And I think that'll about do it for considering anything you post in this thread as worth reading.
Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
What happened to engaging and educating?
Oh, you want OTHER people to engage and educate their views, but you're not willing to do so yourself. :thumbsup:
However angered you are by my posts, multiply that by 100 and you will have some idea of the anger I have towards the aggressive narcissism of the right. Oh look - a fun little exercise in empathy!
What happened to engaging and educating?
Oh, you want OTHER people to engage and educate their views, but you're not willing to do so yourself. :thumbsup:
However angered you are by my posts, multiply that by 100 and you will have some idea of the anger I have towards the aggressive narcissism of the right. Oh look - a fun little exercise in empathy!
It took until this post but I'd be siding against you now too.
And I'm as far away from a Tory voter as they come.
Cool story bro.
Evil might be a tad strong. Try stupid and selfish next time.
Same thing. Selfishness = narcissism = evil, is my general line of thought.
I would amend that original post and add that not everyone who voted Tory were stupid or selfish/evil. Others were confused, or fearful, or comfortable with what they know. To me that's all a sub-category of stupid but I realize that's too confrontational.
If your starting point is that anyone with opposing you is either evil, stupid, confused or a combination of those things, there isn't much point in debate, given the word 'debate' indicates a two-way conversation.
It's a bit like when that woman on QT got emotional over tax credits, I saw a lot of supposedly lefty people say "serves her right for voting Tory". Jesus, it's like empathy goes out the window when someone votes for the other party
Tory voters all fall in the selfish camp (not the worse thing in the world), the issue isn't around winning 'moderates' back its about winning those back that were conned into thinking they'd benefit from a Tory goverment. The type of person who thought welfare cuts would only affect the scroungers.
Saying that when you factor in the ageing electorate, the fact they're more likely to turnout and that they have been given every sweetener under the sun to vote Tory, you're fighting a difficult battle.
It's a bit like when that woman on QT got emotional over tax credits, I saw a lot of supposedly lefty people say "serves her right for voting Tory". Jesus, it's like empathy goes out the window when someone votes for the other party
I wouldn't say it serves her right, but somewhere in there is an important message Labour does need to communicate: They need to tarnish the Conservatives with "This is what you should expect from them".
And I do have quite a low opinion of the electorate as a whole. (Sorry general public). For instance people are in overwhelmingly in favour of welfare cuts because they imagine that they are hitting the lazy, despite that making up a tiny proportion of the benefits system. They oppose cuts to all the areas of the welfare system that actually constitute the majority of its budget (housing, in-work, pensions, etc).
I always end up coming back to this article (one of my favourite headlines of all time) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...t-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html
I answered the man's question with my honest opinion, I wasn't aware I was entering a debating competition. I was told that I need to be more engaging and to educate those I disagree with. I don't see why it doesn't work the other way around.
I don't think most people are stupid and evil for the record. I think otherwise good and intelligent people can be narcissistic, and narcissism is stupid and evil. For me it's a crucial belief that I value highly.
It's a bit like when that woman on QT got emotional over tax credits, I saw a lot of supposedly lefty people say "serves her right for voting Tory". Jesus, it's like empathy goes out the window when someone votes for the other party
There is cognitive empathy and compassionate empathy. I absolutely empathise (cognitively) with everyone who votes for the Tories. Whilst it's more challenging, I even have compassion for most of them. I don't think it's incompassionate to call people out when their actions hurt other people. I can empathise with the poster who got defensive/prickly and ridiculed me - that's why I acknowledged his anger and asked him to empathise with my own anger towards what I see. Empathy is the key to everything, but that doesn't mean being nice to everyone. Empathy not sympathy. One of the big problems in society is that people overly sympathise with the people who oppress them.
I doubt Labour would cut free bus passes, the winter fuel allowance or basic state pension tbf. It would obviously be such a vote loser for a government of any hue. You can't legitimately just brand that a Tory policy.
Not sure Tory voters want or need your 'compassion' tbf. You are obsessed with 'narcissism'- it really isn't the synonym for Conservatism that you think it is.
Osborne to backtrack and lessen the impact in the autumn statement. No doubt he'll try to turn it into the compassionate ,listening Conservative party,on the side of hardworking blah blah blah.
I was responding to the poster who compared my labelling of Tory voters to the lack of empathy shown by lefties towards the woman who cried on QT.
I agree that Conservatives don't want or need my compassion. That's why I prefer to call them stupid and evil, it's other posters in the thread who have suggested that I need to be less aggressive and more engaging and understanding. I don't think that's the solution myself, although I think cognitive empathy (ie know your enemy) is vital for humanity to fight the disease effectively.
Conservatism isn't a synonym for narcissism, it's a symptom of it.
McTernan made an excellent comment about how people vote in a piece the other day. He likened it to a Maslowian hierarchy, with security at the bottom, competence in the middle and aspirational values at the top. Voters won't give you the time of day if they believe you threaten the basic security of their lives, and they won't listen to your aspirations unless they think you're competent enough to make them a reality.
While many swing voters don't share Tory values, they see the Tory party as more secure and more competent than Labour, hence they continue to vote for them election after election. It doesn't matter that the Labour Party is more committed to equality and fairness, people won't vote for them if people think that, in trying to achieve it, they will just make things worse for everyone.
This bullcrap party line from the Tories about a "constitutional coup" is definitely prepping the ground to shove a load more Tories in there.
Possibly... Though a more radical solution (elected second chamber or an English assembly with the second houses powers devolved accordingly are other options)
The Lords is very outdated so my preference is a complete overhaul but I think sadly chucking more conservative friendly Lords into the mix may be the more likely solution
Is that easy for them to do? Reading up on constitutional matters always winds me up at how embarrassingly antiquated our entire democracy is.
Also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords_Reform_Bill_2012
Or would it be great if the flood the Lords with Tory Peers.There's a horrible chance that the Tory response to this is to flood the Lords with Tory peers, and therefore spend a horrendous amount of public money on the future expenses of rich old men to push this bill through, with the aim of taking away money from working families who need it most...
The mind boggles. How did they win the election?
I mean, they'd have to double their number of peers. Everyone would know what they would be doing.
Suddenly House of Lords reform is on the cards... which leads to talking about the whole system.
I guess you have to separate Conservatism and the current Conservative party, just as many Labour fans don't feel Corbyn was a good choice.
Classic Conservative traits of strong on crime, defence and business are not what I'd call narcissistic.
PM can do it whenever he likes, the only thing he has to worry about is the backlash. Playing up the "constitutional crisis" angle is to make it seem like they're doing it merely to reinforce the sovereignty of the Commons and lessen that backlash.
well the conservative manifesto did say about addressing the size of the lords - so I suppose an equally conceivable measure is axing a fek load of peers as well? - though to do so in such a disproportionate way as to "balance the lords" (in their favour) would seem unlikely.
they have been creating lords at quite a rate so again it would seem possible though not without problems politically and perception wise to do so in order to obtain a working majority
i think an elected second chamber might be their best bet in the short term... it would prove popular (I think) and if the conservatives maintained it in a fptp format they would stand a very good chance of getting a majority - or at the very least much larger share of the members than they currently have.
this is an article from back in May that predicted these problems http://constitution-unit.com/2015/05/11/camerons-parliamentary-challenge-2-managing-the-lords/
I think in future they will try to ensure that any similar reforms go through as part of a finance bill as the Lords would be signing its own death warrant if they voted a finance bill down (imo)
Wouldn't that set a ridiculous precedent, and lead to an ever ballooning House of Lords? (When Labour next win an election they would flood the Lords with peers, and then the next Conservative government would have to do the same again)
Theoretically yes. Bear in mind that before Labour abolished hereditary peers in the late 90s, the figure stood at well over 1,000. Since we've had two previous relatively long periods of single party government (and we're about to have another), the figures haven't had to be inflated with such regularity though. The coalition appointed a lot in their first year of office, the reason it's now back as an issue is that previously they could rely on the 100 or so Lib Dem Lords to vote with the government.
theoretically - though in all likelyhood it would lead to more calls for an elected second chamber
the decision facing the tories seems to be to take that step now when they are in the ascendency or to risk a potential backlash over skewing the system with a raft of appointments and risk another party (presumably labour in the future) calling for a second elected house when they are in the ascendency (and thus likely to win a lions share of votes).
I believe the sensible play if to appoint 200 lords so that they can walk through any legislation they want but mitigate the backlash by making it clear that before the next general election there will be an elected lords and these peers have been specifically appointed to force that through as they dot want the stuffy old lords blocking it. (would be a brave play but would give them the short term win (disguised as something else) , make them look proactive and I believe ultimately abolition of the lords would be quite popular)
Should also be noted they don't have to appoint that many, they certainly don't need an outright majority to be Tory. They lost on these measures, which are highly unpopular with plenty of opposition both in the Lords, Commons and amongst the right wing press, by about 30 votes.
That link's a good read.
Also, given the criticism now coming from Conservative HQ that the Lords are unelected/undemocratic, which of these looks most unrepresentative:
Share of the Vote in 2015:
Commons:
Lords:
It would be incredibly frustrating if they can get away with increasing the number of peers whilst cutting back on MPs. It's also interesting how important the Lib Dems are in the Lords. I wasn't previously aware of that.
That wouldn't be a bad idea, except there are a lot of Conservative MPs that are opposed to reform of the Lords (I don't know if recent events will have changed that).
If that was the party line I believe most would back it (probably a fair few eyeing up a lordship as a nice additional pension though so probably some resistance - but an elected second chamber would have enough cross party support I think to fudge its way through)
Wouldn't you need a referendum on a constitutional change that big though?
Probably...
Roll it in with the eu referendum?
Do you want an elected second chamber? or something like that.
I don't think you'd need a referendum, most people don't care enough one way or the other. Don't think the Tories would do it though.
It's a bit like when that woman on QT got emotional over tax credits, I saw a lot of supposedly lefty people say "serves her right for voting Tory". Jesus, it's like empathy goes out the window when someone votes for the other party
I agree that a lot of people were harsh towards that woman, but at the same time it was a tad difficult to sympathise with her when it seemed she was more bothered that cuts had affected her, as opposed to being overly bothered by the whole idea of cuts. I mean, while she was lied to on the issue of tax credits, she presumably didn't have anything against cuts to other sectors.
Still, she's exactly the type of voter Labour need to be trying to win over right now, since plenty of them will undoubtedly exist. As you say, empathy is needed right now.
The Tories have deliberately lied twice on tax credit cuts, in claiming the poor would not lose because of the overall package, and in claiming cuts in tax credits were in their manifesto. These lies should be brought up repeatedly throughout the next five years, and become a Labour version of 'Labour caused the international banking crisis', except in this case it is true.
Review into working of parliament announced
(aka how to change the Lords)
Pmq's should be interesting...
(aka how to change the Lords)
Pmq's should be interesting...
The problem is that they won't, they had every chance to go for the jugular after "no top down reorganisation of the NHS" but they didn't. Who knows why, maybe they don't want to accuse another party of being liars and having the argument turned against them? The Tories are better at slinging mud.
Imagine how quickly we'd get voting reform of the Conservatives felt FPTP was negatively affecting them
Get rid of the Lords,
This, it's almost as if Rowem was using the current Labour playbook.
This, it's almost as if Rowem was using the current Labour playbook.