The Wish They Were All Dead Tory Cunt Thread

[Ollie the Optimist]

Todays poll shows the Tories now have a 16 point lead over Labour.

even accounting for polling errors seen recently, it'll still be a massive lead for the Tories and we haven't really governed effectively over the last six months. Shows how unelectable Corbyn is. Labour need to ditch him to provide an effective opposition. Governing with Labour as it currently is, is hardly a great situation for the country and I say that as Tory!

[McNamara That Ghost...]

There's no effective opposition to Corbyn though. 170 no confidence and they can only supply one candidate to run for the leadership.

I am Labour of course but jesus wept it's filled with some wankers.

[Ollie the Optimist]

There's no effective opposition to Corbyn though. 170 no confidence and they can only supply one candidate to run for the leadership.

I am Labour of course but jesus wept it's filled with some wankers.

I think its time for the centre left MPs to grow some balls and split. Labour as it is, is finished. Its been taken over by the hard left and they wont win it back. Time for them to split, they'll be able to be the official opposition as they will still be the second largest party and then we can have an effective opposition and government again

[Niall_Quinn]

What's the point of having an opposition that stands for the same policies as the government, to all practical intents and purposes? For as long as Corbyn remains "unelectable", the British people are essentially saying they want the same old shite. In which case it doesn't really matter who you vote for. Either the Tories or some "electable" prick masquerading as the working man's champion. It really makes no odds whatsoever. When people get a clue and Corbyn, or some other politician that actually represents an ideological difference, becomes "electable" then voting takes on a significance. Otherwise it has none.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

What's the point of having an opposition that stands for the same policies as the government, to all practical intents and purposes? For as long as Corbyn remains "unelectable", the British people are essentially saying they want the same old shite. In which case it doesn't really matter who you vote for. Either the Tories or some "electable" prick masquerading as the working man's champion. It really makes no odds whatsoever. When people get a clue and Corbyn, or some other politician that actually represents an ideological difference, becomes "electable" then voting takes on a significance. Otherwise it has none.

It helps to actually have some policies, the economists and accountants that backed Corbyn a year ago have all said he has no economics policy

He also has no health policy apart from burdening the NHS with pharmaceutical research to spite his electoral oponent

If you want to follow the line that actually having costed, well thought out policies amounts to having the same policies as a tory government. Than there has never been anything but Tory government since the franchise expanded to allow everyone to vote.

This idea of he's only unelectable as long as we believe he is, has the same merit as children in pantomime willing Tinkerbell back to life by chanting "I believe in fairies". To be electable, one has to want to have power and take the difficult choices that involves...as we have seen from both Corbyn supporters and the Leave campaigners it's far easier to be on the outside pointing inwards saying "look at how badly they are doing".

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

There's no effective opposition to Corbyn though. 170 no confidence and they can only supply one candidate to run for the leadership.

I am Labour of course but jesus wept it's filled with some wankers.

What would be the point of running more than one candidate?.....it's a referendum on Corbyn and having more than one candidate splits the vote. I am no fan of Owen Smith especially after the fluff he produced on Wednesday and laughably called policy pledges.
Just take pledge one for example - to concentrate on equality of outcome and not equality of opportunity....i'm fairly sure Labour and even the left in general never used to be so anti work and aspiration. The problem we have in this country is a lack of equality of oportunity, equality of outcome suggests that everyone's a winner no matter how lazy or inept they are.
The choice Labour has is the same a terminal cancer patient has, go for chemotherapy and prolong your life a bit more (Owen Smith) or just accept that it's the end (Corbyn). Frankly as former Labour member, i am quite happy with the latter choice.....evolution applies to political parties as well....if it cannot adapt it will not survive and the party chose to hand the party over to hard-left paranoid conspiracy fantasists for whom failure is victory as it confirms the full extent of the establishment working against them.
I have no time for most of the Labour MPs they are weak and just as bereft of actual ideas as the man they are opposed to....and i am perfectly satisfied for Labour to no longer exist. It won't be a tragedy, it presumes that there will be a political vacum but it will be replaced by something more worthy of existence.

[Niall_Quinn]

It helps to actually have some policies, the economists and accountants that backed Corbyn a year ago have all said he has no economics policy

He also has no health policy apart from burdening the NHS with pharmaceutical research to spite his electoral oponent

If you want to follow the line that actually having costed, well thought out policies amounts to having the same policies as a tory government. Than there has never been anything but Tory government since the franchise expanded to allow everyone to vote.

The economy, at least the part we are allowed to discuss. No party or politician has properly costed policies for "the economy" - and if you claim any do then name one. The whole point of neoliberalism is to remove all vestiges of economic control and/ or influence from the citizen and place it in the hands of supranational private minorities. The Tory/Labour merger has delivered on that promise, and ONLY that promise, for decades. The infiltration of the NHS is part of that process. You don't have to agree with Corbyn to realise he's a deviation from that track, albeit a minor one because the British people are so entranced and seduced it has become almost impossible to provoke them into representing their own and society's interests. But this is all mapped out so clearly in the statistics so-called economists deliver with such authority. One market for the rich (communism), unbridled capitalism for the rest and the Labour Party has triumphantly led this charge since the quisling Blair absconded with the party's founding principles. Now the full ambition of the Party and the distinction that's sold as choice is £50 more for the unemployed, in return for the one-sided mechanics of "the economy" remaining unmolested. You could call that a political alternative I suppose, but it takes a lot of imagination do to it.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

The economy, at least the part we are allowed to discuss. No party or politician has properly costed policies for "the economy" - and if you claim any do then name one. The whole point of neoliberalism is to remove all vestiges of economic control and/ or influence from the citizen and place it in the hands of supranational private minorities. The Tory/Labour merger has delivered on that promise, and ONLY that promise, for decades. The infiltration of the NHS is part of that process. You don't have to agree with Corbyn to realise he's a deviation from that track, albeit a minor one because the British people are so entranced and seduced it has become almost impossible to provoke them into representing their own and society's interests. But this is all mapped out so clearly in the statistics so-called economists deliver with such authority. One market for the rich (communism), unbridled capitalism for the rest and the Labour Party has triumphantly led this charge since the quisling Blair absconded with the party's founding principles. Now the full ambition of the Party and the distinction that's sold as choice is £50 more for the unemployed, in return for the one-sided mechanics of "the economy" remaining unmolested. You could call that a political alternative I suppose, but it takes a lot of imagination do to it.

There's a difference between not having a plan because of a failure to engage with the "inherent neo-liberal economic structure", and not having a plan simply because you don't.
And No i don't agree, pointing at something and saying in the vaguest way possible "that's wrong" is not a deviation....it's the kind of vacuous platitudes that have been coming from that corner of political thought for the last thirty years.

[Niall_Quinn]

Corbyn's policies are actually profound, to say he has none is a misrepresentation. And you have to read between the lines. Corbyn clearly knows what really prevents progress and a level playing field in the market. Hence his idea of a state run investment bank. That's the most dangerous (to neoliberalism) policy suggested by any politician outside of Iceland and Hungary. For those who know how the central banks currently operate, and more importantly why they operate that way and the how that leads to catastrophic inequality by design, Corbyn could be compared in this one respect to Andrew Jackson and his relentless pursuit of the central bank. But we are generations beyond a time when the economy and the private banks could be discussed with honesty and integrity, so Corbyn has to tread lightly. He won't prevail because the sheer weight of the banking machinery arranged against him will be enough to con the public as always. But if he did then the nation would be transformed overnight. So you can say he won't be successful with his policies (this being just one of a number of clear departures from the status quo), or you can say he hasn't publicised his ideas. But it it wrong to say he has no policies. In fact he's the only politician with economic policies that could make a difference for the average citizen.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Corbyn's policies are actually profound, to say he has none is a misrepresentation. And you have to read between the lines. Corbyn clearly knows what really prevents progress and a level playing field in the market. Hence his idea of a state run investment bank. That's the most dangerous (to neoliberalism) policy suggested by any politician outside of Iceland and Hungary. For those who know how the central banks currently operate, and more importantly why they operate that way and the how that leads to catastrophic inequality by design, Corbyn could be compared in this one respect to Andrew Jackson and his relentless pursuit of the central bank. But we are generations beyond a time when the economy and the private banks could be discussed with honesty and integrity, so Corbyn has to tread lightly. He won't prevail because the sheer weight of the banking machinery arranged against him will be enough to con the public as always. But if he did then the nation would be transformed overnight. So you can say he won't be successful with his policies (this being just one of a number of clear departures from the status quo), or you can say he hasn't publicised his ideas. But it it wrong to say he has no policies. In fact he's the only politician with economic policies that could make a difference for the average citizen.

I think you are reading between the lines a bit too much frankly, and seeing something that just isn't there. We aren't going to agree on this...we didn't last year and we won't now. You see Corbyn's politics as the cure to mainstream politics , i see his mere existence in mainstream politics as a symptom of it's malaise.