All Tories Are Cunts thread

[David]

19 hours ago, Loki said:

Well, if he WERE he'd be doing a terrible job as Labour is 20 points ahead in the polls.   I agree this Sue Gray thing is a blunder though.  I realise Starmer's not popular on here but if he can maintain this sort of polling lead and destroy the Tories at the next election he'll have done us all an enormous favour.

Starmer could lead Labour to a swashbuckling victory at the next election, putting an end to the Tory shithousery that's been ongoing for years now and he still would get nothing more than grudging respect from certain sections of the Labour Party support.

The reason for that is because he's not Corbyn. In a weird way, Corbyn is like a Labour version of Boris when it comes to the weird hold he has over certain sections of that party.

[Lion_of_the_Midlands]

JC and the sunshine band Vs Bojo's horsemen of the apocalypse is the ideal battle for certain sections of each side of the political spectrum, and Bojo's side would definitely want it to be horsemen not horsethem.

[Devon Malcolm]

31 minutes ago, David said:

The reason for that is because he's not Corbyn. In a weird way, Corbyn is like a Labour version of Boris when it comes to the weird hold he has over certain sections of that party.

It's really not. You only need to spend 5 minutes researching Starmer's career to see that it's really, really not. But the country is happy to tolerate him for Anyone But Tories reasons and it gets what it deserves time and time again.

[Keith Houchen]

48 minutes ago, David said:

The reason for that is because he's not Corbyn. In a weird way, Corbyn is like a Labour version of Boris when it comes to the weird hold he has over certain sections of that party.

 

13 minutes ago, Devon Malcolm said:

It's really not. You only need to spend 5 minutes researching Starmer's career to see that it's really, really not. But the country is happy to tolerate him for Anyone But Tories reasons and it gets what it deserves time and time again.

It’s not because of Corbyn per se, more of what Corbyn represented. An actual chance for real change. Socially, economically, and politically. This was the lefts, and indeed the countries shot of having an end to the neoliberal status quo. But what we saw was the absolute demonising of a lifelong campaigner for change by the very hegemony he was a threat to. 
 

The establishment media and political class saw fit that won’t happen again. We saw how he is still smeared, thus his beliefs and principles smeared. We’ve seen how both Labour and Tory politicians alike praised him for his commitment to equality when he was a harmless backbencher and those same people now call him a racist. 
 

The reason the left don’t like Starmer is simply because he isn’t left himself. Why would we/they like him? He doesn’t represent our political beliefs, he doesn’t advocate for the change of a system that means we get to vote for two cheeks of the same arse and a broken system that ensures their control. 
 

There is an element of cult of personality with Corbyn, sure, but as he says “It’s not me they’re afraid of, it’s you”. There is no such thing as Corbynism, he is one of many left leaning politicians and leaders who have the same ideals. 
 

My main gripe with Starmer is he is a liar. A proven liar. He will lie about anything to get power. He wants to be in power, not be in office. That’s the wrong kind of red flag straight off the bat. Another thing that concerns me is in whose interests does he serve? Tin foil time perhaps but he was parachuted into a safe seat only in 2015 and was pretty much instantly in the shadow cabinet. He resigned over Corbyn, then took another shadow cabinet job under the same leader. His close relationship with the wretched Mandleson seals his untrustworthy mess for me. 
 

Im sure some people don’t like him because he isn’t Corbyn, but for reasons demonstrated above, and a ton of more reasons, it’s not the case for the majority at all. Corbyn scared the establishment, Starmer is the establishment. 

[Wideload90]

All of this Matt Hancock and Isobel Oakeshott fighting highlights how repulsive the lot of them are. Despite all this shit, those cunts are still trying to focus on small boats instead of the criminal behaviour of the Tory party over the last 3 years. 

Fucking shameful behaviour and the sooner these cunts are gone, the better. 

[JNLister]

Not posting this to say it's real or that it's fake, but rather that I couldn't even begin to guess if it's real, which is worrying in itself.

 

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1632401548641812480?t=BpNOoFnE486XQ5lOUiPXVQ&s=19

[David]

On 3/4/2023 at 1:37 PM, Keith Houchen said:

It’s not because of Corbyn per se, more of what Corbyn represented. An actual chance for real change. Socially, economically, and politically. This was the lefts, and indeed the countries shot of having an end to the neoliberal status quo. But what we saw was the absolute demonising of a lifelong campaigner for change by the very hegemony he was a threat to. 

Here's a question. Do you think Britain is a left wing country? I gave up on that notion long ago. Young people have left-leaning tendencies, but for the most part they grow up, get a mortgage, a decent job and either drift to the centre (like me, admittedly) or to the centre-right. 

I don't think the country wants real change. I think it just wants a run at something resembling "normal" where we don't have absolute loonballs with the keys to the kingdom.

This notion that those who dislike Corbyn are just morons who buy into what The Sun, Daily Mail, BBC etc tells them is a bit of a cop-out in my opinion. Most people except some sections of the elderly population know the mainstream media is, by and large, full of shit and driven by an agenda. 

I think people just don't want what he was looking to offer.

On 3/4/2023 at 1:37 PM, Keith Houchen said:

The reason the left don’t like Starmer is simply because he isn’t left himself. Why would we/they like him? He doesn’t represent our political beliefs, he doesn’t advocate for the change of a system that means we get to vote for two cheeks of the same arse and a broken system that ensures their control. 

I think that's also why the more central voters who wobble slightly to the left on some issues (again, like me) actually do quite like him. Well, we like him as much as you can like a career politician. I'm certainly not meeting him down the Sir John Moore for a beer if he's offering.

But, he's looking like he'll deliver what I think a lot of people in the country wants at the moment. And that isn't swinging changes to the political system, or an overhaul of how things are done.

What I want is a government that isn't absolutely fucking inept. I will admit, Sunak is a slight step in the right direction (I know, boo hiss etc) on that front when you look at the absolute lunacy we had during our very own "Trump moment." Starmer would be a logical next step.

To put it simply, I'm happy with Dyche coming in and steadying the ship. I don't need Bielsa blowing in and tearing up the rulebook and changing everything. 

 

[LaGoosh]

15 minutes ago, David said:

Young people have left-leaning tendencies, but for the most part they grow up, get a mortgage, a decent job and either drift to the centre (like me, admittedly) or to the centre-right. 

There's no such thing as a centrist. Centrist is just a term for someone with either no real opinion, too scared of real change, no interest or is actually just right wing and doesn't want to admit it to themselves. Which one are you?

Edited March 6, 2023 by LaGoosh

[BomberPat]

16 minutes ago, David said:

 Young people have left-leaning tendencies, but for the most part they grow up, get a mortgage, a decent job and either drift to the centre (like me, admittedly) or to the centre-right. 

It's a point of extreme optimism to believe that most young people in Britain are going to get a mortgage and a decent job. That is actually a major part of the substantial change that the country needs, and that a lot of people want.

It seems baffling to me that at a time when teachers, university staff, the country's transport infrastructure, doctors, nurses and ambulance drivers, and probably plenty of others I'm forgetting, are either on strike, have been on strike, or are about to go on strike, that people can, with a straight face, still say "there's no need for change, we just need more of the same but with someone slightly more boring in the top job". Even moreso when that's a defence of a Labour leader who can't even deign to offer support to striking workers.

The country needs change, and needs solutions, and Starmer isn't offering them. That's got nothing to do with Jeremy Corbyn. 

[Chest Rockwell]

I think people are of the opinion that a lack of corruption and ineptitude are enough to right the ship and that drastic change is not required. They perceive Starmer to represent those things (whether fairly so it not is another matter). The idea of drastic change is scary and no-one wants to admit to themselves that it might be required.

[David]

13 minutes ago, LaGoosh said:

There's no such thing as a centrist. Centrist is just a term for someone with either no real opinion, too scared of real change, no interest or is actually just right wing and doesn't want to admit it to themselves. Which one are you?

Well, there is such a thing as a centrist. It's defined as such:

 

Quote

In politics, centrism refers to the tendency to avoid political extremes by taking an ideologically intermediate position. A centrist promotes moderate policies by finding a middle ground between the left and the right and downplays ideological appeals in favor of a pragmatic or “catchall” party platform. Centrism can be seen as a means to maximize electoral support, especially among swing voters (those who will vote across party lines).

I think that is a pretty good description of a centrist.

6 minutes ago, Chest Rockwell said:

I think people are of the opinion that a lack of corruption and ineptitude are enough to right the ship and that drastic change is not required. They perceive Starmer to represent those things (whether fairly so it not is another matter). The idea of drastic change is scary and no-one wants to admit to themselves that it might be required.

I'd agree with that.

Another thing I'd probably point out is that this idea of drastic change being needed is all well and good, but I don't see any particular party that can realistically deliver on that. 

Looking at the realistic options we have available at the moment, I think Labour under Starmer is a good start to righting the ship and finally consigning the Boris era to the history books.

If someone or a particular party in the years to come can provide a viable and workable blueprint for the real change some are mentioning then it can be looked at and a discussion had when the time comes.

[Lion_of_the_Midlands]

32 minutes ago, LaGoosh said:

There's no such thing as a centrist. Centrist is just a term for someone with either no real opinion, too scared of real change, no interest or is actually just right wing and doesn't want to admit it to themselves. Which one are you?

This post here is why there is such a problem with politics not just in this country, but worldwide. It's all about picking your side and fighting the other side, not governing. I'm as guilty of it as the next man, but it has been so ingrained into us over the years that wanting real change looks like the end of civilization to the other side, and when that narrative is ground into us by every form of media that exists what chance of change is there. There are too many people making money out of the status quo to want any change to happen. Starmer is not the answer to what is needed, but we will never get anyone who will be unless there is a drastic change, and as Chest said people are not clamouring for that. 

[Keith Houchen]

1 hour ago, David said:

Here's a question. Do you think Britain is a left wing country?

Nope. But it could be given the youth having the opportunities their parents had disappear. You mention how people get less left wing once they get a job and a mortgage but those jobs and mortgages aren’t there. 
 

I totally understand how Starmer is a better option than what we have but that is part of the problem. When I say I want rid of the tories, I want rid of the whole electoral and political system that ensures they are our only options. 
 

I accept that I’m in a fringe minority and what I want doesn’t get achieved by voting alone, but I’d be happier with a far more representative democracy than what we have and will continue to have. 

[BomberPat]

"an ideologically intermediate position between two extremes" isn't a meaningful position when those two extremes are liable to shift, though. Finding a middle ground or compromise between two positions sounds like the mature and sensible option, but rarely is. At risk of evoking Godwinn's Law, there's a moment in the film Denial when the character of Deborah Lipstadt is encouraged to settle out of court with David Irving rather than allow him to pursue a libel case against her for calling him a holocaust denier, and she asks, "settle on what? Two million Jews? Four million?". 

In many issues the middle ground is a fallacy. When the right-wing in America are attempting to dial back women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, civil rights, and any representation of those people in media or education, and what passes for a left-wing in that country are fighting against those efforts, what's the "centrist" position? What's the compromise? "Okay, you can keep some of your rights?".

A position defined by what it isn't is, by definition, not an ideological position. 

[Keith Houchen]

7 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

In many issues the middle ground is a fallacy. When the right-wing in America are attempting to dial back women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, civil rights, and any representation of those people in media or education, and what passes for a left-wing in that country are fighting against those efforts, what's the "centrist" position? What's the compromise? "Okay, you can keep some of your rights?".

A position defined by what it isn't is, by definition, not an ideological position. 

Bang on. 
 

My ideals and principles haven’t really changed over the last, say, 20 years. But the Overton Window has. What is a “Centrist position” today would have been a right wing position 20 years ago. And that’s what annoys me about party politics, politics is all about compromise but where is that line drawn? What Labour represent now are very similar to the tories of the 90s and 00s. But if you wouldn’t tolerate that position back then, why tolerate it now because a team wearing a different kit adopt it?