Are you seriously claiming that the ever-growing influence of PC represents a movement to the *Right*? :wacko:

 

To expand on this : I don't think anyone would disagree that political correctness has leftist roots, or that it's effects have been increasing over time - so to declare me wrong, you must therefore believe that right-wing influences have overridden that.

 

So, which influences would those be?

 

Wut.

 

 

No. Check policies. What was the centre is now seen as left by the papers and press. Look!!

 

 

The UK has gradually shifted right in politics.

 

Political correctness actually has little to do with left/ right wing and is part of the culture wars, if anything, rather than policy.

Literally 50% of the electorate supports left wing parties - just the vote on the left is ALWAYS split so why this disgusting government is pushing even FURTHER to the right and pushing alt right twats like Reese Mogg is just bizarre.

Literally 50% of the electorate supports left wing parties - just the vote on the left is ALWAYS split

 

Only if you count the LD's as leftist? :huh:

Yeah, Vid's right for once, the LDs aren't left economically although perhaps in the bast*rdised definition of left to mean anything progressive then they're more towards that side than not.

 

While I consider the differences between Lib and Lab unimportant that I'm happy supporting both parties, I know full well there are many voters of both who would balk at voting for the other, and until that's not the case, you can't really call it a divided left that would be winning if they weren't.

 

Unless you're just talking in anti-Tory terms, in which case by all means...

Good point.

 

Lib Dems are WAY too right wing for me.

 

Gross party that climbed into the Etonian Tory bed at the first sight of power

 

 

STOP THE PRESSES

 

Forget about those fake establishment polls

 

Survation has a Tory COLLAPSE. Bye bye Mad May!

 

Mad May meanwhile is INSISTING that the public WANTS her to stay!!

 

Um, no, no we don't x

 

She's obviously being fed that line by His Highness, Lord and King of All Murdoch

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labo...surges-12165233

 

I sitll think Labour's coming for a 50% win - and they absolutely WOULD have done if we didn't have such a disgustingly manipulative propaganda machine run by a handful of billionaires that people like to call the press .,.. and the BBTory, where one of its executives was photoed at a luncheon with Murdoch and Tories just days ago.

I sitll think Labour's coming for a 50% win - and they absolutely WOULD have done if we didn't have such a disgustingly manipulative propaganda machine run by a handful of billionaires that people like to call the press .,.. and the BBTory, where one of its executives was photoed at a luncheon with Murdoch and Tories just days ago.

 

That is very unlikely - the last party to get >50% of the national vote at a general election was the Conservative party under Stanley Baldwin in October 1931, 87 years ago!

 

That was in response to a budget crisis of 1931 following the Great Depression which had started 18 months before, which saw the then Labour government resign and a national government formed which had to oversee the pound sterling being removed from the gold standard and wanted to adopt a protectionist trade policy (a bit like Trump today!), they took advantage of Labour's immense unpopularity and got a landslide 55% of the vote.

 

Incidentally the recent local council by-elections had Labour on about 47% of the vote but that is very different to a national election where the party in government are usually punished - but there are very good signs for Labour in the south and the Liberal Democrats in May..

 

Latest YouGov: CON 41% (unchg) LAB 43% (+1) LDEM 7% (unchg)

Tory austerity and Etonian incompetence, an extreme right wing shift, and bog-standard Etonian Empire MPs like Johnson in charge of FOREIGN POLICY have ruined the Tories.

 

Don't expect them to be much more popular than Labour were back then

That's quite an echo chamber shaped view. They are still very popular within the right of the country. Since the 2015 election this country has become extremely polarised. Both camps are firmly entrenched and the middle ground is being squeezed out. Both sides need to de-radicalise asap or we're in for a world of pain

Good point.

 

Lib Dems are WAY too right wing for me.

 

Gross party that climbed into the Etonian Tory bed at the first sight of power

STOP THE PRESSES

 

Forget about those fake establishment polls

 

Survation has a Tory COLLAPSE. Bye bye Mad May!

 

Mad May meanwhile is INSISTING that the public WANTS her to stay!!

 

Um, no, no we don't x

 

She's obviously being fed that line by His Highness, Lord and King of All Murdoch

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labo...surges-12165233

 

I sitll think Labour's coming for a 50% win - and they absolutely WOULD have done if we didn't have such a disgustingly manipulative propaganda machine run by a handful of billionaires that people like to call the press .,.. and the BBTory, where one of its executives was photoed at a luncheon with Murdoch and Tories just days ago.

 

Libdems made a coalition with the hated Tories (and kept it relatively sane, bar the austerity cuts which Labour was also pushing for) because labour were defeated thanks to the banking crisis which they allowed to happen utterly and totally not doing their job monitoring what the greedy bast*rds were doing, and Iraq, which only the Libdems opposed.

 

As with the referendum it would have been very difficult to go into bed with the Labour party while Gordon "Iron Chancellor f***-up-so-NOT-a competent-chancellor" was leader and he wouldn't budge. Plus the Tories got more votes. Democracy and all that.

 

You are spreading fake news that we all lived through quite recently. I said to Labour followers on here once the Libdems were crushed to the glee of all: now wait and see what the Tories do now they aren't being restricted by the Libdems. I think events have shown the result of that.....

 

I also said Ed Miliband would be disastrous for the Labour Party. He was. Not in government and instead a pro-Brexit moron is in control. Not exactly going to be helping the poor and needy as we all get f***ed economically with policies he supports. After today's criticism of the useless Tories performance in the `brexit negotiations, the best John Mcdonut had to offer was "we would be better than they are at negotiating". No they wouldn't be because that assumes the EU would give in to labour demands for the same things. Unless Corbyn is prepared to admit that staying in the Single Market is a real possibility under Labour, should it prove better for the sake of the country, then he's just pissing in the wind and waiting for the inevitable rubbish deal we get as a way of blaming May in the hope that everyone is so badly off they vote in swarms for a party that is actually split (shhh dont mention it) on the most important issue in generations.

 

Given the state of the Tories, a decent Labour leader should be streets ahead. They should also be honest about what Brexit means for the country and have some backbone to say they either support it despite that, or will give the people a vote on the final deal with an option to get out of Brexit. They won't because of Corbyn. The Libdems would.

 

I know which ones I'll vote for.

That's quite an echo chamber shaped view. They are still very popular within the right of the country. Since the 2015 election this country has become extremely polarised. Both camps are firmly entrenched and the middle ground is being squeezed out.

 

This is what I've been telling him, but he doesn't seem to grasp that people don't need to be 'brainwashed' by Murdoch, in order to support the Tories - or at very least, to consider then the lesser of two evils...

 

Given the state of the Tories, a decent Labour leader should be streets ahead. They should also be honest about what Brexit means for the country and have some backbone to say they either support it despite that, or will give the people a vote on the final deal with an option to get out of Brexit. They won't because of Corbyn. The Libdems would.

 

I know which ones I'll vote for.

 

But whatever Labour's policy on Brexit eventually turns out to be, it is likely to be irrelevant in GE terms, since the process will be complete before the next election.

This is what I've been telling him, but he doesn't seem to grasp that people don't need to be 'brainwashed' by Murdoch, in order to support the Tories - or at very least, to consider then the lesser of two evils...

But whatever Labour's policy on Brexit eventually turns out to be, it is likely to be irrelevant in GE terms, since the process will be complete before the next election.

 

More people appear to be happy to be given a final say on the final deal than not want another referendum. More don't knows appear to have switched towards Remain now they have an idea of what it means, than have switched to Leave. Leave have a marginal lead, I suspect as more old people die off that lead will increase each year.

 

Corbyn can say anything on the assumption that he won't have to do anything other than force Labour MP's to vote in favour of whatever the Tories agree or don't agree with the EU. He only has to pay lip-service to pretending he has a different approach and wait for the economy to come tumbling down, then win the next election.

More people appear to be happy to be given a final say on the final deal than not want another referendum. More don't knows appear to have switched towards Remain now they have an idea of what it means, than have switched to Leave. Leave have a marginal lead, I suspect as more old people die off that lead will increase each year.

 

That line of reasoning always struck me as very cynical 'if we can't win the argument, we'll just wait for our opponents to drop dead'.

 

I'm sure you didn't mean to sound callous, but there are better arguments than that.

 

Corbyn can say anything on the assumption that he won't have to do anything other than force Labour MP's to vote in favour of whatever the Tories agree or don't agree with the EU. He only has to pay lip-service to pretending he has a different approach and wait for the economy to come tumbling down, then win the next election.

 

Even if that does play out how you suggest, I don't see Corbyn as someone who'd be able to handle that situation well.

 

This is what I've been telling him, but he doesn't seem to grasp that people don't need to be 'brainwashed' by Murdoch, in order to support the Tories - or at very least, to consider then the lesser of two evils...

But whatever Labour's policy on Brexit eventually turns out to be, it is likely to be irrelevant in GE terms, since the process will be complete before the next election.

Corbyn has the opportunity to make a very big difference. You forget that the government does not have a majority thanks to Mayhem's botched election. It depends very much if he can persuade sufficient MPs from other parties to do their duty and vote in the interests of the country instead of doing what the whips tell them to do. If opinion shifts decisively against the madcap policy pursued by our clueless PM, that becomes more likely.

That line of reasoning always struck me as very cynical 'if we can't win the argument, we'll just wait for our opponents to drop dead'.

 

I'm sure you didn't mean to sound callous, but there are better arguments than that.

Even if that does play out how you suggest, I don't see Corbyn as someone who'd be able to handle that situation well.

 

As you kniow perfectly well that isnt the reasoning. Leavers are the ones who refuse to fight the argument using facts. As I keep repeating very happy for the public to have another say once the final deal is 100% in black and white. You aren't. So you know you have no convincing argument against facts.

 

Old people dying is a fact of life. Reasons for old people voting for Brexit is a fact of life. I happen to agree with Vince Cable, thoughb I would put it more tactfully. Rose-tinted spectacles are a dangerous thing. The UK wasn't a better place 50 years ago. That is a fact that some older people have problems with. How we arrived at that is also something they have forgotten. Cough EU cough.

This is what I've been telling him, but he doesn't seem to grasp that people don't need to be 'brainwashed' by Murdoch, in order to support the Tories - or at very least, to consider then the lesser of two evils...

But whatever Labour's policy on Brexit eventually turns out to be, it is likely to be irrelevant in GE terms, since the process will be complete before the next election.

 

But a sizable chunk ARE brainwashed by the right wing media and Murdoch/ BBTory machines.

 

That gives them a majority.

 

In FPTP, the brainwashed will swing it.

As you kniow perfectly well that isnt the reasoning. Leavers are the ones who refuse to fight the argument using facts. As I keep repeating very happy for the public to have another say once the final deal is 100% in black and white. You aren't. So you know you have no convincing argument against facts.

 

You keep asserting that I am against another referendum, but that's not entirely accurate. I am against another referendum on the same terms as the first, as it would obviously not be desirable or practical to have a fresh vote *every* time the losing party claimed public opinion has changed. OTOH, I would not oppose one on the terms of our exit.

 

Old people dying is a fact of life. Reasons for old people voting for Brexit is a fact of life. I happen to agree with Vince Cable, thoughb I would put it more tactfully. Rose-tinted spectacles are a dangerous thing. The UK wasn't a better place 50 years ago. That is a fact that some older people have problems with. How we arrived at that is also something they have forgotten. Cough EU cough.

To me, the idea that the EU is largely responsible for any improvement in the last 50 years is as big a fantasy as the 'rose-colored glasses' one you cite above.

 

But a sizable chunk ARE brainwashed by the right wing media and Murdoch/ BBTory machines.

 

That gives them a majority.

 

In FPTP, the brainwashed will swing it.

 

ISTM you are as brainwashed into the supposed benefits of socialism, as you claim others are into Toryism...

You keep asserting that I am against another referendum, but that's not entirely accurate. I am against another referendum on the same terms as the first, as it would obviously not be desirable or practical to have a fresh vote *every* time the losing party claimed public opinion has changed. OTOH, I would not oppose one on the terms of our exit.

 

To me, the idea that the EU is largely responsible for any improvement in the last 50 years is as big a fantasy as the 'rose-colored glasses' one you cite above.

 

That isnt a referendum it's a "do you want to vote for the rubbish deal we have been forced to accept or do you want a worst-case scenario on WTO terms?" That isn't a choice. That's blackmail. That isn't democracy. Democracy is the freedom to rethink your original vote based on facts that weren't clear at the time of the original vote.

 

You have a problem with democracy, you prefer blackmail.

 

Rose-tinted spectacles is a fact of life. You only have to speak to old people reminiscing to realise how memory distorts with age. facts from that period are available, and in my own case I kept a diary from the 70's onwards so I know exactly what I thought at that time and dont have to rely on conveniently rewriting history in one's own biased image. The UK was struggling before the EU and improved afterwards. If that is purely coincidence feel free to show how countries that werent in the EU did during that period, and also feel free to consider the fact: WHY WOULD ANY OTHER COUNTRIES JOIN IF IT WAS BULLSHIT!!!!! Seriously, you really are obsessed with trying to deny logic and facts to fit your illogical loathing.

 

 

That isnt a referendum it's a "do you want to vote for the rubbish deal we have been forced to accept or do you want a worst-case scenario on WTO terms?" That isn't a choice. That's blackmail. That isn't democracy. Democracy is the freedom to rethink your original vote based on facts that weren't clear at the time of the original vote.

 

You have a problem with democracy, you prefer blackmail.

 

Excuse me? I'm the one who *respects* the referendum result of 23/6/16!

 

 

Rose-tinted spectacles is a fact of life. You only have to speak to old people reminiscing to realise how memory distorts with age. facts from that period are available, and in my own case I kept a diary from the 70's onwards so I know exactly what I thought at that time and dont have to rely on conveniently rewriting history in one's own biased image. The UK was struggling before the EU and improved afterwards. If that is purely coincidence feel free to show how countries that werent in the EU did during that period, and also feel free to consider the fact: WHY WOULD ANY OTHER COUNTRIES JOIN IF IT WAS BULLSHIT!!!!!

 

Easy - net recipiency.

 

Excuse me? I'm the one who *respects* the referendum result of 23/6/16!

Easy - net recipiency.

 

No you don't any more than you would have had it been a narrow win. You have already said you would have kept campaigning as it was too close to call (as did farage when he thought he'd lost). Democracy has to be tested at regular intervals. You refuse to accept everything has changed since the referendum in terms of what was promised. Liars.

 

Short response to questions and statements you have nothing to offer as a sensible response to, as usual.

 

Blah blah, I dont care about facts, blah blah, I'm entitled to my opinion.

 

yes you are. Opinion. Based on nothing you can offer in support when asked. Doesn't mean anyone should respect an opinion that is based on pure bias and nothing else. But you are entitled to it.

No you don't any more than you would have had it been a narrow win. You have already said you would have kept campaigning as it was too close to call (as did farage when he thought he'd lost). Democracy has to be tested at regular intervals. You refuse to accept everything has changed since the referendum in terms of what was promised. Liars.

 

There's a difference between not liking a result, and claiming your opponent only won through the nature of their campaign.

 

You cannot *prove* that the campaign was decisive, especially as polling indicated there was little movement of opinion during the course of it : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polli...ship_referendum

 

In fact, the only thing that made a significant difference was the Jo Cox murder, with the week before averaging ~3% Leave lead, switching to a 3% Remain lead for the week after. To me, that suggests that without that tragic occurence, Leave would have had a bigger victory margin. If I could recall the date the £350m NHS ad appeared, I could check whether that made a difference too. :unsure: