General Election, June 8th

[sphericalfox]

10 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I doubt that. 

Like the rest of us, he generally thinks his views are correct and it takes a lot to change them (same applies to me and most others).

 

Matt has never struck me as so insecure he has to hide away when challenged. 

The arguments in here can ruin anyone's mood occasionally (it's certainly happened to me) - and then it's a good idea to take a short break, before returning to the battle! 

 

Even though I agree more with what you say politically than what Matt says, I don't think petty jibes help us have a decent debate - and Matt is a good contributor to that debate, even if he's a filthy fascist (just joking, Matt!).

Given how much he lauded the result at the last election, and spent the subsequent time prior to his ban winding other political persuasions up about this, and basically being a colossal bell, and now he's back with more of the same, but less ground to stand on, it's going to be difficult maintain the same level of smug and/or righteousness, despite a significant amount of evidence to the contrary. What he should do is go the whole hog and get banned again, then he can blame that and not have people laugh at nearly every repetitive post he makes.

[LiberalFox]

49 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Yeah I did but me getting his name wrong may actually make my point considering I side with more liberal and green values than other parties!

 

And respectfully, a flawed leader most definitely matters - especially when leading a party of liberals harbouring religious based prejudices....

 

A terrible choice of leader an even wetter flannel than Clegg, sadly. And that's a friend saying that.

 

It was between Tim Farron and Norman Lamb, I wasn't a member at the time but if I was I'd have voted for Tim because he wasn't directly involved in the coalition government and he voted against the rise in tuition fees. Norman Lamb voted for the tuition fee rise and was more active in the coalition government. I there's a decent case for saying Norman Lamb would have worked out a better choice in the end but I don't think either were perfect options. Do you think the party should drop the requirement for the leader to be a current MP? I don't mind people being critical of Tim Farron's possible religious based prejudices but there's a danger of losing Liberalism as an ideology in UK politics. Unless you are in a Tory/Lab marginal or have a particular candidate you want to vote for we could really use every vote from liberal minded people. 

[theessexfox]

4 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

 

It was between Tim Farron and Norman Lamb, I wasn't a member at the time but if I was I'd have voted for Tim because he wasn't directly involved in the coalition government and he voted against the rise in tuition fees. Norman Lamb voted for the tuition fee rise and was more active in the coalition government. I there's a decent case for saying Norman Lamb would have worked out a better choice in the end but I don't think either were perfect options. Do you think the party should drop the requirement for the leader to be a current MP? I don't mind people being critical of Tim Farron's possible religious based prejudices but there's a danger of losing Liberalism as an ideology in UK politics. Unless you are in a Tory/Lab marginal or have a particular candidate you want to vote for we could really use every vote from liberal minded people. 

Don't you think that different strands of liberalism have simply been absorbed by the main two parties, rather than lost as an ideology? I think that the Labour and the Conservative parties are essentially progressive liberal parties in the main, albeit Corbyn has pushed Labour to more of a democratic socialist one. 

[Buce]

19 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I doubt that. 

Like the rest of us, he generally thinks his views are correct and it takes a lot to change them (same applies to me and most others).

 

Matt has never struck me as so insecure he has to hide away when challenged. 

The arguments in here can ruin anyone's mood occasionally (it's certainly happened to me) - and then it's a good idea to take a short break, before returning to the battle! 

 

Even though I agree more with what you say politically than what Matt says, I don't think petty jibes help us have a decent debate - and Matt is a good contributor to that debate, even if he's a filthy fascist (just joking, Matt!).

 

For the first time I can remember, I disagree with you Alf.

 

If you could be bothered to look back through this thread, you would see that Matt is the one who gets personal and brings petty jibes to the argument. I agree that he is more than capable of contributing to the debate, he just chooses to do so in an unpleasant, gloating, confrontational style, something (iirc) you have pulled him up for previously.

[LiberalFox]

9 minutes ago, theessexfox said:

Don't you think that different strands of liberalism have simply been absorbed by the main two parties, rather than lost as an ideology? I think that the Labour and the Conservative parties are essentially progressive liberal parties in the main, albeit Corbyn has pushed Labour to more of a democratic socialist one. 

 

To a limited extent. Neither main political party is fundamentally liberal. Your post highlights part of the problem, liberals having to choose between social liberalism (Labour) and economic liberalism (Conservatives) and neither party is fundamentally either. The result is a self feeding fallacy that you can't have economic freedom without cruel economic Darwinism and you can't have equal opportunity without gross state regulation and intervention.  

[Buce]

 

Another balls-up from Boris Abbott:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/21/boris-johnson-wrongly-claims-350m-nhs-promise-is-in-manifesto

[Dr The Singh]

2 hours ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

 Matt has retreated into his safe space the snowflake

I be read the karmasutra atleast 20 times and Never heard of that position, 

[katieakita]

As someone who had dealings first hand with the Lib Dems corrupt incompetence during hopefully their first and last spell in power would be interesting hear an explanation for their handling of the Royal Mail sell off and the failed NT transformation program and the up coming prosecutions heading looming.

[Alf Bentley]

4 hours ago, Buce said:

 

For the first time I can remember, I disagree with you Alf.

 

If you could be bothered to look back through this thread, you would see that Matt is the one who gets personal and brings petty jibes to the argument. I agree that he is more than capable of contributing to the debate, he just chooses to do so in an unpleasant, gloating, confrontational style, something (iirc) you have pulled him up for previously.

 

I've looked at the last few pages - not going to waste my time going further. I can see 1 or 2 exaggerations/distortions of opponents' positions by Matt and a comment saying "get a grip, for crying out loud". I can also see some exaggerations by other posters and the comment about Matt "hiding away" after having "his arguments ripped apart". Frankly, it all seems pretty much on a par - not ideal conduct, but not worth getting excited about.

 

I don't remember having problems with Matt gloating or being confrontational. He can occasionally be blunt or wind people up, but so can a lot of us - including me. When I've had a problem with him, it has generally related to the distortion of opposing views to discredit them or inconsistency of attitude, depending on who has done a foul deed.

 

I mainly intervened today to try to cool things down. When these political threads remain civil, they can be enjoyable - and Matt is often a thoughtful, original poster, even if I disagree with many of his opinions. But it spoils it if people start bitterly carping at one another. Posts had obviously put Matt in a bad mood (rightly or wrongly, I'm not judging), so it didn't seem helpful to future debate to accuse him of "hiding away" after having "his arguments ripped apart". Maybe, if I wanted to cool things, I shouldn't have referred to "petty jibes", but I don't know what other description you'd use.

 

Anyway, let's all move on and discuss the substantive issues raised by this massively important election, rather than descending into playground squabbles.....life's too short.

Have a good evening, all! 

[Carl the Llama]

Boooooooo

 

Hisssssss

[bovril]

I'm not going to get into the whole 'x poster is great / crap' as it's a bit cringey and I don't personally know anyone on here but if you're going to use obvious exaggeration and tongue in cheek humour in your posts then don't flounce like a diva when somebody else does the same thing.

[Buce]

53 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I've looked at the last few pages - not going to waste my time going further. I can see 1 or 2 exaggerations/distortions of opponents' positions by Matt and a comment saying "get a grip, for crying out loud". I can also see some exaggerations by other posters and the comment about Matt "hiding away" after having "his arguments ripped apart". Frankly, it all seems pretty much on a par - not ideal conduct, but not worth getting excited about.

 

I don't remember having problems with Matt gloating or being confrontational. He can occasionally be blunt or wind people up, but so can a lot of us - including me. When I've had a problem with him, it has generally related to the distortion of opposing views to discredit them or inconsistency of attitude, depending on who has done a foul deed.

 

I mainly intervened today to try to cool things down. When these political threads remain civil, they can be enjoyable - and Matt is often a thoughtful, original poster, even if I disagree with many of his opinions. But it spoils it if people start bitterly carping at one another. Posts had obviously put Matt in a bad mood (rightly or wrongly, I'm not judging), so it didn't seem helpful to future debate to accuse him of "hiding away" after having "his arguments ripped apart". Maybe, if I wanted to cool things, I shouldn't have referred to "petty jibes", but I don't know what other description you'd use.

 

Anyway, let's all move on and discuss the substantive issues raised by this massively important election, rather than descending into playground squabbles.....life's too short.

Have a good evening, all! 

 

This was within a day of re-joining the debate: Is it not confrontational?

 

On ‎23‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 19:28, MattP said:

@Rincewind

 

Stop the stupid hyperbole it's pathetic, no one intends to bomb hospitals, schools or innocents. It doesn't give any leverage to the point you are making either, it means you sound like one of the childish placard wavers.

 

Corbyn refuses to answer questions about whether he would kill the leader of IS or whether he would fire a nuclear missile and it's the media's fault? Get a grip Ken, these are perfectly valid questions to ask someone who wants to lead the country and be in charge of those things, he can't even answer if the party will be pro-nuclear weeks before an election ffs.

 

Marr should have gone further and asked him what he'll do if Argentina invades the Falklands, a probable scenario I'd imagine if they are watching these interviews and he did somehow get elected. 

 

If you don't want to create refugees who are being slaughtered by the Syrian government what are you going to do to stop it?

 

I'm sick of so called pacifists who would never do anything about anything trying to claim some moral superiority over anyone else, you would have let the Nazi's genocide a race, you would have let the Soviets enslave mainland Europe and you would let any dictator in the World murder anyone he disagreed with, you have no moral high ground to claim whatsoever.

 

The reason May doesn't have to answer questions about supporting anti-British terrorists is actually quite simple, the same reason Cameron, Miliband, Blair, Clegg, Farron and Farage didn't get asked, they don't have a history of supporting anti-British terrorists. 

 

You voted for him to lead the party, you deal with the consequences. 

 

And Matt's opinion of his own post:

 

On ‎23‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 19:49, MattP said:

Forget I said anything, handful of posts back in here and already getting wound up, I've turned into a snowflake. 

 

Enjoy the election guys, hope the Corbyn supporters can do enough for him to hang onto the job even in defeat, I think they might. 

 

On this occasion he flounced off for about a day.

[Sharpe's Fox]

39 minutes ago, bovril said:

I'm not going to get into the whole 'x poster is great / crap' as it's a bit cringey and I don't personally know anyone on here but if you're going to use obvious exaggeration and tongue in cheek humour in your posts then don't flounce like a diva when somebody else does the same thing.

Spot on. We all have a piss take every now and again. End of the day it's just a football forum.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

This was within a day of re-joining the debate: Is it not confrontational?

 

 

And Matt's opinion of his own post:

 

 

On this occasion he flounced off for about a day.

 

I'd agree that the first comment you highlight is confrontational, but Matt is one of several posters who pick on Ken. Doesn't make it right, but if it's going to be raised then others deserve equal criticism. I didn't say that Matt was never confrontational. I just questioned your suggestion that I'd "pulled him up for it" as I've not found it to be a problem myself. Anyway, being confrontational can be good, though not in the case you've highlighted, I agree.

 

The second comment you highlight is an example of what I HAVE argued with Matt about before: unfairly distorting an opposing view to discredit it. This is actually an example that wouldn't particularly annoy me as the distortion is sufficiently ridiculous that you'd have to be an idiot to take it seriously. It's the more believable distortions that get my back up.

 

I do note, though, that you've had to go back a month to find that post. I bet both you and I have said something annoying over that period, too.

 

I'm not going to slate anyone for "flouncing off" as I've done it myself! Sometimes it's the right thing to do, if a discussion is ruining your mood.

Can we get back to the election now? 

[Guest]

Consumers lose appetite for spending due to rising prices in shops

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/21/growth-hit-as-rising-prices-slowed-consumer-spending

 

Change is needed

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Boooooooo

 

Hisssssss

 

I thought llamas spat, rather than booing and hissing?

[Rincewind]

2 hours ago, Buce said:

 

This was within a day of re-joining the debate: Is it not confrontational?

 

 

And Matt's opinion of his own post:

 

 

On this occasion he flounced off for about a day.

Think it was in reply to me the one about pacifists, I believe Corbyn has said he would resort to retaliation until after every avenue for a peaceful and diplomatic solution has been explored. I am sure Corby would base his decision information before him as would/should all leaders that oppose terrorism. This has not always been done as was seen with the Blair Government and Trump.

Both Britain and the USA have been guilty of selling arms to middle East countries and also being in conflict with them. 

There is one valuable asset that the West do not want to give up. OIL.

[The Doctor]

Flounce is a great word.

 

56 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Consumers lose appetite for spending due to rising prices in shops

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/21/growth-hit-as-rising-prices-slowed-consumer-spending

 

Change is needed

Isn't Q1 usually quiet compared to the rest of the year?

[Webbo]

If people can't take a negative response to their posts then it's better not to post on here at all . 

 

I'm sure Ken would prefer a reply to his posts rather than being politely ignored like most of us do on here.

[The Doctor]

3 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

 

There is one valuable asset that the West do not want to give up. OIL.

 

Bit of a lazy trope that - we've got a lot of it already, something like two thirds of our annual consumption comes from the North Sea.

[LiberalFox]

3 hours ago, katieakita said:

As someone who had dealings first hand with the Lib Dems corrupt incompetence during hopefully their first and last spell in power would be interesting hear an explanation for their handling of the Royal Mail sell off and the failed NT transformation program and the up coming prosecutions heading looming.

I'm not an expert on such issues. I don't know anything about the "NT transformation program", a quick google suggests it was an attempt at reforming the structure of the post office? What went wrong and how were the lib dems at fault for that?

 

As for Royal Mail the 2010 LD manifesto states: 

 

• Give both Royal Mail and post offices a long-term future, by separating Post Office Ltd from the Royal Mail and retaining Post Office Ltd in full public ownership. 49 per cent of Royal Mail will be sold to create funds for investment. The ownership of the other 51 per cent will be divided between an employee trust and the government.

 

Meanwhile the Conservative 2010 manifesto says very little about The Post Office or Royal Mail apart from:

 

"nothing underlines the powerlessness that many communities feel more than the loss of essential services, like post offices and pubs, because of decisions made by distant bureaucrats. our new ‘community right to buy’ scheme will give local people the power to protect any community assets that are threatened with closure. in addition, we will:give people a ‘right to bid’ to run any  community service instead of the state; and,reform the governance arrangements in football to enable cooperative ownership models to be established by supporters."

 

I find it amusing that the Tories consider pubs an essential service although I'm not sure how many pubs have been shut down by bureaucrats either. 

 

In reality we've ended up fully privatising Royal Mail which I believe was wrong as the original manifesto idea would have complied with EU law and kept the advantages of state ownership. On top of that the shares in the Royal Mail were offered at too low a price to a closed market of wealthy interests. The result being a lot of rich people were able to make £millions of unearned income when the share price became subject to a free market. Vince Cable defended this as being necessary to deliver a quick and smooth privatisation. I think the privatisation was badly handled and delivered poor value for the taxpayer and reeks of corruption. On the other hand I don't think Vince Cable is corrupt, nor do I think he would naturally support slash and burn privatisation (he's generally considered more to the left of the party). I think the Tories should take the blame there. 

 

I'd be interested to know a bit more though.   

[Rincewind]

9 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

 

Bit of a lazy trope that - we've got a lot of it already, something like two thirds of our annual consumption comes from the North Sea.

Unfortunately we may at some point negotiate with the Scots as the oil is off the Scottish coast. Not an easy task.

[Carl the Llama]

42 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I thought llamas spat, rather than booing and hissing?

Oh sorry does it inconvenience you that I don't conform to your species normative role definitions?  Would you like it if I suggested all Alf's spent the 80's with a guy named Paul fist-deep in them while they performed family-friendly slapstick routines?  Yeah that's what I thought.  Ptoo.

 

 

 

Does anybody actually have a problem with this Corbyn IRA story?  Forgive me if I'm being astoundingly ignorant but I would've thought that condemning violence on both fronts is better than singling out one side as the sole antagonist and perpetrator of wrongdoing.

 

[The Doctor]

12 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

Unfortunately we may at some point negotiate with the Scots as the oil is off the Scottish coast. Not an easy task.

North Sea oil is also with Norway - don't think we've pissed them off recently, and Scotland won't go independent without a guarantee of getting back into the eu. It's all bluster

[Webbo]

8 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Oh sorry does it inconvenience you that I don't conform to your species normative role definitions?  Would you like it if I suggested all Alf's spent the 80's with a guy named Paul fist-deep in them while they performed family-friendly slapstick routines?  Yeah that's what I thought.  Ptoo.

 

 

 

Does anybody actually have a problem with this Corbyn IRA story?  Forgive me if I'm being astoundingly ignorant but I would've thought that condemning violence on both fronts is better than singling out one side as the sole antagonist and perpetrator of wrongdoing.

 

He's equating the British army with people who deliberately targeted civilians.