Snap General Election called

[Which Tyler]

Just seen this, Russ in Cheshire has been going beyond the week in tory, to do the 14 years in tory; with a thread (sometimes 2) for each year.
Starting June 27th, currently up to 2018, and I think the brown smelly stuff is about to his the air-circulating bladed thing:

https://threadreaderapp.com/user/RussInCheshire

[Stom]

It feels like a pretty subjective assessment for anyone to make as to whether the party they don't like features characteristics from that list.

For me, the SNP would show nearly all the features from that list, but a) that's no reason for me to call them actual fascist and b) given the depth of my contempt for them I wouldn't be best placed to do that analysis anyway. When Mhairi Black stood up in parliament and accused the Tory govt of creeping fascism, how many of us agreed with her (I didn't, I was outraged at the hypocrisy), I think I remember it being discussed on here? But that was someone with an obvious axe to grind making a subjective analysis that ended in a shallow, populist and slightly hysterical assessment (I'm talking about Black, not me!).

I guess my point is, actual fascism is a country mile away from anything we've seen domestically in the UK, and drawing these parallels isn't really useful. Unless it's about the SNP.

I agree that the question of whether or how closely a person or party hits each of those points has some subjectivity. But as a whole it has some value IMO.

Although there will always be disagreement over using the term fascist is a particular case I'd say it's objectively true that Trump scores very highly on this list so is at least very close to being a fascist.

I'd also say that Reform UK and (to a lesser degree) the Tories are objectively closer to fascism than are the other parties (although I'm not familiar enough with the SNP to judge them). Brexit (and Johnson definitely moved the Tories closer with all the victimhood, the anti-intellectualism, the unreality and of course the purging of members who did not agree with such tactics. And Farage has always floated in those waters. Clearly individuals can be closer or further away eg Jeremy Hunt vs Suella Braverman.

It's useful to have some kind of measure because, for example even if the Tories never become fascists, their use of some of fascism's tactics and messages enables and normalises fascism. It's clear than they've empowered Farage and he's the closest we have to Trump.

The Tories are closer to fascism than Labour because they are right of centre, the same way Labour is closer to communism.

There is nothing wrong with holding right of centre views. I don’t see that any of the mainstream centralist parties are systemically ‘evil’ to use that nonsense description. Labelling Conservative voters as fascists is pathetic and whilst no one on this thread is doing that it’s a cripples for any rational debate when one party decides to abuse anyone who doesn’t agree with them. We’ve seen too much of that from the right and the left. If we are going to reclaim politics then moving away from the hysterical crap is a start.

Fair play to Mells for calmly defending his voting choice, but he shouldn’t be obliged to do so. I voted Labour for the first time ever but it was close and my local MP is a conservative who is towards the liberal side of the party and (since she has been returned) I hope she will help influence the party towards the centre. But there is clear blue sea between Conservative MPs and fascism (in the vast majority of cases I do accept a vocal minority are damn close) and a vote for a moderate conservative should not be construed as a vote for fascism. Ever.

There is a balance to be struck between striving for communication and finding common ground...and calling out behaviors that do not belong in our society. I don't think it's unfair to say that Suella Braverman says and does a lot of things that are fascist in nature. And so calling out the Tory party as lurching toward fascism is fair, in my opinion.

Likewise, Johnson's rhetoric was extremely dangerous and took the party close to fascism. Which, again, I believe should be called out.

When an individual or party do not act in good faith, it is no good engaging them in debate.

And I'd suggest that the Labour Party are a lot further away from Communism than the Tories are from Fascism. Why? Well, because this Labour party is all about devolution, all about giving power back. And at their hearts, both communism and fascism are about control. So, considering the horseshoe of politics, you can definitely argue that this conservative party is closer to communism than Labour...

[Mellsblue]

I agree that the question of whether or how closely a person or party hits each of those points has some subjectivity. But as a whole it has some value IMO.

Although there will always be disagreement over using the term fascist is a particular case I'd say it's objectively true that Trump scores very highly on this list so is at least very close to being a fascist.

I'd also say that Reform UK and (to a lesser degree) the Tories are objectively closer to fascism than are the other parties (although I'm not familiar enough with the SNP to judge them). Brexit (and Johnson definitely moved the Tories closer with all the victimhood, the anti-intellectualism, the unreality and of course the purging of members who did not agree with such tactics. And Farage has always floated in those waters. Clearly individuals can be closer or further away eg Jeremy Hunt vs Suella Braverman.

It's useful to have some kind of measure because, for example even if the Tories never become fascists, their use of some of fascism's tactics and messages enables and normalises fascism. It's clear than they've empowered Farage and he's the closest we have to Trump.

The Tories are closer to fascism than Labour because they are right of centre, the same way Labour is closer to communism.

There is nothing wrong with holding right of centre views. I don’t see that any of the mainstream centralist parties are systemically ‘evil’ to use that nonsense description. Labelling Conservative voters as fascists is pathetic and whilst no one on this thread is doing that it’s a cripples for any rational debate when one party decides to abuse anyone who doesn’t agree with them. We’ve seen too much of that from the right and the left. If we are going to reclaim politics then moving away from the hysterical crap is a start.

Fair play to Mells for calmly defending his voting choice, but he shouldn’t be obliged to do so. I voted Labour for the first time ever but it was close and my local MP is a conservative who is towards the liberal side of the party and (since she has been returned) I hope she will help influence the party towards the centre. But there is clear blue sea between Conservative MPs and fascism (in the vast majority of cases I do accept a vocal minority are damn close) and a vote for a moderate conservative should not be construed as a vote for fascism. Ever.

a) There is a balance to be struck between striving for communication and finding common ground...and calling out behaviors that do not belong in our society.

b) Why? …devolution, all about giving power back. And at their hearts, both communism and fascism are about control.

a) Agreed, which is why the hyperbole is so dangerous. The boy who cried wolf and all that.

b) The Conservatives have created almost all the ‘metro mayors’, approx 10 (I think) despite it being a politically poor decision - only one is a Conservative. Bloody Gove up to his Machiavellian tricks again.

[Son of Mathonwy]

It feels like a pretty subjective assessment for anyone to make as to whether the party they don't like features characteristics from that list.

For me, the SNP would show nearly all the features from that list, but a) that's no reason for me to call them actual fascist and b) given the depth of my contempt for them I wouldn't be best placed to do that analysis anyway. When Mhairi Black stood up in parliament and accused the Tory govt of creeping fascism, how many of us agreed with her (I didn't, I was outraged at the hypocrisy), I think I remember it being discussed on here? But that was someone with an obvious axe to grind making a subjective analysis that ended in a shallow, populist and slightly hysterical assessment (I'm talking about Black, not me!).

I guess my point is, actual fascism is a country mile away from anything we've seen domestically in the UK, and drawing these parallels isn't really useful. Unless it's about the SNP.

I agree that the question of whether or how closely a person or party hits each of those points has some subjectivity. But as a whole it has some value IMO.

Although there will always be disagreement over using the term fascist is a particular case I'd say it's objectively true that Trump scores very highly on this list so is at least very close to being a fascist.

I'd also say that Reform UK and (to a lesser degree) the Tories are objectively closer to fascism than are the other parties (although I'm not familiar enough with the SNP to judge them). Brexit (and Johnson definitely moved the Tories closer with all the victimhood, the anti-intellectualism, the unreality and of course the purging of members who did not agree with such tactics. And Farage has always floated in those waters. Clearly individuals can be closer or further away eg Jeremy Hunt vs Suella Braverman.

It's useful to have some kind of measure because, for example even if the Tories never become fascists, their use of some of fascism's tactics and messages enables and normalises fascism. It's clear than they've empowered Farage and he's the closest we have to Trump.

The Tories are closer to fascism than Labour because they are right of centre, the same way Labour is closer to communism.

Yes but, 1) we're discussing fascism here. If you want to make a list of the characteristics of totalitarian communism and see how close Labour is to that, go ahead. I'm not convinced it's very close but it might be a useful exercise - we should be forewarned of such a risk.
2) there is not a single dimension to this - being right wing might just mean that you are in favour of a more pure form of capitalism - that does not imply fascism or totalitarianism. In fact fascism often includes a fair amount of government intervention in the market. So simply being right of centre should not necessarily mean that you are closer to fascism. Using many fascist tactics would.

There is nothing wrong with holding right of centre views. I don’t see that any of the mainstream centralist parties are systemically ‘evil’ to use that nonsense description. Labelling Conservative voters as fascists is pathetic and whilst no one on this thread is doing that it’s a cripples for any rational debate when one party decides to abuse anyone who doesn’t agree with them. We’ve seen too much of that from the right and the left. If we are going to reclaim politics then moving away from the hysterical crap is a start.

Fair play to Mells for calmly defending his voting choice, but he shouldn’t be obliged to do so. I voted Labour for the first time ever but it was close and my local MP is a conservative who is towards the liberal side of the party and (since she has been returned) I hope she will help influence the party towards the centre. But there is clear blue sea between Conservative MPs and fascism (in the vast majority of cases I do accept a vocal minority are damn close) and a vote for a moderate conservative should not be construed as a vote for fascism. Ever.

The question of the ethics of right and left is a huge one, so for the purposes of discussion I certainly wouldn't start with an assumption that right of centre views are inherently less ethical than those on the left.

It's obviously not helpful to call the Tories (or anyone else) fascists unless there's very good evidence. Which is why I made a point of listing fascist characteristics so some kind of evidence can be gathered. I certainly don't think Tories are fascists in general, although under Johnson they drifted the closest they have been (to my knowledge anyway).

On one particular point, do you think Trump is a fascist, or close to it?

[Sandydragon]

SOM,

Not going to quote, post will be too lengthy.

I think we can both agree that the name calling is purile and pathetic.

Is Trump a fascist? It’s easy to say yes except I do t think he ticks all the boxes. His first term was more chaotic than ideological. The plans he may have for the second term are worrying.

Whatever, he’s definitely authoritarian in intent and is only constrained by whatever constitutional control might be left. He would definitely be a dictator if he could get away with it. When he’s imprisoning political opponents etc, a discussion whether he meets all the requirements for a dictator is second place to the point that he would be a dictator.

[morepork]

It feels like a pretty subjective assessment for anyone to make as to whether the party they don't like features characteristics from that list.

For me, the SNP would show nearly all the features from that list, but a) that's no reason for me to call them actual fascist and b) given the depth of my contempt for them I wouldn't be best placed to do that analysis anyway. When Mhairi Black stood up in parliament and accused the Tory govt of creeping fascism, how many of us agreed with her (I didn't, I was outraged at the hypocrisy), I think I remember it being discussed on here? But that was someone with an obvious axe to grind making a subjective analysis that ended in a shallow, populist and slightly hysterical assessment (I'm talking about Black, not me!).

I guess my point is, actual fascism is a country mile away from anything we've seen domestically in the UK, and drawing these parallels isn't really useful. Unless it's about the SNP.

I agree that the question of whether or how closely a person or party hits each of those points has some subjectivity. But as a whole it has some value IMO.

Although there will always be disagreement over using the term fascist is a particular case I'd say it's objectively true that Trump scores very highly on this list so is at least very close to being a fascist.

I'd also say that Reform UK and (to a lesser degree) the Tories are objectively closer to fascism than are the other parties (although I'm not familiar enough with the SNP to judge them). Brexit (and Johnson definitely moved the Tories closer with all the victimhood, the anti-intellectualism, the unreality and of course the purging of members who did not agree with such tactics. And Farage has always floated in those waters. Clearly individuals can be closer or further away eg Jeremy Hunt vs Suella Braverman.

It's useful to have some kind of measure because, for example even if the Tories never become fascists, their use of some of fascism's tactics and messages enables and normalises fascism. It's clear than they've empowered Farage and he's the closest we have to Trump.

The Tories are closer to fascism than Labour because they are right of centre, the same way Labour is closer to communism.

There is nothing wrong with holding right of centre views. I don’t see that any of the mainstream centralist parties are systemically ‘evil’ to use that nonsense description. Labelling Conservative voters as fascists is pathetic and whilst no one on this thread is doing that it’s a cripples for any rational debate when one party decides to abuse anyone who doesn’t agree with them. We’ve seen too much of that from the right and the left. If we are going to reclaim politics then moving away from the hysterical crap is a start.

Fair play to Mells for calmly defending his voting choice, but he shouldn’t be obliged to do so. I voted Labour for the first time ever but it was close and my local MP is a conservative who is towards the liberal side of the party and (since she has been returned) I hope she will help influence the party towards the centre. But there is clear blue sea between Conservative MPs and fascism (in the vast majority of cases I do accept a vocal minority are damn close) and a vote for a moderate conservative should not be construed as a vote for fascism. Ever.

There is no way that closer to communism is a valid critique of Labour. There is no way that communism is a valid concern for voters either and I can't get my head around why such an invalid concern would be voiced in this day and age.

[Donny osmond]

I agree that the question of whether or how closely a person or party hits each of those points has some subjectivity. But as a whole it has some value IMO.

Although there will always be disagreement over using the term fascist is a particular case I'd say it's objectively true that Trump scores very highly on this list so is at least very close to being a fascist.

I'd also say that Reform UK and (to a lesser degree) the Tories are objectively closer to fascism than are the other parties (although I'm not familiar enough with the SNP to judge them). Brexit (and Johnson definitely moved the Tories closer with all the victimhood, the anti-intellectualism, the unreality and of course the purging of members who did not agree with such tactics. And Farage has always floated in those waters. Clearly individuals can be closer or further away eg Jeremy Hunt vs Suella Braverman.

It's useful to have some kind of measure because, for example even if the Tories never become fascists, their use of some of fascism's tactics and messages enables and normalises fascism. It's clear than they've empowered Farage and he's the closest we have to Trump.

The Tories are closer to fascism than Labour because they are right of centre, the same way Labour is closer to communism.

There is nothing wrong with holding right of centre views. I don’t see that any of the mainstream centralist parties are systemically ‘evil’ to use that nonsense description. Labelling Conservative voters as fascists is pathetic and whilst no one on this thread is doing that it’s a cripples for any rational debate when one party decides to abuse anyone who doesn’t agree with them. We’ve seen too much of that from the right and the left. If we are going to reclaim politics then moving away from the hysterical crap is a start.

Fair play to Mells for calmly defending his voting choice, but he shouldn’t be obliged to do so. I voted Labour for the first time ever but it was close and my local MP is a conservative who is towards the liberal side of the party and (since she has been returned) I hope she will help influence the party towards the centre. But there is clear blue sea between Conservative MPs and fascism (in the vast majority of cases I do accept a vocal minority are damn close) and a vote for a moderate conservative should not be construed as a vote for fascism. Ever.

There is no way that closer to communism is a valid critique of Labour. There is no way that communism is a valid concern for voters either and I can't get my head around why such an invalid concern would be voiced in this day and age.

You've missed his point

[Stom]

The Tories are closer to fascism than Labour because they are right of centre, the same way Labour is closer to communism.

There is nothing wrong with holding right of centre views. I don’t see that any of the mainstream centralist parties are systemically ‘evil’ to use that nonsense description. Labelling Conservative voters as fascists is pathetic and whilst no one on this thread is doing that it’s a cripples for any rational debate when one party decides to abuse anyone who doesn’t agree with them. We’ve seen too much of that from the right and the left. If we are going to reclaim politics then moving away from the hysterical crap is a start.

Fair play to Mells for calmly defending his voting choice, but he shouldn’t be obliged to do so. I voted Labour for the first time ever but it was close and my local MP is a conservative who is towards the liberal side of the party and (since she has been returned) I hope she will help influence the party towards the centre. But there is clear blue sea between Conservative MPs and fascism (in the vast majority of cases I do accept a vocal minority are damn close) and a vote for a moderate conservative should not be construed as a vote for fascism. Ever.

There is no way that closer to communism is a valid critique of Labour. There is no way that communism is a valid concern for voters either and I can't get my head around why such an invalid concern would be voiced in this day and age.

You've missed his point

It was an invalid point and showed a misunderstanding of key political ideas. And also suggests that this Labour Party is anything but centrist (again, no problem with that) while taking away people’s ability to label important members of the Conservative Party like Braverman, Patel, JRM, et al., for what they do represent. Which is the shadow of fascism.

[Sandydragon]

There is no way that closer to communism is a valid critique of Labour. There is no way that communism is a valid concern for voters either and I can't get my head around why such an invalid concern would be voiced in this day and age.

You've missed his point

It was an invalid point and showed a misunderstanding of key political ideas. And also suggests that this Labour Party is anything but centrist (again, no problem with that) while taking away people’s ability to label important members of the Conservative Party like Braverman, Patel, JRM, et al., for what they do represent. Which is the shadow of fascism.

The original point, not made by me, was that the conservatives were closer to fascism than Labour was. By virtue of being right of centre, of course they are. Likewise Labour are closer to communism than the Tories are by dint of being a left of centre party.

Dual back to the Corbyn era and the comparison would have been even more obvious.

And to be clear I’m not calling Labour comminist, in the same way I’m not calling the Tories fascist. Labelling either group that way is quite absurd, even if some individual members of each party tack close.

Touched a nerve somewhere is appears.

[Son of Mathonwy]

SOM,

Not going to quote, post will be too lengthy.

I think we can both agree that the name calling is purile and pathetic.

Is Trump a fascist? It’s easy to say yes except I do t think he ticks all the boxes. His first term was more chaotic than ideological. The plans he may have for the second term are worrying.

Whatever, he’s definitely authoritarian in intent and is only constrained by whatever constitutional control might be left. He would definitely be a dictator if he could get away with it. When he’s imprisoning political opponents etc, a discussion whether he meets all the requirements for a dictator is second place to the point that he would be a dictator.

We struggle to learn from history if we think that certain things are only in the past. Like fascists need to have jackboots and swastikas to be fascists. That's why a list of characteristics is helpful - it allows us to be dispassionate (well, a bit more anyway) about our judgements. We can spot would-be fascists before they attain ultimate power.

[Son of Mathonwy]

You've missed his point

It was an invalid point and showed a misunderstanding of key political ideas. And also suggests that this Labour Party is anything but centrist (again, no problem with that) while taking away people’s ability to label important members of the Conservative Party like Braverman, Patel, JRM, et al., for what they do represent. Which is the shadow of fascism.

The original point, not made by me, was that the conservatives were closer to fascism than Labour was. By virtue of being right of centre, of course they are. Likewise Labour are closer to communism than the Tories are by dint of being a left of centre party.

Dual back to the Corbyn era and the comparison would have been even more obvious.

And to be clear I’m not calling Labour comminist, in the same way I’m not calling the Tories fascist. Labelling either group that way is quite absurd, even if some individual members of each party tack close.

Touched a nerve somewhere is appears.

To repeat my previous response:

1) we're discussing fascism here. If you want to make a list of the characteristics of totalitarian communism and see how close Labour is to that, go ahead. I'm not convinced it's very close but it might be a useful exercise - we should be forewarned of such a risk.

2) there is not a single dimension to this - being right wing might just mean that you are in favour of a more pure form of capitalism - that does not imply fascism or totalitarianism. In fact fascism often includes a fair amount of government intervention in the market. So simply being right of centre should not necessarily mean that you are closer to fascism. Using many fascist tactics would.

[Stom]

You've missed his point

It was an invalid point and showed a misunderstanding of key political ideas. And also suggests that this Labour Party is anything but centrist (again, no problem with that) while taking away people’s ability to label important members of the Conservative Party like Braverman, Patel, JRM, et al., for what they do represent. Which is the shadow of fascism.

The original point, not made by me, was that the conservatives were closer to fascism than Labour was. By virtue of being right of centre, of course they are. Likewise Labour are closer to communism than the Tories are by dint of being a left of centre party.

Dual back to the Corbyn era and the comparison would have been even more obvious.

And to be clear I’m not calling Labour comminist, in the same way I’m not calling the Tories fascist. Labelling either group that way is quite absurd, even if some individual members of each party tack close.

Touched a nerve somewhere is appears.

Which, again, shows a vital misunderstanding of the complexities of politics. It’s not left and right. It’s not even that horseshoe I mentioned before.

But communism is much much closer to fascism than it is to social democrat ideology. And it’s especially far from the labor movement, which is actually quite conservative in modern terms.

By dint of their illiberalism, the modern Tory party is closer to both fascism and communism than Labour, by quite some distance.

The difference is that fascists reject individualism because of bigotry and fear, and communism rejects it because it’s a threat to the system.

[Sandydragon]

It was an invalid point and showed a misunderstanding of key political ideas. And also suggests that this Labour Party is anything but centrist (again, no problem with that) while taking away people’s ability to label important members of the Conservative Party like Braverman, Patel, JRM, et al., for what they do represent. Which is the shadow of fascism.

The original point, not made by me, was that the conservatives were closer to fascism than Labour was. By virtue of being right of centre, of course they are. Likewise Labour are closer to communism than the Tories are by dint of being a left of centre party.

Dual back to the Corbyn era and the comparison would have been even more obvious.

And to be clear I’m not calling Labour comminist, in the same way I’m not calling the Tories fascist. Labelling either group that way is quite absurd, even if some individual members of each party tack close.

Touched a nerve somewhere is appears.

Which, again, shows a vital misunderstanding of the complexities of politics. It’s not left and right. It’s not even that horseshoe I mentioned before.

But communism is much much closer to fascism than it is to social democrat ideology. And it’s especially far from the labor movement, which is actually quite conservative in modern terms.

By dint of their illiberalism, the modern Tory party is closer to both fascism and communism than Labour, by quite some distance.

The difference is that fascists reject individualism because of bigotry and fear, and communism rejects it because it’s a threat to the system.

I agree that the extremes are far closer than they may wish to admit.

But you still seem to be struggling to understand the point I was originally making.

[Sandydragon]

SOM,

Not going to quote, post will be too lengthy.

I think we can both agree that the name calling is purile and pathetic.

Is Trump a fascist? It’s easy to say yes except I do t think he ticks all the boxes. His first term was more chaotic than ideological. The plans he may have for the second term are worrying.

Whatever, he’s definitely authoritarian in intent and is only constrained by whatever constitutional control might be left. He would definitely be a dictator if he could get away with it. When he’s imprisoning political opponents etc, a discussion whether he meets all the requirements for a dictator is second place to the point that he would be a dictator.

We struggle to learn from history if we think that certain things are only in the past. Like fascists need to have jackboots and swastikas to be fascists. That's why a list of characteristics is helpful - it allows us to be dispassionate (well, a bit more anyway) about our judgements. We can spot would-be fascists before they attain ultimate power.

Agree that we need to learn from the past and if a politician is obviously showing the characteristics of a fascist then call them what they are.

But. The debate below was moving towards how anyone could vote Tory, implying the party was fascist. That’s rubbish. Equally rubbish is that Tory voters are by default fascist.

[Stom]

The original point, not made by me, was that the conservatives were closer to fascism than Labour was. By virtue of being right of centre, of course they are. Likewise Labour are closer to communism than the Tories are by dint of being a left of centre party.

Dual back to the Corbyn era and the comparison would have been even more obvious.

And to be clear I’m not calling Labour comminist, in the same way I’m not calling the Tories fascist. Labelling either group that way is quite absurd, even if some individual members of each party tack close.

Touched a nerve somewhere is appears.

Which, again, shows a vital misunderstanding of the complexities of politics. It’s not left and right. It’s not even that horseshoe I mentioned before.

But communism is much much closer to fascism than it is to social democrat ideology. And it’s especially far from the labor movement, which is actually quite conservative in modern terms.

By dint of their illiberalism, the modern Tory party is closer to both fascism and communism than Labour, by quite some distance.

The difference is that fascists reject individualism because of bigotry and fear, and communism rejects it because it’s a threat to the system.

I agree that the extremes are far closer than they may wish to admit.

But you still seem to be struggling to understand the point I was originally making.

Well, I did. I think it’s perfectly fair to suggest that the Tory party has flirted with fascism, and the likes of Braverman would drag it further toward that.

You then made a comment that Labour were just as communist as the conservatives are fascist, which I also reject.

I think it’s dangerous to not call out fascist behavior for free of offending. That doesn’t mean calling people fascists, nor did I call Tory voters fascists. I merely pointed out that, in my mind, voting Tory was an implicit acceptance of their actions, even if those actions were fascist in nature.

I accepted Mells point about voting for the individual.

So, yes, I’m not sure what I could have done to prove that I understood your point, I just completely disagree with it.

[Puja]

Agree that we need to learn from the past and if a politician is obviously showing the characteristics of a fascist then call them what they are.

But. The debate below was moving towards how anyone could vote Tory, implying the party was fascist. That’s rubbish. Equally rubbish is that Tory voters are by default fascist.

Was it?

Puja

[morepork]

Agree that we need to learn from the past and if a politician is obviously showing the characteristics of a fascist then call them what they are.

But. The debate below was moving towards how anyone could vote Tory, implying the party was fascist. That’s rubbish. Equally rubbish is that Tory voters are by default fascist.

Was it?

There’s that nerve. But on a different limb.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Agree that we need to learn from the past and if a politician is obviously showing the characteristics of a fascist then call them what they are.

But. The debate below was moving towards how anyone could vote Tory, implying the party was fascist. That’s rubbish. Equally rubbish is that Tory voters are by default fascist.

Was it?

Puja

It wa moving that way.

[Sandydragon]

Which, again, shows a vital misunderstanding of the complexities of politics. It’s not left and right. It’s not even that horseshoe I mentioned before.

But communism is much much closer to fascism than it is to social democrat ideology. And it’s especially far from the labor movement, which is actually quite conservative in modern terms.

By dint of their illiberalism, the modern Tory party is closer to both fascism and communism than Labour, by quite some distance.

The difference is that fascists reject individualism because of bigotry and fear, and communism rejects it because it’s a threat to the system.

I agree that the extremes are far closer than they may wish to admit.

But you still seem to be struggling to understand the point I was originally making.

Well, I did. I think it’s perfectly fair to suggest that the Tory party has flirted with fascism, and the likes of Braverman would drag it further toward that.

You then made a comment that Labour were just as communist as the conservatives are fascist, which I also reject.

I think it’s dangerous to not call out fascist behavior for free of offending. That doesn’t mean calling people fascists, nor did I call Tory voters fascists. I merely pointed out that, in my mind, voting Tory was an implicit acceptance of their actions, even if those actions were fascist in nature.

I accepted Mells point about voting for the individual.

So, yes, I’m not sure what I could have done to prove that I understood your point, I just completely disagree with it.

You’ve misread my post.

O said Labour were closer to communism than the Tories by dint of being towards the left of politics. Same way the Tories are closer to fascism by being on the right.

At least read the post before calling your own argument nonsense

[Which Tyler]

It wa moving that way.

Please show your working - because IMO the words used in this thread do not back this up.

[Puja]

Agree that we need to learn from the past and if a politician is obviously showing the characteristics of a fascist then call them what they are.

But. The debate below was moving towards how anyone could vote Tory, implying the party was fascist. That’s rubbish. Equally rubbish is that Tory voters are by default fascist.

Was it?

Puja

It wa moving that way.

Was it though?

Puja

[Sandydragon]

I voted for this Conservative Party as I know the MP is a good bloke, a One Nation Conservative* and someone who enjoys and is a good constituency mp. He and Boris don’t get along if that helps people reconcile my decision. I also voted Con as I believe a strong official opposition is a necessity for good law making and if the Tories lost my seat then there most definitely would not be a strong official opposition - not that there is now, particularly. Having as many One Nation MPs as possible in the cpp is also important to me (and the country, imo) as I want the party to move back towards the centre over the next five years. As Starmer has done with Labour.

I don't get in brother. In a FFP environment how could your vote not enable the most toxic platforms of that party?

The Conservatives are going to elect their new leader and the first rounds of that are going to be voted for by the Conservative MPs. If the only ones left after the July 4th mass-murder are toxic bigoted fuckers, then they will vote for a toxic bigoted fucker leader, especially if they can point to everyone who was sensible getting voted out as evidence that the "Will of the People" is that they need to go further right to win elections. So therefore keeping a sensible Tory MP in could be seen as a good plan.

I mean, I think they will select a toxic bigoted fucker anyway, simply because the majority of those who kept their seats are the rabid fringe cause they were in safe seats (and because the Party membership get the final call when it's narrowed down to two candidates, and last time they did that, they picked Truss), but I can see Mell's logic there, even if it's not a decision I would make.

Puja

Well for a start puja you’ve suggested that what’s left of the Tory party will be toxic bigoted fuckers. Who could suggest them eh?

[Sandydragon]

Was it?

Puja

It wa moving that way.

Was it though?

Puja

That’s my reading of it. You were the one who queried how someone with sympathy for prisoners could possibly be Tory, or related to one. Many references to the Tory party now being further to the right.

I’m not going to go through this whole thread and write an essay. Nor am I making a moderators call. But my reading of your and others posts is that this debate is creeping that way. Lots of lazy labelling (without supporting essay writing).

[Puja]

I don't get in brother. In a FFP environment how could your vote not enable the most toxic platforms of that party?

The Conservatives are going to elect their new leader and the first rounds of that are going to be voted for by the Conservative MPs. If the only ones left after the July 4th mass-murder are toxic bigoted fuckers, then they will vote for a toxic bigoted fucker leader, especially if they can point to everyone who was sensible getting voted out as evidence that the "Will of the People" is that they need to go further right to win elections. So therefore keeping a sensible Tory MP in could be seen as a good plan.

I mean, I think they will select a toxic bigoted fucker anyway, simply because the majority of those who kept their seats are the rabid fringe cause they were in safe seats (and because the Party membership get the final call when it's narrowed down to two candidates, and last time they did that, they picked Truss), but I can see Mell's logic there, even if it's not a decision I would make.

Puja

Well for a start puja you’ve suggested that what’s left of the Tory party will be toxic bigoted fuckers. Who could suggest them eh?

You realise that you have literally just quoted me actively defending Mells's decision to vote Tory and saying that I understand his reasoning, right?

Puja

[Stom]

I agree that the extremes are far closer than they may wish to admit.

But you still seem to be struggling to understand the point I was originally making.

Well, I did. I think it’s perfectly fair to suggest that the Tory party has flirted with fascism, and the likes of Braverman would drag it further toward that.

You then made a comment that Labour were just as communist as the conservatives are fascist, which I also reject.

I think it’s dangerous to not call out fascist behavior for free of offending. That doesn’t mean calling people fascists, nor did I call Tory voters fascists. I merely pointed out that, in my mind, voting Tory was an implicit acceptance of their actions, even if those actions were fascist in nature.

I accepted Mells point about voting for the individual.

So, yes, I’m not sure what I could have done to prove that I understood your point, I just completely disagree with it.

You’ve misread my post.

O said Labour were closer to communism than the Tories by dint of being towards the left of politics. Same way the Tories are closer to fascism by being on the right.

At least read the post before calling your own argument nonsense

And I disagree with that premise, as I’ve said 3 times. And I feel it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of politics.

I even said that the illiberalism of the conservatives puts them closer to communism than Labour.

I don’t know how clearer I can make it