All Tories Are Cunts thread

[LaGoosh]

48 minutes ago, Lion_of_the_Midlands said:

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 never said being a centrist was necessarily a bad thing or that side picking should be prioritised over progress, more that I don't believe it's a genuine political view. If anything being a centrist means having an absence of political view. Which is fine as long as it doesn't make things worse or allow a space for dangerous, self-destructive right wing forces to grow unchecked *checks last 20 years of UK history*.

Starmer is essentially a centrist, or at least presents as one. Other centrists like him. I have no idea what any of them stand for or believe in or want other than "let's basically keep everything the same just slightly less obviously mental".

Edited March 6, 2023 by LaGoosh

[Lion_of_the_Midlands]

30 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. 

What you've done is confuse morality and politics and they are not natural bedfellows. There is no right and left on these subjects, there is right and wrong. People on both sides of the political spectrum both support and oppose the rights you mention. The repeal of these things appeals to the right, so they make them political.

[David]

46 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

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. 

Not to sound harsh here, as I do respect and agree with much of what you say, but it's part of the problem in your opinion. You want rid of the Tories and the whole electoral and political system that is currently in place, and that's fine. But you won't get that so long as you're part of the fringe minority, unfortunately.

There's absolutely things that I'd love to see changed as well, but in the here & now I'm being realistic in what can actually be done. And while while it's not the groundbreaking shift that some people want, a shift from the Conservatives in their current guise to Labour under Starmer is a move in the right direction in my opinion. 

21 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

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?

Because it's a different world? Times change. The goalposts shift. Personally, I'm concerned with the here & now, not how much alike Starmer is to John Major back in the day. I compare him to the opposition of today, and in that comparison he wins every single time.

[Keith Houchen]

3 minutes ago, David said:

Not to sound harsh here, as I do respect and agree with much of what you say, but it's part of the problem in your opinion. You want rid of the Tories and the whole electoral and political system that is currently in place, and that's fine. But you won't get that so long as you're part of the fringe minority, unfortunately.

Nothing harsh about it, fella, it’s exactly an opinion!  For me, what a step in the right direction is a more representative democracy. Now I know it wouldn’t suit my politics but look at UKIP under Farage. They had something like 4 million votes at one general election but won no seats. That’s four million people who had no representation despite casting their vote. That’s a huge section of the electorate. A form of proportional representation would be an improvement on what we have currently in my opinion. 
 

It has its critics who say nothing would ever get done but I disagree. I probably altruisticly and / or foolishly believe PR would lead to better, more skilled politicians. Politics is about compromise and negotiation and I honestly think we essentially have coalition governments now. The tories is a coalition of three different groups, Labour probably the same (although with Starmers purges who knows for how long) all horse trading with each other for support so I don’t think it would be inconceivable. 
 

So when I advocate for a change in political system, that’s the sort of thing I mean. It’s me compromising on my beliefs but not betraying my beliefs. I believe it’s a far more representative democracy than what we have currently. 

[Lion_of_the_Midlands]

4 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

It’s me compromising on my beliefs but not betraying my beliefs

Compromise is dirty word in politics these days, it's seen as a weakness. 

[Loki]

There may not be a centrist ideology but there is certainly a centre ground in politics, and it’s where most of the electorate sit and most elections are won.

I liked much of the Corbyn manifesto, but not all.  I don’t regard myself as left wing but neither am I a Conservative so that puts me in the centre ground.

 Like a lot of voters I don’t feel any inclination to tie myself to a particular team.  What I personally like is evidence-based policies that look to solve problems, and whether they come from the left or the right team doesn’t matter.

 You may not consider this a genuine political view but it’s a common one and imo no less valid than an intensely ideologically based one.

[Keith Houchen]

21 minutes ago, Lion_of_the_Midlands said:

Compromise is dirty word in politics these days, it's seen as a weakness. 

Another thing wrong with politics today  it’s gotten much worse because of Brexit, and Johnson trying to be Churchill. 

[BomberPat]

6 minutes ago, Loki said:

There may not be a centrist ideology but there is certainly a centre ground in politics, and it’s where most of the electorate sit and most elections are won.

I liked much of the Corbyn manifesto, but not all.  I don’t regard myself as left wing but neither am I a Conservative so that puts me in the centre ground.

 Like a lot of voters I don’t feel any inclination to tie myself to a particular team.  What I personally like is evidence-based policies that look to solve problems, and whether they come from the left or the right team doesn’t matter.

 You may not consider this a genuine political view but it’s a common one and imo no less valid than an intensely ideologically based one.

I think this is all perfectly rational - I don't expect any single political party to produce a manifesto that directly maps across all of my personal beliefs, and I'd honestly be slightly suspicious of anyone who did find that a party apparently matched to everything they believed in. When we talk about politics being compromise, that's at the heart of it to me - who meets enough of the criteria that I'd be prepared to vote for them, even if it's through gritted teeth. This discussion started with Starmer, and that's the problem for me - he has given me no reason to vote for him other than the fact that he wears a red rosette, but if that red rosette ceases to represent anything that I believe in, it can't count on my vote. 

So, yes, most peoples views fall somewhere between left and right wing positions. I think that's why a lot of liberal politics succeed in the long run - because being a person of colour, being gay, or being trans, isn't a political position, it's an essential part of someone's being, and while the right-wing are more broadly arraigned against those people, there are right-wing gays, right-wing trans people, right-wing people of colour, so sooner or later the liberal position "wins" because too few people care enough to fight against it. That's a good thing, but it's not inspiring politics.

The point is that people's views being more nuanced than "right" and "left", and that most people have a smattering of opinions from across the spectrum and, to be honest, simply don't care about the vast majority of issues, doesn't mean that those people slot nicely together into a central position or that the way to win those people over is to appeal to a mythical centre. I've never believed in the vaunted electability of a centrist position, because we're not living in a country that saw Change UK surge to victory, and the Lib Dems are a complete non-factor.

Basically, people's beliefs are scattered across all political positions, but that doesn't map to "centrism" as a definable political position. 

[LaGoosh]

7 minutes ago, Loki said:

There may not be a centrist ideology but there is certainly a centre ground in politics, and it’s where most of the electorate sit and most elections are won.

I liked much of the Corbyn manifesto, but not all.  I don’t regard myself as left wing but neither am I a Conservative so that puts me in the centre ground.

 Like a lot of voters I don’t feel any inclination to tie myself to a particular team.  What I personally like is evidence-based policies that look to solve problems, and whether they come from the left or the right team doesn’t matter.

 You may not consider this a genuine political view but it’s a common one and imo no less valid than an intensely ideologically based one.

I don't think people are necessarily required to have a political view that they live and die on nor have I said at any point people should take sides. Centre ground is fine and indeed where most people do and should sit. Most centre ground people fit into the mostly pretty left wing but not full socialist camp anyway. 

But when politicians start using the Centrist label alarm bells should start ringing because it usually means they are either a soft Tory or clueless. 

[Lion_of_the_Midlands]

Johnson is Churchill, the dog not the politician. Do you want a £800000 loan? Oh Yes. Will you tell us how many children you have? Oh no no no. 

[David]

2 minutes ago, LaGoosh said:

I don't think people are necessarily required to have a political view that they live and die on nor have I said at any point people should take sides. Centre ground is fine and indeed where most people do and should sit. Most centre ground people fit into the mostly pretty left wing but not full socialist camp anyway. 

But when politicians start using the Centrist label alarm bells should start ringing because it usually means they are either a soft Tory or clueless. 

You didn't think the centre ground was fine earlier on in the discussion though. You said there's no such thing as a centrist. You claimed 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.

Now you think that most centre ground people fit into the mostly pretty left wing but not full socialist camp? 

[Loki]

8 minutes ago, LaGoosh said:

I don't think people are necessarily required to have a political view that they live and die on nor have I said at any point people should take sides.  

Fair enough, I must have misinterpreted this then - 

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?

That very much reads like you want David to either be right-wing or admit to being scared of change, whereas he’s just not got a political view he’s going to live or die on!

 

[David]

1 minute ago, Loki said:

Fair enough, I must have misinterpreted this then - 

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?

That very much reads like you want David to either be right-wing or admit to being scared of change, whereas he’s just not got a political view he’s going to live or die on!

Which is bizarre, as in the post before that quote I actually mention generally centrist voters who wobble slightly to the left on some issues and state that this is where I usually stand.

[LaGoosh]

11 minutes ago, Loki said:

Fair enough, I must have misinterpreted this then - 

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?

That very much reads like you want David to either be right-wing or admit to being scared of change, whereas he’s just not got a political view he’s going to live or die on!

 

Yeah that's fair, I haven't expressed myself particularly clearly. Basically BomberPat put what I meant perfectly in his post above:

24 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

Basically, people's beliefs are scattered across all political positions, but that doesn't map to "centrism" as a definable political position. 

Edited March 6, 2023 by LaGoosh

[Carbomb]

There would most likely be a lot less hostility or opposition from the left towards centrists or the notion of centrism if said centrists hadn't spent the past few years essentially making out that they consider the left to be a greater threat to this country than the Tories. Prior to that, there might have been some consideration that the centre and the left could be allies and find a compromise.

Edited March 6, 2023 by Carbomb