Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Which Tyler

UK Politics - You can't correct a mistake, if you don't admit it was a mistake

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, ants said:

There was a really interesting statistic in Australia back when smoking ads were allowed. There was a period where different brands sponsored the major sports differently across different states. Research into the demographics of smokers showed that young smokers' choice of cigarettes aligned with the advertising in their state. 

So it absolutely has an effect. 

More interesting is how cigarette company profits actually went up when they banned television advertising, because they were spending so much less. Advertising is much more about market share than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bale's Bald Spot said:

I really don't know why people in this thread continue to engage the far-right trolls.

Sigh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the Labour party has been brought up as a response to why Tory corruption is tolerated:

One of the ways in which it works is that Tory supporters have been convinced that "all politicians" are equally as corrupt, and that therefore they should just accept and ignore the corruption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bale's Bald Spot said:

I really don't know why people in this thread continue to engage the far-right trolls.

For voicing a reason why one might vote Tory? That’s where you draw the line, anyone there and right of that can only be a troll?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

What does it say about the alternative is the better question 

It's a different question. It's even a valid question. But it really actually isn't a better question. Because looked at with any objectivity, the data does not support the idea that Conservative voters are supporting that party because they are just so utterly scunnered with Labour. Rather, it's the other way around: they reject Labour because they believe the Tories represent their values. Yet the Tories' behaviour is at odds with many of those professed values. So genuinely, the better question is, why do voters continue to look past the Tories' serial failures?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Bale's Bald Spot said:

I really don't know why people in this thread continue to engage the far-right trolls.

Oh come on, much as I like you as a poster, if we’re in the territory where Heartofice’s relatively lukewarm defence of the Tories is far-right we’ve definitely jumped the shark. He’s also not a troll, he has the decency to defend his views, which is more than can be said about some of the other drive-by attack posters we now see in this thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, mormonte said:

It's a different question. It's even a valid question. But it really actually isn't a better question. Because looked at with any objectivity, the data does not support the idea that Conservative voters are supporting that party because they are just so utterly scunnered with Labour. Rather, it's the other way around: they reject Labour because they believe the Tories represent their values. Yet the Tories' behaviour is at odds with many of those professed values. So genuinely, the better question is, why do voters continue to look past the Tories' serial failures?

I think it’s relevant that Labour are not offering a viable alternative to many voters at time when the Tories give them so many open goals. 
 

Really I think Brexit is at the heart of a lot of this. Voters are willing to over look many of the things that the press seem to think are big issues (curtains) because when it comes to the big issues the Tories seem to be the party that take the same position as them. Boris delivered Brexit in the face of a remainer parliament determined to undermine it, and that is taking him a long way. 
 

I doubt many voters are especially happy about Tory sleaze, but Labour is still struggling to not be seen as the party of middle class lefty students who sound like Owen Jones ( even if he wants Starmer out).

But mostly the Tories offer an optimistic view of Britain that is positive and proud of itself, something Labour have half heartedly attempted by standing in front of flags , but really still wants to please it’s progressive left wing and that means agreeing with a number of positions that will be unpopular with old red wall voters

Edited by Heartofice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, mormonte said:

Because looked at with any objectivity, the data does not support the idea that Conservative voters are supporting that party because they are just so utterly scunnered with Labour. Rather, it's the other way around: they reject Labour because they believe the Tories represent their values. Yet the Tories' behaviour is at odds with many of those professed values. So genuinely, the better question is, why do voters continue to look past the Tories' serial failures?

I don’t believe that is true, but if you have any evidence I’d be interested to see it. I think the opposite is true, based on my political judgement and the data presented in The Fall of the Red Wall by Steve Rayson. Lots of new Tory voters seem to shamefully say their relatives would be turning in their graves, and they retain socialist views on the economy, but Labour is so abhorrent to them that they vote Tory by default.

Edited by Hereward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A wilding said:

Since the Labour party has been brought up as a response to why Tory corruption is tolerated:

One of the ways in which it works is that Tory supporters have been convinced that "all politicians" are equally as corrupt, and that therefore they should just accept and ignore the corruption.

Maybe they have a point? In the former Labour north, almost all of their local politicians will have been Labour all their lives. If your experience is with politicians in charge of planning, contracts, etc, is of Labour politicians, and bearing in mind that any sociopath on the take would logically stand for the dominant party, why would you not think they’re all corrupt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I think it’s relevant that Labour are not offering a viable alternative to many voters at time when the Tories give them so many open goals. 
 

Really I think Brexit is at the heart of a lot of this. Voters are willing to over look many of the things that the press seem to think are big issues (curtains) because when it comes to the big issues the Tories seem to be the party that take the same position as them. Boris delivered Brexit in the face of a remainer parliament determined to undermine it, and that is taking him a long way. 
 

I doubt many voters are especially happy about Tory sleaze, but Labour is still struggling to not be seen as the party of middle class lefty students who sound like Owen Jones ( even if he wants Starmer out).

But mostly the Tories offer an optimistic view of Britain that is positive and proud of itself, something Labour have half heartedly attempted by standing in front of flags , but really still wants to please it’s progressive left wing and that means agreeing with a number of positions that will be unpopular with old red wall voters

Leaving aside my utter contempt for Brexit, and the current Conservative Party, there is some truth to what you say. It reminds me of the 1983 election, when, despite an economic catastrophe, when despite even Michael Foot’s principled, yet unpopular, desire for a peaceful solution, Labour became associated with the Benn-Corbyn gleeful position of backing a fascist government taking control of British subjects because that’s what Britain deserved. It was electorally disastrous then and it hasn’t changed much since. Foot never forgave him, by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On top of all that there’s the whole thing that the Tories have managed to move left economically while staying socially conservative which broadly matches many old Labour voters. 
 

Then Labour is really going to struggle to ever move even a touch right on social issues because there will be enough of their base that thinks that equates to being ‘far right’

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bale's Bald Spot said:

I really don't know why people in this thread continue to engage the far-right trolls.

Eh, such engagement to an extent is a performance wherein some see a chance to demonstrate their brainpower through breaking down an obvious absurdity with facts, and statistics and actual evidence to ground their reason.

many trolls understand that simply framing themselves as someone who needs to be convinced rather than ignored can be useful.

A favored tool of right wing trolls I find to be the use of relativism.

Whose to say the obvious bigoted thing is truly bigoted? We don’t know can’t read anyone’s mind!

Whose to say wanting to keep your country white is racist? 

The question being maddening is the point and thus the reason to ask.

42 minutes ago, Hereward said:

Oh come on, much as I like you as a poster, if we’re in the territory where Heartofice’s relatively lukewarm defence of the Tories is far-right we’ve definitely jumped the shark. He’s also not a troll, he has the decency to defend his views, which is more than can be said about some of the other drive-by attack posters we now see in this thread. 

I do not think the poster is merely looking at this particular interaction to make that assessment.

I do not think a person who would sneer the BBC as being leftist or posit a person wanting to keep their country white isn’t racist, is that moderate IMO.

 I think you’re underestimating the time and effort trolls could give to their trolling.

And I think it’s a mistake automatically view defending ones views as decent action.

Depends on the views.

I’ve seen American conservative be calm and give a “polite” when arguing against the existence of individual rights and argue for the legitimacy of castrating gay people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

On top of all that there’s the whole thing that the Tories have managed to move left economically while staying socially conservative which broadly matches many old Labour voters. 
 

Then Labour is really going to struggle to ever move even a touch right on social issues because there will be enough of their base that thinks that equates to being ‘far right’

Hmmm, the right does to be collectivist on social issues so it would may entail departure from a more individualistic view of people.

Which eh can be a slippery slope IMO.

First it’s the banning trans kids from getting their medical care next it’s back to talking about making gay marriage being illegal.

Gotta present as the most anti woke or whatever.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Labour’s lack of credible opposition does seem to be leading Scotland, Northern Ireland, and perhaps Wales, to leave the union. 
I was infavour of No during the 2014 referendum. Definitely leaning Yes now, because of Brexit and the current Tory clown car.

Fuck me, but had the Profumo scandal been today, he’d have apologised for not tipping the sex workers, and BoJo woukd have accepted that. And told the country to move on.

Edited by Derfel Cadarn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DaveSumm said:

For voicing a reason why one might vote Tory? That’s where you draw the line, anyone there and right of that can only be a troll?

Eh. I don’t think that’s a fair criteria to have for “troll”

I do think people can be too quick to use that label. Some times people could just have horrible views or give awful explanations with complete sincerity.

I think the sincerity of the words can be less important in terms of the actual impact they have to an extent.

Jordan Peterson fear mongered about getting jail time due to misgendering someone in Canada. His basis for thinking so? A bill to make gender identity a protected class. 
 

From what I understand he was completely genuine in his hysteria. But that doesn’t lessen the negative impact his hyperventilating had on others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Eh, such engagement to an extent is a performance wherein some see a chance to demonstrate their brainpower through breaking down an obvious absurdity with facts, and statistics and actual evidence to ground their reason.

many trolls understand that simply framing themselves as someone who needs to be convinced rather than ignored can be useful.

A favored tool of right wing trolls I find to be the use of relativism.

Whose to say the obvious bigoted thing is truly bigoted? We don’t know can’t read anyone’s mind!

Whose to say wanting to keep your country white is racist? 

The question being maddening is the point and thus the reason to ask.

I do not think the poster is merely looking at this particular interaction to make that assessment.

I do not think a person who would sneer the BBC as being leftist or posit a person wanting to keep their country white isn’t racist, is that moderate IMO.

 I think you’re underestimating the time and effort trolls could give to their trolling.

And I think it’s a mistake automatically view defending ones views as decent action.

Depends on the views.

I worked for the BBC for 25 years, in the last 10 in a senior position, and it absolutely is, if not left-wing, then ultra liberal, finding it difficult to understand views it does not share. I have been involved in multiple internal editorial discussions about that very issue. Criticism is valid. That said, the BBC is still a (tarnished) jewel in our crown and I love it.

Lastly, I often disagree with HoI, but I think accepting it as a given that he is in favour of white supremacy, especially as says he is not white himself, is insulting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Hereward said:

Lastly, I often disagree with HoI, but I think accepting it as a given that he is in favour of white supremacy, especially as says he is not white himself, is insulting.

Hmm you seem  to think a person having a certain racial identity can preclude someone from being under a specific ideology.

Which is unwise.
There are gay homophobes, misogynistic women, and nazi Jews.

Can you see why “he’s not white!” Isn’t really a good defense for someone being a white supremacist?

Also would like to state I didn’t accuse anyone here of being a white supremcist.

Merely posited that a person who thinks it’s not racist to think it’s okay to want you’re country to remain white probably isn’t a moderate.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hereward said:

Maybe they have a point? In the former Labour north, almost all of their local politicians will have been Labour all their lives. If your experience is with politicians in charge of planning, contracts, etc, is of Labour politicians, and bearing in mind that any sociopath on the take would logically stand for the dominant party, why would you not think they’re all corrupt?

Certainly there is some corruption in politicians of all parties, and it tends to be particularly prevalent in local government where one party has a long held dominant position.

But I think it would be very difficult to argue with a straight face that Johnson's government does not represent a step change in brazen behaviour at the national level, and I am concerned that an absence of consequences for it is likely to have a seriously damaging effect on UK politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...