All the Tories out this morning

So complicit isn't whataboutery? Grow some.

You implied that my wife by voting Tory intended that children should go hungry. So basically suggesting she is without morals.
Stop being so merely mouthed.
 
if you voted tory at the last election its fair to say you agreed with their polices, cutting in real terms the NHS, cutting the armed forces, police , education,the treatment of those with disabilities etc.
its your right to vote in whoever you want but you have to accept responsibility for the implementation of the manifesto surely?
 
Same_as_before said:
You implied that my wife by voting Tory intended that children should go hungry. So basically suggesting she is without morals.
Click to expand...
I don't think I need to grow anything. If you voted Tory you have been complicit in child hunger, the de-funding of the NHS, etc. I'm not saying that anyone is without morals I am saying that there is a collective guilt that Tory voters need to own. Especially the simpering idiots who voted blue to "get Brexit done" or because they "couldn't vote for Corbyn".
 
jam69 said:
if you voted tory at the last election its fair to say you agreed with their polices, cutting in real terms the NHS, cutting the armed forces, police , education,the treatment of those with disabilities etc.
its your right to vote in whoever you want but you have to accept responsibility for the implementation of the manifesto surely?
Click to expand...
No, she thought Corbyn was a con man. A leader who decided that his electorate came second to a few activists.
 
Muttley said:
I don't think I need to grow anything. If you voted Tory you have been complicit in child hunger, the de-funding of the NHS, etc. I'm not saying that anyone is without morals I am saying that there is a collective guilt that Tory voters need to own. Especially the simpering idiots who voted blue to "get Brexit done" or because they "couldn't vote for Corbyn".
Click to expand...
I have only ever voted Labour, apart from once when I voted for a mate in a local election.

As for Corbyn do you think he was a loyal Labour MP?
 
Muttley said:
Voting Tory at the last election required you to at least ignore the damage being deliberately done to social services and the poor.
Click to expand...
You haven't even got the excuse of it being out of character for aTory government, they'd been doing it for a decade before the last election.

The argument about Blair having the best income into tax is a good one. Politics isn't a sliding scale from good to bad, left to right. It's more of a doughnut, where the more extreme left or right that policies go the worse the tax income is. Communism leads to low economic performance and low average wages, thus low tax revenue. unfettered capitalism might seem to have good economic performance, but it's volatile and only impact the top 5% of citizens, the rest have a pretty poor standard of living and income.Blair was an economic moderate, taking the best of capitalism with the best of socialism and creating an economy that protected the weak, allowed the wealthy to improve, but spread the wealth fairly well. It was our post-imperial economic high point as a country, with more sustained periods of growth, more infra investment and highest tax rates. From an economic perspective, Blairism is the way to go.
 
Same_as_before said:
You implied that my wife by voting Tory intended that children should go hungry. So basically suggesting she is without morals.
Stop being so merely mouthed.
Click to expand...
she may not have considered in those specific terms (i.e. kids going hungry), but the assumption is that she is aware of the manifesto she was voting for, and is aware of the decade of austerity and its impacts on the poorest in society. She must have witnessed the rise in foodbank usage for example. If so then she is complicit by choice, if she isn't aware of those things then she would be complicit by ignorance. A vote is an enabler for party policies, use it wisely (otherwise you end up with things like Boris, Cummings and Brexit)
 
Same_as_before said:
No, she thought Corbyn was a con man. A leader who decided that his electorate came second to a few activists.
Click to expand...
And she's entitled to think that, but there's other names on the ballot other than Labour, and there's the option of none of the above, but she must have agreed with what the tory party stand for and what they wanted to implement?
 
Same_as_before said:
As for Corbyn do you think he was a loyal Labour MP?
Click to expand...
Some of the things that Corbyn stood for were entirely reasonable and I believe he was, at his core, a decent man. Yes, there were things that were problematical but as with all leaders you have to weigh the pros and cons. More than that you had to judge him against the alternative which was to vote for Johnson the serial liar, chancer, racist, philanderer, child abandoner, (the list goes on of Mr. Johnson's "character flaws"). As someone who voted Tory you gave them the approval for their manifesto and (at best) forgave their previous record on poverty.
 
It's good to get warmed up on the subject of owning your vote and being accountable for what it enabled. I mean in two months this little brain muscle flexing will come in handy.
 
The tories are horrendous. I find it amazing anybody bothers trying to defend them over things like not feeding kids from the poorest families. Surely that's as low as can be? Ideologically deciding to let kids go hungry as a way of punishing the parents. For being poor. During a recession. It's mental.

And I think it's equally odd when anybody brings up Tony Blair as a response. Tories seem to like him more than left wing folk do anyway. Anyone slating the gov for not feeding kids are probably more likely to be the same people that want Blair in the Hague for war crimes.

Same_as_before said:
You implied that my wife by voting Tory intended that children should go hungry. So basically suggesting she is without morals.
Click to expand...

What's your wife voting next time like SAB?
 
SuperStu said:
The tories are horrendous. I find it amazing anybody bothers trying to defend them over things like not feeding kids from the poorest families. Surely that's as low as can be? Ideologically deciding to let kids go hungry as a way of punishing the parents. For being poor. During a recession. It's mental.

And I think it's equally odd when anybody brings up Tony Blair as a response. Tories seem to like him more than left wing folk do anyway. Anyone slating the gov for not feeding kids are probably more likely to be the same people that want Blair in the Hague for war crimes.



What's your wife voting next time like SAB?
Click to expand...
I can only guess but I would say Labour.
 
Muttley said:
Some of the things that Corbyn stood for were entirely reasonable and I believe he was, at his core, a decent man. Yes, there were things that were problematical but as with all leaders you have to weigh the pros and cons. More than that you had to judge him against the alternative which was to vote for Johnson the serial liar, chancer, racist, philanderer, child abandoner, (the list goes on of Mr. Johnson's "character flaws"). As someone who voted Tory you gave them the approval for their manifesto and (at best) forgave their previous record on poverty.
Click to expand...
I think you need reading lessons.
 
BoroMart said:
she may not have considered in those specific terms (i.e. kids going hungry), but the assumption is that she is aware of the manifesto she was voting for, and is aware of the decade of austerity and its impacts on the poorest in society. She must have witnessed the rise in foodbank usage for example. If so then she is complicit by choice, if she isn't aware of those things then she would be complicit by ignorance. A vote is an enabler for party policies, use it wisely (otherwise you end up with things like Boris, Cummings and Brexit)
Click to expand...
I will say it again. Her view was that to a degree she thought that Corbyn discounted the electorate in the poorest areas, one of which she taught in. You tell her and me what his policy on Brexit was. He stood by Momentum rather than the people who he should represent.
 
I think even a right of Attila the Hun Tory voter would realise this shower are inept, including the Chancellor.

The problem was Corbyn.
 
Same_as_before said:
I will say it again. Her view was that to a degree she thought that Corbyn discounted the electorate in the poorest areas, one of which she taught in. You tell her and me what his policy on Brexit was. He stood by Momentum rather than the people who he should represent.
Click to expand...
She didn't vote for Corbyn, this is an irrelevance. She DID vote Tory, she enabled a party that has spent a decade dismantling state support for the vulnerable, only for you to defend her action as not being complicit in leaving vulnerable kids to go hungry. It's either ignorance or support, but either way it's complicit in not supporting our most vulnerable many of which are innocent children.

She voted to continue with the abominable universal credit, she voted to continue for families to rely on foodbanks, to continue underfunding the NHS etc. You both need to accept that, and decide if it's a choice she made because a) she agrees with doing that, b) she was not aware of the Tory record of the last decade, or c) because she allowed herself to run away with a vague concept of the sunlit uplands of brexit. NOTE: I see that today the cost of Brexit has reached the entire cost of the International Space Station. Image what that funding could have done to the poorest in our society. Imagine how many schools could have been built giving top class education to our children and ensuring we have a first class wealth of talent fo the next 50 years to support our pensions. Instead, she chose to gamble that, on what is looking more and more like a busted flush. We have more pain to come, a wimpering BINO (brexit in name only), no tangible benefits, a logistical mess, a lack of input into EU policy that we will largely need to align with and a massive financial hole.
 
SuperStu said:
Oh well, he's dead and gone now. So let's all just agree there's no excuse for Labour now, and if they don't win the next election it's cause the country's full of people who want the poor kids to go hungry. (y)
Click to expand...
For Corbyn see Milliband and Kinnock. They'll probably do teh same character assassination on Starmer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top