Don't vote Tory

[clarkete]

2 hours ago, Untz said:

I also had the "luxury" of living in a safe seat (as I do now) so it didn't matter really (which is part of the problem). I've properly voted in every other election (including the 2010 GE).

That's why I like postal voting, as no effort on my part  

[HalfAnIdiot]

[Stu H]

On 4/20/2017 at 1:36 PM, russycarps said:

If one of those 4 is the tories you're either very wealthy, thick or a c**t.

Which is it?

 

You're quite a tiresome arsehole.

[oneeye]

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, oneeye said:

This is Momentum.

Momentum thinks that Labour loses elections because Momentum is smart but everyone else is so sheep-like they do what newspapers tell them to do.

After Momentum fail to manage to make people follow them sheep-like like they think people follow newspapers sheep-like, they'll say that Labour lost because there's the wrong type of sheep.

Don't be Momentum.

You do have your own brain.

 

[arcade fireman]

19 minutes ago, oneeye said:

Unfortunately, the Labour working class vote has collapsed under Jeremy Corbyn. It was always assumed he might cost Labour middle class votes, but to be behind amongst the working class whilst running on a platform ostensibly aimed at them is a colossal failure. 

[Nobody Interesting]

""Experience the spirit of Glastonbury all year round, a place for general chat about the Festival.""

 

Just quoting that cos newbies to the site might wonder if this is the first Glastonbury thread they look at. Does not give a good impression of the site in my eyes.

#don'tvotetory

Edited April 22, 2017 by Nobody Interesting

[CaledonianGonzo]

"Nob"?

That could have been done by someone on the right to suggest that Labour do nothing but patronise the working class.

[oneeye]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

This is Momentum.

Momentum thinks that Labour loses elections because Momentum is smart but everyone else is so sheep-like they do what newspapers tell them to do.

After Momentum fail to manage to make people follow them sheep-like like they think people follow newspapers sheep-like, they'll say that Labour lost because there's the wrong type of sheep.

Don't be Momentum.

You do have your own brain.

 

I am well aware of all the false properganda out there, just highlighting some of the stuff that I get sent from other people (sheep). 

I like to think I'm more of a owl, wise enough to see through all of the rhetoric to make an informed decision.

The blind leadership of the Labour Party is depressing but we do have an earlier than anticipated opportunity for change, if people want it.

[eFestivals]

38 minutes ago, oneeye said:

I am well aware of all the false properganda out there, just highlighting some of the stuff that I get sent from other people (sheep). 

I like to think I'm more of a owl, wise enough to see through all of the rhetoric to make an informed decision.

The blind leadership of the Labour Party is depressing but we do have an earlier than anticipated opportunity for change, if people want it.

TBH, I had no thought at all about whether the person (you) who posted it was falling for it or not. I just saw it as that common theme from many (supposedly) on 'the left' right now, that the left is losing because 'the left'  - or more correctly, them (just them) - is smart but everyone else is brainless.

Which i find cringeworthy, and embarrassing.

How the fuck can anyone claim the higher moral ground as they're trying to do while claiming themselves as inherently better than other people, because only they have the brain to think correctly?

And anyway, how much of a victory would it really be if that victory was only because you'd managed to round up the sheep better than the other guy? 

It wouldn't be a moral victory, a victory won on the arguments. It would be a victory as dullard as the victory it would be attempting to replace.

Accept that people have as much capability to think as anyone else, and give a rational argument for why your way is better. Anything else is intellectually regressive.

Edited April 22, 2017 by eFestivals

[oneeye]

40 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

TBH, I had no thought at all about whether the person (you) who posted it was falling for it or not. I just saw it as that common theme from many (supposedly) on 'the left' right now, that the left is losing because 'the left'  - or more correctly, them (just them) - is smart but everyone else is brainless.

Which i find cringeworthy, and embarrassing.

How the fuck can anyone claim the higher moral ground as they're trying to do while claiming themselves as inherently better than other people, because only they have the brain to think correctly?

And anyway, how much of a victory would it really be if that victory was only because you'd managed to round up the sheep better than the other guy? 

It wouldn't be a moral victory, a victory won on the arguments. It would be a victory as dullard as the victory it would be attempting to replace.

Accept that people have as much capability to think as anyone else, and give a rational argument for why you way is better. Anything else is intellectually regressive.

Agreed, I only wish that Corbyn did. 

And someone upvoted the poster 

and now down voted, that's better, thanks   

Edited April 22, 2017 by oneeye

[Mr.Tease]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

TBH, I had no thought at all about whether the person (you) who posted it was falling for it or not. I just saw it as that common theme from many (supposedly) on 'the left' right now, that the left is losing because 'the left'  - or more correctly, them (just them) - is smart but everyone else is brainless.

Which i find cringeworthy, and embarrassing.

How the fuck can anyone claim the higher moral ground as they're trying to do while claiming themselves as inherently better than other people, because only they have the brain to think correctly?

And anyway, how much of a victory would it really be if that victory was only because you'd managed to round up the sheep better than the other guy? 

It wouldn't be a moral victory, a victory won on the arguments. It would be a victory as dullard as the victory it would be attempting to replace.

Accept that people have as much capability to think as anyone else, and give a rational argument for why your way is better. Anything else is intellectually regressive.

I always chuckle when you make this argument Neil as you are notorious for calling people Idiots or morons on these boards if they don't agree with you!   I do half agree with you, but as you probably find, its hard to keep your cool and not call people morons for not agreeing with you when it's seems clear, logically that you are right! 

Where I disagree is that I don't think people give an issue any deep thought if they're not actually that arsed or interested. I think if people aren't particularly passionate or understanding of the issue, they are more likely to go on the info that either either resonates with their stance, or comes from a a few sources they roughly trust, rather than give it some critical thinking 

[eFestivals]

3 hours ago, Mr.Tease said:

I always chuckle when you make this argument Neil as you are notorious for calling people Idiots or morons on these boards if they don't agree with you!   I do half agree with you, but as you probably find, its hard to keep your cool and not call people morons for not agreeing with you when it's seems clear, logically that you are right! 

 

You might see it differently, but it's rarely that happens because someone doesn't agree with me, and very mostly because they refuse to see the the basis for the point I'm making (whether they agree with it or not). Subtle difference, but there you go, and one where my response has a basis (that is welcomed to be disagreed with - as I'm doing right now). 

3 hours ago, Mr.Tease said:

Where I disagree is that I don't think people give an issue any deep thought if they're not actually that arsed or interested. I think if people aren't particularly passionate or understanding of the issue, they are more likely to go on the info that either either resonates with their stance, or comes from a a few sources they roughly trust, rather than give it some critical thinking 

people are able to choose how much thought to give it, just as much as they're able to choose which party they prefer from little or lots of thought. 

Political parties are not able to choose the electorate. The people choose the political parties. And they make that choice via whatever amount of thought they're giving it.

So when a political party (or its supporters) starts complaining the electorate isn't smart enough for that party, that's a failing by that political party in intelligence by far more than the most "stupid" of voters.

There is only that electorate. It's the only electorate all parties have to work with. If a party isn't prepared to work with that electorate it's not a party worthy of existing in the mind of this democrat.

[Mr.Tease]

48 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You might see it differently, but it's rarely that happens because someone doesn't agree with me, and very mostly because they refuse to see the the basis for the point I'm making (whether they agree with it or not). Subtle difference, but there you go, and one where my response has a basis (that is welcomed to be disagreed with - as I'm doing right now). 

people are able to choose how much thought to give it, just as much as they're able to choose which party they prefer from little or lots of thought. 

Political parties are not able to choose the electorate. The people choose the political parties. And they make that choice via whatever amount of thought they're giving it.

So when a political party (or its supporters) starts complaining the electorate isn't smart enough for that party, that's a failing by that political party in intelligence by far more than the most "stupid" of voters.

There is only that electorate. It's the only electorate all parties have to work with. If a party isn't prepared to work with that electorate it's not a party worthy of existing in the mind of this democrat.

And I suppose what I'm always interested in is, while I completely get the need to cater to the electorate, when do you push the envelope, and how and when do you decide to do it?- gay rights, anti-racism, feminism, I know Labour hasn't always had a great record on these issues, but once in a while they have taken an issue and pushed it (or at least opposed more discriminatory stances), and I'm glad that they have. There's a moral side to it, but also a practical one- if you never push an agenda or campaign for a belief that runs counter to the status quo, how will things ever change? Especially when looking at history, that change is very much a big part of political life (and can go both ways).

[arcade fireman]

15 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

And I suppose what I'm always interested in is, while I completely get the need to cater to the electorate, when do you push the envelope, and how and when do you decide to do it?- gay rights, anti-racism, feminism, I know Labour hasn't always had a great record on these issues, but once in a while they have taken an issue and pushed it (or at least opposed more discriminatory stances), and I'm glad that they have. There's a moral side to it, but also a practical one- if you never push an agenda or campaign for a belief that runs counter to the status quo, how will things ever change? Especially when looking at history, that change is very much a big part of political life (and can go both ways).

There's always a difficult discussion to be had between sticking to your core principles and trying to meet the electorate halfway. New Labour arguably strayed too far from the core principles but as you say can still point to plenty of successes.

The problem with Corbyn and his lot is that they refuse to acknowledge such a discussion exists. It's either ideological purity or nothing. Those that disagree are Blairite Red Tory Fascists etc etc. 

[Splonk]

Corbyn may be useless, but isn't this the real story?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-philip-may-amazon-starbucks-google-capital-group-philip-morris-a7133231.html

http://calumslist.org

[arcade fireman]

1 hour ago, Splonk said:

Corbyn may be useless, but isn't this the real story?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-philip-may-amazon-starbucks-google-capital-group-philip-morris-a7133231.html

http://calumslist.org

There's no such thing as the "real story". Corbyn's continual uselessness and failings in providing an opposition that much of the electorate can take seriously is a huge, huge factor in letting the Tories get away with this kind of shit. They're both part of the same (admittedly massive) picture. 

[arcade fireman]

Read this tweet and weep:

Someone is actually claiming an ITV online poll where people self select makes a "total mockery" of Yougov.

The idiot who posted this has almost 80,000 followers on twitter.

This is a massive part of the problem, this is basically one step below fake news and it's continually distributed and lapped up by people who don't have the critical thinking capabilities to identify what qualifies as good evidence. The replies to it are 90% uncritical.

I despair, I really do. I just want the left to get some brains again. The loudest voices on the left used to be smart, smart people. 

[Untz]

12 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

The idiot who posted this has almost 80,000 followers on twitter.

This is a massive part of the problem, this is basically one step below fake news and it's continually distributed and lapped up by people who don't have the critical thinking capabilities to identify what qualifies as good evidence. The replies to it are 90% uncritical.

Probably the same people who criticise a polling companies methodology when the result doesn't show what they want too.

Not that they know anything about how either type of poll was conducted or analysed. 

[DeanoL]

2 hours ago, arcade fireman said:

This is a massive part of the problem, this is basically one step below fake news and it's continually distributed and lapped up by people who don't have the critical thinking capabilities to identify what qualifies as good evidence. The replies to it are 90% uncritical.

I despair, I really do. I just want the left to get some brains again. The loudest voices on the left used to be smart, smart people. 

Yes but recent times have shown people are tired of smart, smart people. Who wants facts. So lets make them up. Maybe it'll win votes.

[arcade fireman]

15 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Yes but recent times have shown people are tired of smart, smart people. Who wants facts. So lets make them up. Maybe it'll win votes.

I'd prefer Labour to make things up to win votes than for so much of the "support" to be so deluded as to the popularity of the leader. 

[eFestivals]

15 hours ago, Mr.Tease said:

And I suppose what I'm always interested in is, while I completely get the need to cater to the electorate, when do you push the envelope, and how and when do you decide to do it?- gay rights, anti-racism, feminism, I know Labour hasn't always had a great record on these issues, but once in a while they have taken an issue and pushed it (or at least opposed more discriminatory stances), and I'm glad that they have. There's a moral side to it, but also a practical one- if you never push an agenda or campaign for a belief that runs counter to the status quo, how will things ever change? Especially when looking at history, that change is very much a big part of political life (and can go both ways).

a party can push the envelope for where people are happy enough to go - I'd say that stuff like gay rights happened cos its time had come, more than due to political parties - but what I guess it can't do is push 'the people' where they're not prepared to go.

After all, if it was just a matter of a party doing the right thing, then why weren't Labour pro-gay rights in (say) the 1920s? Labour had to get its head around it no more or less than 'the people' did.

Stuff can change, of course it can change - but I can flag up a huge number of stuff to demonstrate that stuff doesn't change particularly fast, and when it does change too fast 'the people' tend to react with hostility - sometimes to the point of total rejection - to those fast changes (and i'd say brexit had a lot to do with that idea).

[The Red Telephone]

On 20/04/2017 at 3:22 PM, eastynh said:

Some good come from it, you reminded me about a song I have always loved

The Charlatans get stick on here for some reason but they were actually pretty damn good and they have some quality tunes.

This and the self-titled one are the only Charlatans albums that I still occasionally listen to. Fab memories from school and early days of Uni! Tremelo Song is great.

[ManchesterGlasto]

This thread made me think of this. 

[waterfalls212434]

On 22/04/2017 at 7:50 PM, arcade fireman said:

Read this tweet and weep:

Someone is actually claiming an ITV online poll where people self select makes a "total mockery" of Yougov.

The idiot who posted this has almost 80,000 followers on twitter.

This is a massive part of the problem, this is basically one step below fake news and it's continually distributed and lapped up by people who don't have the critical thinking capabilities to identify what qualifies as good evidence. The replies to it are 90% uncritical.

I despair, I really do. I just want the left to get some brains again. The loudest voices on the left used to be smart, smart people. 

I also see people who view yougov etc as some sort of totally neutral at all times gods of public opinion as just as gormless,  In terms of yougov there is good reason to doubt the polls non bias when it comes to politics YouGov was founded by Tory Minister Nadhim Zahawi and Stephan Shakespeare profiled here http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2009/05/stephan-shakespeare-democracy-in-the-postbureaucratic-age.html

would you trust polls carried out by the tory party on labours election chances to be unbiased? No? so why do you trust the company these 2 setup and run to be the same?

There are numerous examples of charts used to portray data in a `certain way` questions worded to `direct` people to the preferred answer, misuse of data to create `percentages` that make no sense etc etc.

Im not saying the above guy is right to quote a silly tv poll......but dont call him an idiot and then stand up for yougov in the same post as thats utterly stupid.  

Edited April 24, 2017 by waterfalls212434