[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[WATFORD zero]

[tweet]1536837347471503360[/tweet]

But what if we all believe really really hard that there's a solution that overcomes simple logic, it's worked well before hasn't it

 

[mikeyjh]

I read on the BBC that one of the original 37 was an Iranian police commander who fled the country after he refused to shoot protestors during anti-government demonstrations.

It's astounding. Let's ignore for one moment how unempathetic and ignorant you'd have to be to set up this scheme, as we all know Patel has less morality than Lord Voldemort.

The amazing thing is the sheer ineptitude. Of all the asylum seekers they could've chosen, for their flagship first flight you would've thought they'd have been able to find just 37 who had no connections here, didn't really have a traumatic back story and were just chancers looking for a handout - after all, we're led to believe the majority of them are just that. You'd do your homework to make sure there was as little chance possible of there being any legal objections for these individuals. Surely.

I have to admit to not drilling down on this story, I just know I hate the policy, it's nasty, vindictive, illegal and entirely non sensical. But, 37, only 37? On a plane that can carry 300? So that's £13,500 per person just for the cost of transportation, put aside all the processing and legal costs. How low can this govt sink?

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

Even Ian Dale, a man of the right, was withering in his criticisms of this mob on GMTV this morning. They literally cannot get a thing right: a revolting mix of conspiracy and cock-up.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Starting with Boris?

Man's a liability. Of course he does. Everyone knows that.

 

[Lever]

Man's a liability. Of course he does. Everyone knows that.

Good.

Is this the start of your rehabilitation after suggesting the behaviour of Johnson and Starmer is comparable?

 

[The Clamp]

[tweet]1536963657006993408[/tweet]

The sort of woman who would unplug your life support to charge her phone.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I have to admit to not drilling down on this story, I just know I hate the policy, it's nasty, vindictive, illegal and entirely non sensical. But, 37, only 37? On a plane that can carry 300? So that's £13,500 per person just for the cost of transportation, put aside all the processing and legal costs. How low can this govt sink?

Not forgetting the government didn't bother telling their racist supporters they were going to bring 68 Rwandans back here.

There is no asylum process in Rwanda. Those sent there will remain there.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Good.

Is this the start of your rehabilitation after suggesting the behaviour of Johnson and Starmer is comparable?

I am a little old fashioned in this respect.

When I voted (don't anymore, live in a very blue constituency), I voted for the Party, not any individual. In my days in the Young Socialists, couldn't bear Kinnock but that was where my interests lay.

Similarly, whether I like BoJo or Starmer is neither here nor there. Policies determine matters. It may clarify when/if Starmer ever sets out any plans for this country, but right now he lives off a negative criticism approach.

The article mentioned yesterday in The Guardian or whatever was quite revealing.

Labour need to offer concrete, plausible and affordable plans. Until then, they'll stagnate. Praising Starmer's deeds is pretty meaningless so far. All he does is say 'Wouldn't do that, wouldn't have this'. Shooting fish in a barrel may be his forte, who knows?

Modern life has dictated more emphasis on the individual, I'll stick to which Party offers the better road ahead.

 

[Eric the meek]

I have to admit to not drilling down on this story, I just know I hate the policy, it's nasty, vindictive, illegal and entirely non sensical. But, 37, only 37? On a plane that can carry 300? So that's £13,500 per person just for the cost of transportation, put aside all the processing and legal costs. How low can this govt sink?

Even lower. They are going to double down on this. It's a tale of political philosophy plucked out of early 20th century forced migrations. Compulsory transportation of perceived undesirables to a land far away and out of sight. And that's before you actually know who they are. Prejudiced, poorly planned, highly questionable legally, and presented as a humanitarian exercise to protect innocent people from traffickers. The irony is completely lost on our merry band of Albert Schweitzers. They have become the traffickers. They are guilty of state-sponsored people trafficking.

 

[Lever]

I am a little old fashioned in this respect.

When I voted (don't anymore, live in a very blue constituency), I voted for the Party, not any individual. In my days in the Young Socialists, couldn't bear Kinnock but that was where my interests lay.

Similarly, whether I like BoJo or Starmer is neither here nor there. Policies determine matters. It may clarify when/if Starmer ever sets out any plans for this country, but right now he lives off a negative criticism approach.

The article mentioned yesterday in The Guardian or whatever was quite revealing.

Labour need to offer concrete, plausible and affordable plans. Until then, they'll stagnate. Praising Starmer's deeds is pretty meaningless so far. All he does is say 'Wouldn't do that, wouldn't have this'. Shooting fish in a barrel may be his forte, who knows?

Modern life has dictated more emphasis on the individual, I'll stick to which Party offers the better road ahead.

Fair enough; I'll take that as a 'yes'....

 

[Lever]

I am a little old fashioned in this respect.

When I voted (don't anymore, live in a very blue constituency), I voted for the Party, not any individual. In my days in the Young Socialists, couldn't bear Kinnock but that was where my interests lay.

Similarly, whether I like BoJo or Starmer is neither here nor there. Policies determine matters. It may clarify when/if Starmer ever sets out any plans for this country, but right now he lives off a negative criticism approach.

The article mentioned yesterday in The Guardian or whatever was quite revealing.

Labour need to offer concrete, plausible and affordable plans. Until then, they'll stagnate. Praising Starmer's deeds is pretty meaningless so far. All he does is say 'Wouldn't do that, wouldn't have this'. Shooting fish in a barrel may be his forte, who knows?

Modern life has dictated more emphasis on the individual, I'll stick to which Party offers the better road ahead.

... in spite of snarky comments about the Labour leader. Double think?

 

[Is it PotG?]

... in spite of snarky comments about the Labour leader. Double think?

Sorry, what does that even mean?

 

[A1X]

Even Ian Dale, a man of the right, was withering in his criticisms of this mob on GMTV this morning. They literally cannot get a thing right: a revolting mix of conspiracy and cock-up.

Nah now he's criticised the Government he'll be dismissed as a "lefty" now. Just another lefty troublemaker. Along with the legal profession, the royal family, the Church of England...

 

[Lever]

Sorry, what does that even mean?

'even'? That's an unnecessary emphasis there.

In '1984', the Party used doublethink as part of its large-scale campaign of propaganda and psychological manipulation of its leadership and the public. Doublethink is the ability to hold two completely contradictory beliefs at the same time and to believe they are both true. Early in the book, doublethink refers to the ability to control your memories, to choose to forget something, as well as to forget about the forgetting process. Later on in the novel, as the Party implements its mind-control techniques, people ultimately lose the ability to form independent thoughts. Eventually, it becomes possible for the Party to convince the public of anything, even if it's the exact opposite of what the public already knows to be true.



In other words, you make negative asides about Starmer while maintaining your preference to avoid personalisation... good juxtaposition of contraries there.

 

[Is it PotG?]

'even'? That's an unnecessary emphasis there.

In '1984', the Party used doublethink as part of its large-scale campaign of propaganda and psychological manipulation of its leadership and the public. Doublethink is the ability to hold two completely contradictory beliefs at the same time and to believe they are both true. Early in the book, doublethink refers to the ability to control your memories, to choose to forget something, as well as to forget about the forgetting process. Later on in the novel, as the Party implements its mind-control techniques, people ultimately lose the ability to form independent thoughts. Eventually, it becomes possible for the Party to convince the public of anything, even if it's the exact opposite of what the public already knows to be true.

Your post was meaningless, I question it and you try and give me a grammar lesson and a lazy copy/paste. Therein lies the problem, a lack of ability to express your views eloquently.

I am happy to enter in to a sensible discussion about ideals and political cynicism, and how these things may change with age, but if you prefer your way.....

 

[Lever]

Your post was meaningless, I question it and you try and give me a grammar lesson and a lazy copy/paste. Therein lies the problem, a lack of ability to express your views eloquently.

I am happy to enter in to a sensible discussion about ideals and political cynicism, and how these things may change with age, but if you prefer your way.....

I could explain to you (again) but I can't understand it for you. Have another go after you have read the final comment on my last post....

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Agreed. Very dangerous too; this cabal must go but it is now clear we cannot rely on decent (?) tory MPs to do the right thing. Tension is building up....

It's important Johnson gets an absolute shellacking in these upcoming by-elections.

 

[Lever]

'even'? That's an unnecessary emphasis there.

In '1984', the Party used doublethink as part of its large-scale campaign of propaganda and psychological manipulation of its leadership and the public. Doublethink is the ability to hold two completely contradictory beliefs at the same time and to believe they are both true. Early in the book, doublethink refers to the ability to control your memories, to choose to forget something, as well as to forget about the forgetting process. Later on in the novel, as the Party implements its mind-control techniques, people ultimately lose the ability to form independent thoughts. Eventually, it becomes possible for the Party to convince the public of anything, even if it's the exact opposite of what the public already knows to be true.



In other words, you make negative asides about Starmer while maintaining your preference to avoid personalisation... good juxtaposition of contraries there.

Are you taking any advice/treatment for your absurd tendency to give a thumbs up without accompanying comment? That's a great example of double-think! Thank you for providing it.

 

[Is it PotG?]

I could explain to you (again) but I can't understand it for you. Have another go after you have read the final comment on my last post....

After your much needed edits (à la GAP) I THINK I might be a little clearer on what you failed to say.

The impetuosity of an idealistic youth doesn't encourage such deep reflection upon political bias. You go along on the wave of Billy Bragg, The Faith Brothers and Red Wedge etc. The sheer pie in the sky element has no meaning, you're just going to change the world, man.

Add a few years, and reality takes over.

It's not TOO difficult a concept, or so I thought.

 

[Lever]

After your much needed edits (à la GAP) I THINK I might be a little clearer on what you failed to say.

The impetuosity of an idealistic youth doesn't encourage such deep reflection upon political bias. You go along on the wave of Billy Bragg, The Faith Brothers and Red Wedge etc. The sheer pie in the sky element has no meaning, you're just going to change the world, man.

Add a few years, and reality takes over.

It's not TOO difficult a concept, or so I thought.

Mmmh... you don't seem to be very lucky at that.

It's always good to review what you write and make appropriate adjustments if it clarifies matters and corrects avoidable errors. I respectfully suggest you avoid implicitly criticising it; you might even like to try it yourself.