carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 51,017 
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 12, 2014 23:55:41 GMT
Possibly Joe, because even rather nice reasonable people can be stung into just the sort of blind anger that I felt myself and which drove me out of your party. The blind opposition to devolution or having Devo-Max on the Referendum: followed by a snivelling scuttle and brown-nosing appeal near the end that was sickening and unnecessary? Because of a snide and dishonest campaign against AV: followed by a whining plaintive desire for tactical voting that AV would have facilitated? Possibly because a cast-iron Referendum guarantee was welched on once he was in power? Possibly because an outright promise to have a vote on the European Arrest Warrant was welched on by a new 'cunning plan' dreamed up by another person starting with 'cun.'! Take your choice Joe. The man is a serial liar and cheat and two-faced inadequate, posing as a PM....and not very well. We shall be rid of him in May and so luckily for you...will the party. It is a measure of the gross turpitude of Cameron and his clique that it reduces a decent James to language he will regret because as you say "It is not him". It was not James speaking but the pain of all of us who loath the very guts of the duplicitous two-faced Cameroon Conservatives. Please help us to rid your once honest party of this sickness next year. While I agree with your the shambles upin Scotland I totally and utterly disagree as regards AV. That argument does not make sense. Just because you are against preferential voting does not mean that you shouldn't look for tactical votes or try to get voters to gang up on an opponent. I am set against AV - were at the time before ukip were really on the map and would happily try to get labour voters to vote Con tactically. As for Europe. I would vote out but think that Cameron would do what he did in Scotland. Think he would win by a mile, shit his pants at the last second and promise something substantial then not deliver it. I don't think he would cancel the referendum. You hate Cameron - thats fair enough, but managed to keep it civil. Thanks for that polite and detailed response Joe. I really do not trust Cameron over having a Referendum and think he is well up to seeking a plausible reason to go back on the promise if it suits his purposes and his main interests in supporting the City and global businesses. The blind unreason and untruths of the anti-AV campaign are my complaint. He severely damaged his coalition partners and the coalition goodwill over this and has stupidly ended up with no redistribution of seats and no second preferences from many UKIP and LibDem voters. It will nearly certainly cost him the election. Entirely his own stubborn wrong-headed fault. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2014 0:15:51 GMT
While I agree with your the shambles upin Scotland I totally and utterly disagree as regards AV. That argument does not make sense. Just because you are against preferential voting does not mean that you shouldn't look for tactical votes or try to get voters to gang up on an opponent. I am set against AV - were at the time before ukip were really on the map and would happily try to get labour voters to vote Con tactically. As for Europe. I would vote out but think that Cameron would do what he did in Scotland. Think he would win by a mile, shit his pants at the last second and promise something substantial then not deliver it. I don't think he would cancel the referendum. You hate Cameron - thats fair enough, but managed to keep it civil. Thanks for that polite and detailed response Joe. I really do not trust Cameron over having a Referendum and think he is well up to seeking a plausible reason to go back on the promise if it suits his purposes and his main interests in supporting the City and global businesses. The blind unreason and untruths of the anti-AV campaign are my complaint. He severely damaged his coalition partners and the coalition goodwill over this and has stupidly ended up with no redistribution of seats and no second preferences from many UKIP and LibDem voters. It will nearly certainly cost him the election. Entirely his own stubborn wrong-headed fault. I thought so at one point, but labour are in very serious difficulty at the moment. Its looking a bit difficult to envisage a Miliband government, and we have to have one of the two. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 51,017
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 13, 2014 0:18:19 GMT
Thanks for that polite and detailed response Joe. I really do not trust Cameron over having a Referendum and think he is well up to seeking a plausible reason to go back on the promise if it suits his purposes and his main interests in supporting the City and global businesses. The blind unreason and untruths of the anti-AV campaign are my complaint. He severely damaged his coalition partners and the coalition goodwill over this and has stupidly ended up with no redistribution of seats and no second preferences from many UKIP and LibDem voters. It will nearly certainly cost him the election. Entirely his own stubborn wrong-headed fault. I thought so at one point, but labour are in very serious difficulty at the moment. Its looking a bit difficult to envisage a Miliband government, and we have to have one of the two. Are you seriously contending that Cameron will end with more seats than Labour? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2014 0:30:56 GMT
I thought so at one point, but labour are in very serious difficulty at the moment. Its looking a bit difficult to envisage a Miliband government, and we have to have one of the two. Are you seriously contending that Cameron will end with more seats than Labour? Just about - yes. It won't be a good result for either party though. More than possible than forming a stable government will be nearimpossible. I do wonder if a Lab-LD-SNP coalition could be on? |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 51,017
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 13, 2014 1:17:40 GMT
Are you seriously contending that Cameron will end with more seats than Labour? Just about - yes. It won't be a good result for either party though. More than possible than forming a stable government will be nearimpossible. I do wonder if a Lab-LD-SNP coalition could be on? The inability to gain seats in Scotland or conurbations coupled with the effect of UKIP intrusion to key marginals will dish any chances for you. So, contention must be that more minor intrusion by UKIP on Labour prospects in South coupled with major damage by SNP on them in Scotland will be even worse than for you? If so. forget it. You will be the major sufferers even if UKIP have a very small haul in actual seats. You are facing a shed load of losses because of us. Labour will win outright or with an agreement on confidence and supply. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2014 10:37:37 GMT
Sorry, couldn't reply to this last night as I had a long planning meeting. Cameron wants people to vote tactically for the Tories? The same Cameron who opposed AV which would have allowed people to make their choices sensibly, and not know their vote was wasted? That Cameron? You know what. Fuck him, and fuck his stupid party that wants to benefit from being voters' second choice, but wants to deny that to us the rest of the time. As a Conservative supporter and an advocate of open list PR, I hope you're not including all of us in this generalisation. Do you have the same view of the 13 million people who voted against AV, many of whom view AV as even less proportional than FPTP? Fair point, swan - although I did say party, not members, it's easy to conflate the two, and I might have been clearer there. I know there are Tories who want PR, although they seem to be visible on sites like this, and not necesssarily out there in the real world - I've never yet met a Tory face to face to supports voting reform! On your second point - I agree AV isn't proportional, but it is preferential, and that is what Cameron is asking for here: preferential voting, just omitting the first choice. Cameron wants people to vote tactically for the Tories? The same Cameron who opposed AV which would have allowed people to make their choices sensibly, and not know their vote was wasted? That Cameron? You know what. Fuck him, and fuck his stupid party that wants to benefit from being voters' second choice, but wants to deny that to us the rest of the time. Why have you changed from being a pleasant reasonable poster with plenty of good points to being a total something or other in the space of a couple of weeks? We don't use words like "fuck him and fuck his stupid party" on here regardless of how much we do or don't like people. This isn't the Daily Mirror comments page. We all have very different opinions and to get on we need to be a lot more civil than that. You are a nice chap and normally farbetter than this. OK, long answer(s). There are lots of different people in the Conservative party. with lots of different characteristics, but some characteristics are much more prevalent, and en bloc they create the overall mentality/psychology of the party. There are three which I think are governing factors: stupidity, arrogance and hypocrisy. Stupidity is, as I've posted elsewhere, demonstrated by the wilful ability to ignore evidence. I could point to Gove on education, Lansley on health, pretty much all Tory thinking on the economy, pretty much all Tory thinking on climate change, but badger culling is an easy one: the scientific evidence before the decision to cull was that it was a bad idea, but Paterson ignored that and went ahead. The evidence after the trial was that it hadn't worked, but Paterson carried on ignoring the evidence and declared the trial a success and carried on. This is stupid. The Tories are stupid on the voting system because, despite all the evidence that the system is skewed towards Labour because of differential turnout, they insist that it's due to constituency size and boundaries. So, your party is stupid. I called your party stupid in my original post that you disliked so much because Cameron's attitude ignores the fact that his actions have put his party and candidate in this position; and now he thinks it's someone else's job to sort it out. This stupidity of the right comes to its acme in the US Republican Party - whose badge, I note, you seem to be proud to bear. The Tory party has a streak of arrogance: 'we should be in charge, because we, and our our ideas, are naturally best.' Part of this springs from stupidity, because not looking at evidence tend to make everyone think they are naturally right. But I've seen this at close hand at local level over twenty years, and it's evident at national level as well, in the offhand way in which Tories treat opposition ideas - such ideas can't be right because they're not Tory ideas. This can change over time - last night I heard several (young) Tory councillors at my planning meeting express surprise that anyone could consider certain housing issues in a particular way, although I've spent two decades fighting previous generations of Tory councillors who did consider things that way. [On a side note, my views are inevitably coloured byn the fact that te Tories are active in Worthing and Labour not: perhaps Labour are as bad elsewhere, but I don't get to see it. This is why I don't comment so much on Labour, I don't have the evidence (see above).] It's evident in the fact that Cameron is arrogantly assuming that other parties would naturally prefer a Tory to a kipper in R&S. It's like looking at the stars in Orion: for someone near Bellatrix, Betelgeuse is a long way away, but from here on Earth, Betelgeuse and Bellatrix appear very close. Substitute Bellatrix for the Tories, Betelgeuse for UKIP, and Earth for the rest of us, and that's why we don't see you as any different, or better, than UKIP. And arrogance comes to the fore in your response to me - your reaction is that something's changed with me, not that there could be anything wrong with Cameron's appeal for tactical voting which might actually cause some upset. You actually say in a later post to someone else that you don't see anything wrong with opposing preferential voting but asking for it here - how arrogant is that? LibDems, Greens, UKIP - all want voting reform; so it's not unreasonable for those parties to ask for tactical votes because it's just an implicit form of the same thing. But it is entirely unreasonable for Tories to ask for tactical votes, and it's utterly arrogant - and stupid - of them not to realise what they are doing. Hypocrisy: the Tories, in my experience are masters at saying one thing and doing another. And again, Cameron is being utterly hypocritical here. Do not forget that Cameron actively opposed AV, which is implicitly what he's asking for here. Effectively, his attitude has been 'letting people indicate several choices is a bad idea - except when a Conservative might lose to someone I don't like, in which case it should be obvious to people that we are their second best choice, and so they should use that choice.' I am, I hope, a reasonable person most of the time. I look for evidence to support my case; when I find evidence that goes against my views, as on shared use cycling & pedestrians versus segregated cycle lanes, I change my views. On here, there are many occasions where I disagree with posts, but don't respond, because I don't want to post and say 'you're wrong' without evidence, and I know that I don't have the time to dig out the evidence. But don't mistake that for lack of passion. I am in politics because I am passionate about things I think need to change, and sometimes, the only way to express that passion is through vivid language. Part of the reason I feel so strongly is that, if I lived in Rochester, I might have considered voting Conservative to stop UKIP - but that would be my choice. it is not for someone like Cameron to tell, ask, or expect me to vote as he wants me to - so I say 'fuck him', because I want to express how much I refuse to bow to his arrogant, hypocritical, stupid demands. And I say 'fuck his party' because under this voting system I can't say no to Cameron without saying no to the Conservatives. And you know what? Do we not use bad language on here? I refer you to Armchair Critic, passim. But then he's a Tory, so that's all right by you and you wouldn't call him on that, would you. My post got ten likes, nearly a record for me. I think that demonstrates that quite a few people see the reasons for my strength of feeling. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Nov 14, 2014 1:48:25 GMT
In the case of AC, he's like that in real life. I've been down the pub with him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Nov 14, 2014 12:33:25 GMT
Bookies already paying out on UKIP victory:
See Daily Express report. My copy and paste facility has been messed up by Apple's iOs 8.1 update.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 14, 2014 12:42:01 GMT
Bookies do things like that to get their names in the papers.
|
|
|
|
Post by timokane on Nov 14, 2014 15:27:45 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2014 18:22:16 GMT
The straight choice Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Nov 14, 2014 18:24:48 GMT
There seems to be a spooky echo down the by election time tunnel.... |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 14, 2014 18:49:05 GMT
I like the bit where it says Reckless is rubbish because "he studied politics at Oxford". Yes, that's proof positive that he's a complete idiot, unlike our great Prime Minister. |
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Nov 14, 2014 18:55:21 GMT
This leaflet would have worked better if we hadn't mentioned Reckless at all and removed 'Straight Choice' from it! The positives are fine as they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 14, 2014 19:14:23 GMT
General Boles's version:  |
|
|
|
Post by troubadour on Nov 14, 2014 23:31:38 GMT
These used to say "born and educated" not "went to school".
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Nov 15, 2014 12:01:26 GMT
I like the bit where it says Reckless is rubbish because "he studied politics at Oxford". Yes, that's proof positive that he's a complete idiot, unlike our great Prime Minister. This is just...I don't know what to say, I involuntarily shook my head when I read it. |
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Nov 15, 2014 17:14:09 GMT
Its a good thing that the Prime Minister never tried to become the Tory candidate in this area, clearly he would have been quite unsuitable  |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Nov 15, 2014 21:15:02 GMT
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 51,017
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 15, 2014 21:55:58 GMT
Find me a Junior Tory. I want to know what the younger intake think. At what age, or after how many years service does one aspire to the title 'senior', and when does that morph into 'elder statesman', and yet again into 'big beast'? Who will start a new cliche of 'a slack-jawed, loose taking Tory nonentity told me today', or 'a Tory I have frankly never heard of at all said'? |
|
