mind you, with some of the people being elected as political party leaders of late, I suppose it really does give succor to this.

Edit - apparently she voted against same-sex marriages as well, which (IMO) is a completely ridiculous and unsustainable position, and surely a huge black mark.

Did you hear her on PM? Jesus! Dolt of the lowest brain power. Amazing.

Cavey · **Posted:** Tue Oct 06, 2015 19:10

Curiosity wrote:

Sounds delicious. I shall make sure I bring some good stuff

Awesome.

Quote:

I think we all here want to see a fairer world, we just fundamentally disagree on the best way of achieving that.

What I've been saying for years, man.
Oh, and :luv:

too.

Cavey · **Posted:** Tue Oct 06, 2015 19:20

MaliA wrote:

Did you hear her on PM? Jesus! Dolt of the lowest brain power. Amazing.

No mate, although I'm not especially surprised at this. Like I said originally, do people like her honestly think they are up to the job of British Prime Minister...? (I'm not exactly renown for undue modesty (

) but I would shrivel like a currant at the very thought; 'blagging it' doesn't even begin to cover it....)

Hearthly · **Joined:** 11th May, 2008 **Posts:** 13386

Curiosity wrote:

I think we all here want to see a fairer world, we just fundamentally disagree on the best way of achieving that.

The issue I have with that is when the party in power is so clearly at odds with that sentiment, that supporting them pretty much immediately negates any sense of the person in question wanting to see a 'fairer world'.

Anyway, let's see where we are by the end of this parliament, the Tories have a habit of overplaying their hand when they get smug about things, and these tax credit cuts are IMO an early indicator of them still not understanding the depth of breadth of the swathes of society that their policies negatively impact.

And keep a very close eye on the NHS too, although the cynic in me suspects they're wanting to bring that to its knees to usher in a US style system, off the back of citing that 'state control of the health service doesn't work'.

Cavey · **Posted:** Tue Oct 06, 2015 19:32

Hearthly wrote:

The issue I have with that is when the party in power is so clearly at odds with that sentiment, that supporting them pretty much immediately negates any sense of the person in question wanting to see a 'fairer world'.

Right, so despite knowing me for 14-odd years, my being a pretty moderate small-c Tory sitting on the centre-left of the Party (like tens of millions of others in the UK) automatically marks me out as someone who does not want to see a fairer world?

After all these years that's worse than disappointing and insulting - it's actually pretty hurtful and sad.

Oh well, c'est la vie I guess.

Pundabaya · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 5016

Wait, Jeremy Hunt is a person? I thought it was cockney rhyming slang.

Curiosity · **Posted:** Wed Oct 07, 2015 7:15

Pundabaya wrote:

Wait, Jeremy Hunt is a person?

Debatable.

Hearthly · **Joined:** 11th May, 2008 **Posts:** 13386

Cavey wrote:

Right, so despite knowing me for 14-odd years, my being a pretty moderate small-c Tory sitting on the centre-left of the Party (like tens of millions of others in the UK) automatically marks me out as someone who does not want to see a fairer world?

After all these years that's worse than disappointing and insulting - it's actually pretty hurtful and sad.

Oh well, c'est la vie I guess.

I'm sorry Cavey, I'm trying not to be personally offensive to you with statements like that, but I absolutely cannot square what the Tory party are doing (and indeed, what I believe they fundamentally represent) with any notion whatsoever that they're the party who would help to bring about a fairer world - it's just not what they do.

Even Boris Johnson is warning his party against the tax credit cuts, when Boris Johnson is saying, 'Woah, hang on chaps, this really isn't very fair, you know' - something pretty bad is going on.

I've said on several occasions over the years that I don't understand why you're a Tory supporter, as your personal views seem to be widely at odds with the evidence of what they stand for, based on what they get up to when they're in government.

ApplePieOfDestiny · **Joined:** 17th Dec, 2008 **Posts:** 8293

Hearthly wrote:

Even Boris Johnson is warning his party against the tax credit cuts, when Boris Johnson is saying, 'Woah, hang on chaps, this really isn't very fair, you know' - you know full well that you're on the countdown to a leadership election and he wants to give the public impression that he's a caring man on the people.

Feex

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16579

I think there's lots of them that genuinely believe they are doing the right thing. But I can't see Cameron, Osborne, IDS etc. as people who genuinely give a fuck about the lives of most people in the country, I think they see people who are a bit like them and then just a seething mass, sort of like how so many people view all those poor fuckers fleeing from Syria, not as people in the same way they are. At least that's the only way I can explain the utter fucking glee with which they do what they do.

I have no idea which camp Boris falls into, his public persona is clearly so many levels of bullshit away from what he actually is that it's impossible to tell, or even give a fuck about.

Curiosity · **Posted:** Wed Oct 07, 2015 13:56

I see that Cameron has decided to come out and just tell blatant lies in his speech. And they aren't even lies that he could at all believe; it's genuinely propaganda and deceit.

What a massive cunt.

Hearthly · **Joined:** 11th May, 2008 **Posts:** 13386

Curiosity wrote:

I see that Cameron has decided to come out and just tell blatant lies in his speech. And they aren't even lies that he could at all believe; it's genuinely propaganda and deceit.

What a massive cunt.

To save me having to look at his face or listen to his voice, what's the gist of it?

Fuck me, just got this zinger off the Guardian - '“My friends – we cannot let that man inflict his security-threatening, terrorist-sympathising, Britain-hating ideology on the country we love.”

That's Jeremy Corbyn, TERRORIST SYMPATHISER, he's talking about there.

Hearthly · **Joined:** 11th May, 2008 **Posts:** 13386

Wow Cameron, you lying dickface.

And like you say Curio, he must know he's telling lies, but he tells them anyway.

EDIT - Yeah so it's all lies, basically. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... conference

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32619

What Cameron said:

Quote:

You only really need to know one thing: he thinks the death of Osama bin Laden was a “tragedy”.

No. A tragedy is nearly 3,000 people murdered one morning in New York. A tragedy is the mums and dads who never came home from work that day. A tragedy is people jumping from the towers after the planes hit.

My friends – we cannot let that man inflict his security-threatening, terrorist-sympathising, Britain-hating ideology on the country we love.

What Corbyn said:

Quote:

Well I think that everyone should be put on trial. I also profoundly disagree with the death penalty, under any circumstances for anybody. That’s my own view.

On this there was no attempt whatsoever that I can see, to arrest him, to put him on trial, to go through that process.

...
The World Trade Center was a tragedy, the attack on Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy. Tens of thousands of people have died
...
This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy.

Cameron's attack is the worst kind of lazy quote-out-of-context tabloid personal slur. For our elected leader to be indulging in such base politics is shameful.

Dr Zoidberg · **Joined:** 15th Oct, 2010 **Posts:** 5216

Yep, that's something that he is fully aware is a complete and utter blatant lie, and he deserves to be called out on it at every opportunity.
Irrespective of whether your politics are Labour/Conservative/Something else, surely nobody can justify this as acceptable behaviour?

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

It works though.

Curiosity · **Posted:** Wed Oct 07, 2015 17:06

Mr Kissyfur wrote:

It works though.

Yep.

Which is sad.

Dr Zoidberg · **Joined:** 15th Oct, 2010 **Posts:** 5216

Mr Kissyfur wrote:

It works though.

Oh yes, and that's why they do it.

Kern · **Posted:** Wed Oct 07, 2015 18:00

Should have stuck to fucking pigs as a student then. But Cameron probably didn't do that either.

Just read the speech. Reminds me a lot of Blair in his heyday of the mid-90s. I don't think I can recall a Conservative leader addressing his followers about equality, poverty, and even prison reform before! What matters, of course, is actions rather than words, and he's set himself a high bar.

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32619

Kern wrote:

Should have stuck to fucking pigs as a student then. But Cameron probably didn't do that either.

I don't understand this sentence, particularly "either." Are you suggesting Cameron didn't say the quote written earlier?

Kern · **Posted:** Wed Oct 07, 2015 18:44

No, just reminding myself that it's ok to discuss prime ministerial porcine experiences without noting that it comes from a single unreliable source.

Regarding the Corbyn reference, I think it was a bit extreme and unnecessary. But that was probably for the benefit of the party diehards, not the broader populace. I doubt people's opinions of either leader have changed much.

Hearthly · **Joined:** 11th May, 2008 **Posts:** 13386

I liked the bit about Bernard Harris best.

Kern · **Posted:** Wed Oct 07, 2015 18:59

As a general rule, I tend to lose my concentration during political speeches when the speaker says that he met someone on the Central line yesterday, or was talking to ordinary Bill/Belinda/Mavis in the café/at the building site/in the morgue. What they say is always a little too convenient for the orator.

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32619

Kern wrote:

No, just reminding myself that it's ok to discuss prime ministerial porcine experiences without noting that it comes from a single unreliable source.

I still don't see how that's relevant to discussion of a fully documented, uncontested quote taken from a speech, which itself uses a quote taken out of context from another fully documented interview...?

Kern · **Posted:** Wed Oct 07, 2015 19:55

Doctor Glyndwr wrote:

Kern wrote:

No, just reminding myself that it's ok to discuss prime ministerial porcine experiences without noting that it comes from a single unreliable source.

I still don't see how that's relevant to discussion of a fully documented, uncontested quote taken from a speech, which itself uses a quote taken out of context from another fully documented interview...?

Because attacking Corbyn for being a terrorist-hugger has a similar effect to referring to Cameron as ham-fancier: it sums up in a single image the common stereotype of the person (Corbyn - naive; Cameron - privileged and out of touch). And just we can easily prove that Corbyn's position was being grossly misused by Cameron, it is reasonable to give Cameron the benefit of the doubt about what happened as a student. People are welcome to be offended by one, either, or both. I just don't think it's fair to attack Cameron for the Corbyn misrepresentation whilst not letting the pig thing go. Me? I think Cameron's provided Labour and his critics a lot of meat elsewhere in his speech given the lofty goals he appears to be setting for himself, but I'm not really seeing much of that discussed at the moment.

Dr Zoidberg · **Joined:** 15th Oct, 2010 **Posts:** 5216

That might be a more valid argument if Corbyn had given a big speech about how we can not let that pig fucker rule the country, but he didn't.

Cavey · **Posted:** Wed Oct 07, 2015 21:52

Just a quick one: Whilst I don't defend people distorting the truth (or 'spinning' as it has now become known as, post Messrs. Blair, Campbell and Mandelson epoch), smearing and/or outright lying - let's just have a quick reality check, shall we?

Forgive me if I don't shed too many tears over the poor leader of the Labour Party, here, an Organisation whose mastery of these Dark Arts is beyond compare or dispute. Besides, I don't care what anyone says, that piece posted by Findus on Corbyn the other day was a shocking read, and plenty of the things he's on record as saying, as someone who would be our Prime Minister, are pretty much "out there", as most here agreed and commented at the time.

I am NOT excusing Cameron, but let's just see the whole picture and remember far worse examples of outright lying that cost tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent lives etc., not just being 'a bit aggrieved'. So then, both he and his supporters had better get used to it & have broader shoulders, because like it as not, politics is a rough old game regardless of Corbyn's 'nice' aspirations at PMQs.

Cavey · **Posted:** Wed Oct 07, 2015 22:09

Hearthly wrote:

I've said on several occasions over the years that I don't understand why you're a Tory supporter, as your personal views seem to be widely at odds with the evidence of what they stand for, based on what they get up to when they're in government.

We've been through this before but no matter; the short answer is that I believe 'mild' Conservatism with a good shake of social responsibility (as Ken Clarke put it the other day on QT) is a solid basis for benefiting the most possible people, as sustainably and fairly as possible (i.e. it not going disastrously tits-up after a few years, destroying all previous gains in social mobility, living standards etc. and then some).

I believe that at the very least, there is a decent enough empirical basis and justification to opine such a belief, not as 'absolute fact', but at least a decent, well justified, *reasonable* likelihood.

You know me well enough as you say, so you know beyond even a shred of doubt that even if I am utterly wrong about this (which although unlikely IMO is certainly possible), then I'm wrong in spite of good intentions and decent, honest hopes, aspirations and wishes. 'Nuff said.

Grim... · **Posted:** Thu Oct 08, 2015 17:44

There we go.

Hearthly · **Joined:** 11th May, 2008 **Posts:** 13386

Fucking terrorist sympathiser, I always knew it.

Cavey · **Posted:** Thu Oct 08, 2015 19:08

I must be missing the joke.

Dr Zoidberg · **Joined:** 15th Oct, 2010 **Posts:** 5216

Those *are* the exact words that came out of his mouth, are they not?
Of course, it's taken completely out of context, but if that's acceptable behavior...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEGFaOeUm2A

Kern · **Posted:** Thu Oct 08, 2015 19:17

Hearthly wrote:

Fucking terrorist sympathiser, I always knew it.

He is rumoured to know Snowball.

Cavey · **Posted:** Fri Oct 09, 2015 14:09

Meh! After the shenanigans of the Privy Council no-show, the word on the street is that ol' Corby has done a moonlight flit somewhere on a train, on some unofficial holiday or other, that no-one else seemed to know anything about. Lawks; he's only been in the job a week or two and is already bunking off - typical bloody union man.

DavPaz · **Joined:** 27th Jun, 2008 **Posts:** 38504

Cavey wrote:

Meh! After the shenanigans of the Privy Council no-show, the word on the street is that ol' Corby has done a moonlight flit somewhere on a train, on some unofficial holiday or other, that no-one seemed to know anything about. Lawks; he's only been in the job a week or two and is already bunking off - typical bloody union man.

Fag break, 'innit guv.

Cavey · **Posted:** Fri Oct 09, 2015 14:25

Yep, I was doing them myself until about 5 weeks ago, been off the fags since then so am polishing my halo!

ApplePieOfDestiny · **Joined:** 17th Dec, 2008 **Posts:** 8293

Cavey wrote:

:D

Yep, I was doing them myself until about 5 weeks ago, been off the fags since then so am polishing my halo!

That's disturbing.

Cavey · **Posted:** Fri Oct 09, 2015 14:50

Oh gawd. This is another one of those APoD wordplay-cum-faux-pas thingies isn't it...

Mate, you're shooting fish in a barrel here, don't mock the afflicted and hard of writing.

(Shit, I do hope that's not another one)

Grim... · **Posted:** Fri Oct 09, 2015 14:54

...

Shooting fish in a barrel would be really hard.

I've never really given it any thought before.

Cavey · **Posted:** Fri Oct 09, 2015 14:57

Grim... wrote:

...

Shooting fish in a barrel would be really hard.

I've never really given it any thought before.

Well no, not if the barrel was chock-full of fish relative to the volume of water, which I think is the premise of the saying.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

Profoundly easier than shooting them in a lake, certainly

Hearthly · **Joined:** 11th May, 2008 **Posts:** 13386

I bet Jeremy Corbyn wouldn't even pull the trigger.

Cavey · **Posted:** Fri Oct 09, 2015 15:18

Hearthly wrote:

I bet Jeremy Corbyn wouldn't even pull the trigger.

You'd have to find him first... last seen "on a train sporting knitwear with elbow pads" according to the Telegraph...

ApplePieOfDestiny · **Joined:** 17th Dec, 2008 **Posts:** 8293

Cavey wrote:

Oh gawd. This is another one of those APoD wordplay-cum-faux-pas thingies isn't it...

Mate, you're shooting fish in a barrel here, don't mock the afflicted and hard of writing.

(Shit, I do hope that's not another one)

Nope. I've been losing my shit enough this week with work stress without coming in here for a break and realising that it's entirely possible that both you and I are Tyler Durden.

Cavey · **Posted:** Sat Oct 10, 2015 13:24

ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:

Cavey wrote:

Oh gawd. This is another one of those APoD wordplay-cum-faux-pas thingies isn't it...

Mate, you're shooting fish in a barrel here, don't mock the afflicted and hard of writing.

(Shit, I do hope that's not another one)

Nope. I've been losing my shit enough this week with work stress without coming in here for a break and realising that it's entirely possible that both you and I are Tyler Durden.

Heh, awesome, man I love that film.

Although I suspect I'm him in his corpulent, later years...

(Edit, not awesome you've been going through shit though obv. Coming to cottage?)

ApplePieOfDestiny · **Joined:** 17th Dec, 2008 **Posts:** 8293

Afraid not. I'll be in Miami with work. Although likely wouldn't have gone anyway, can't take three days and nights of drinking like that anymore it seems, but neither do I have a non-hardcore switch.

Kern · **Posted:** Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:08

Just skimmed yesterday's Commons debate on cannabis.

Peter Lilley (didn't even realise he was still around) made a very interesting contribution:

Spoilered for length

ZOMG Spoiler! Click here to view!

Quote:

I certainly agree that the medical arguments are overwhelming. I cannot think of any good reasons for not allowing the use of cannabis and its derivatives for medical purposes, although there clearly are arguments, which I do not find compelling, for prohibiting it generally.

The more I examine the arguments for prohibition, the clearer it is to me that although the pretence is that it is for health reasons, the actual reason is moral disapprobation of drugs. I am probably one of the few people in this room who is prepared to say that I share that moral disapprobation. Of course, the greatest sin that one can commit in this country is to take a moral view on anything; that is the supreme immorality. I do think that it is wrong, however, to get stoned out of one’s mind on anything. It is degrading. God gave us minds to see things clearly, not to befuddle and bemuse. There are greater moral arguments, the traditional one being that it undermines one’s self-control and leads to other, more serious wrongdoing. For all those reasons, I am against using it and I would discourage people from using it.

Those who are motivated by moral disapproval of the abuse of drugs make two mistakes. First, they confuse use and abuse. Occasionally to have a relaxing spliff is one thing. I have never done so, and I would not advocate it, but I occasionally go home and drink a glass of wine to relax after a hard day of looking at 38 Degrees petitions, and I do not see any great difficulty in that. I would, however, discourage people from abusing either alcohol or cannabis.

Secondly, those who are motivated by moral disapproval jump to the conclusion that because something is morally wrong, it should be against the law. Lots of things are morally wrong that are not against the law. Adultery is wrong; one should not betray one’s spouse, but we should not put people in jail if they do. We have to get used to the idea that in a free country, people will have to make many moral decisions themselves without being told by the law what to do. We would be a healthier and better country if we gave people that moral responsibility, without saying that it is something that we approve of. It is a choice that people should make, and those of us who disapprove of certain decisions should make the moral arguments against them, rather than dressing them up as, or hiding behind, largely spurious and bogus health concerns, which are at best greatly exaggerated, and at worst non-existent.

TL;dr = He thinks drugs are a moral wrong, but not a criminal wrong.

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16579

He's correct that it is ridiculous that it's illegal but saying it's morally wrong to ever get stoned? Because of god? But your "one glass of wine" is ok? As for this: "Of course, the greatest sin that one can commit in this country is to take a moral view on anything; that is the supreme immorality." what absolute horseshit. Society takes moral views about all sorts of things. What he means there is that he finds that people don't like it when he starts banging on about god.

But anyway I don't know why we're even having this stupid debate any more. Not when the actual trials have already been done in dozens of other places and nearly all the predicted catastrophic effects were shown to be bollocks. It's politicians at their absolute worst and most spineless, they know full well that prohibition makes no kind of logical sense.

Malc · **Posted:** Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:34

He compared one spliff to being the same as his one galss of wine. Saying he wouldn't take drugs, and doesn't believe in being out of your mind on anything (either drugs or alcohol)

Which I think is fair enough.

Be Excellent To Each Other

Political Banter and Debate Thread
Countdown to a flight-free UK

Who is online

Be Excellent To Each Other

Political Banter and Debate Thread Countdown to a flight-free UK

Who is online

Political Banter and Debate Thread
Countdown to a flight-free UK