RugbyRebels

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 11:15 am I suppose I will forever have to wonder what this sentence is really trying to say: ‘It means they don't have to change, because Kemi agrees with them, and in fact they can go harder on racism and misogyny because they've already got proof that they aren't bigoted’.
To me it sounds like Tory members are racist and misogynistic but not racist and misogynistic enough to not vote for a black woman whilst at the same time being emboldened to be more racist and misogynistic by voting for her.

Puja wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 12:10 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 11:15 am I suppose I will forever have to wonder what this sentence is really trying to say: ‘It means they don't have to change, because Kemi agrees with them, and in fact they can go harder on racism and misogyny because they've already got proof that they aren't bigoted’.
To me it sounds like Tory members are racist and misogynistic but not racist and misogynistic enough to not vote for a black woman whilst at the same time being emboldened to be more racist and misogynistic by voting for her.

Okay, one last go, cause I value you company and our conversations on here and I don't particularly enjoy giving the impression I'm being a dick, which I clearly am at present.

I am not calling Tory members as a whole racist and misogynist (aside from the obvious background radiation of culture where everyone's subconsciously at least a little bit - this is the definition of being actively biased (at or above the level of "I'm not racist, but...")). I am not saying that, in order to be a Tory, you have to be racist and misogynist. I am specifically not saying All Tories Are Bigots.

The question on the table was Son of Mathonwy questioning my assumption that Badenoch would saunter to victory, by saying, "Depends on how racist and sexist the Tory members really are when faced with an actual vote." The electorate of the Tory party membership who will be voting here does skew more racist and misogynist than the rest of the UK when looked at as a statistical whole and there are definitely a not insignificant number of racists and misogynists (to varying degrees) in that electorate, so it's far from an unfair question.

I was trying to say that I didn't think it would make a huge difference to her chances, because the people who are racists and misogynists have historically shown a great ability to employ cognitive dissonance and will happily support someone from a disempowered social group that they will generally be biased against, when that person is vocal about structural prejudice not actually being real. No-one likes to feel like they're the bad guy, and it's validating to have a black person or a gay person or a woman tell you that you're right, racism/homophobia/sexism isn't a real issue, and the "liberals" are being oversensitive and "woke". There's more than a few Republican politicians in the US who get the same type of support.

I am not saying that Tory members are racist and misogynistic, I am saying that the Tory members who *are* racist and misogynistic will likely not have a problem voting for her because she is saying the things that they want to hear, while also holding Conservative policies and positions that they agree with. I am also saying that, because she is black and a woman and says those things, it will embolden the racists and misogynists, because she has made it acceptable in a way that a white man saying those things cannot.

Note also that this is not me saying that Tory members who are racist and misogynistic are voting for her *because* she is a black woman - they would be voting for her because of her policies, positions, persona, and putative reputation for competence. I am just saying that I don't think that her being a black woman will particularly prove an impediment to her getting the votes of any racists or misogynists.


On a side note, I am hoping that I have enough credit with you that you're willing to give me the benefit of the doubt that I do genuinely mean NotAllTories. I am unsure how I have ended up in your opinions that I consider everybody who holds a Conservative party membership or votes for them to be an evil fascist. There are a lot of people who I hold nothing but contempt for who do vote Conservative, and a lot of Conservative politicians in the current party are despicable human beings, and I have made jokes and flippant remarks based around my disdain for the party as a whole, especially its current iteration. However, I'm well aware that Tory doesn't equal bad person - apart from anything else, most of my family are lifelong Conservative voters - and I don't like that I've got this reputation with you, that I believe every Tory is a fascist and that I am attacking you with my posts. I'm sorry if I have upset/annoyed you and I'm hoping that my long word vomit above gives an explanation to what I was saying, rather than the worst interpretation of my words being the thing that goes forwards. I hope that it can serve as a reset to our interactions.

I also hope I don't have to type the word "misogynist" again for a very long time, cause I wrote it so often in this post that it no longer looks like a real word.

Puja

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 12:43 pmAll fair enough but unless you feel there is a large enough subset of the membership who are racist and misogynist to affect the outcome of the leadership, which I’m arguing there isn’t and you also seem to think there isnt, then it’s a lazy argument to join in with. I think there’s a minority of people who voted for Corbyn due to them being antisemitic and consequently felt emboldened to be antisemitic but at no point did I actually say on here, or anywhere else, that his chances of being elected are dependent on that because they are a minority and it unfairly taints all you Commies with the same brush.

It’s just also so farking lazy and reductive and, ultimately, gets in the way of good reasoned debate.

I’ll also admit that I can be overly sensitive but when you’ve had incidents such as a very good friend’s wife, who I also class as a friend, tell me after a few wines that she doesn’t know how I can be a Tory as I’m a nice bloke - I explained my position on major policy and you could see the realisation that it’s possible to be nice and a Tory spread across her face - and a, not drunk, neighbour openly state as a complete non sequitur that “I like you but I don’t like your politics” - I didn’t explain my policy positions, I just now think he’s c**t - then you get bored of these pointless arguments about people of the fringe.

I don’t think you’re a dick, I enjoy debating with you and think it’s worthwhile to do it which is why I’ve pulled you up on it twice recently, even if you think it unfair. If I don’t pull you up on it it’s because I think you’re in the same camp as my neighbour.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 11:34 am Moving on from Puja's raging prejudice, the sway in public feeling since the election seems quite alarming. I can't tell if I'm getting a real picture of how the general public feel or it's just the relentless news cycle? It feels like the bubble burst immediately for Starmer and 10+ years of conservatives destroying living standards has been completely forgiven, or at least matched, by his recent blunders. He must have been aware that the 'landslide' was built on protest votes and more desperation than conviction?

I don't know how he expected people to react to his message of "everything is shit and it looks like it will stay that way for quite a long time."

The media have gone in to absolute overdrive on immigration and the violent crimes commited by minorites. Are any sensible conversations actually being had about this? I don't really know why I'm asking, because I can't bring myself to engage in any of it. This probably just me venting before I go back to burying my head in the sand.

Puja wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 1:40 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 12:43 pmAll fair enough but unless you feel there is a large enough subset of the membership who are racist and misogynist to affect the outcome of the leadership, which I’m arguing there isn’t and you also seem to think there isnt, then it’s a lazy argument to join in with. I think there’s a minority of people who voted for Corbyn due to them being antisemitic and consequently felt emboldened to be antisemitic but at no point did I actually say on here, or anywhere else, that his chances of being elected are dependent on that because they are a minority and it unfairly taints all you Commies with the same brush.

It’s just also so farking lazy and reductive and, ultimately, gets in the way of good reasoned debate.

I’ll also admit that I can be overly sensitive but when you’ve had incidents such as a very good friend’s wife, who I also class as a friend, tell me after a few wines that she doesn’t know how I can be a Tory as I’m a nice bloke - I explained my position on major policy and you could see the realisation that it’s possible to be nice and a Tory spread across her face - and a, not drunk, neighbour openly state as a complete non sequitur that “I like you but I don’t like your politics” - I didn’t explain my policy positions, I just now think he’s c**t - then you get bored of these pointless arguments about people of the fringe.

I don’t think you’re a dick, I enjoy debating with you and think it’s worthwhile to do it which is why I’ve pulled you up on it twice recently, even if you think it unfair. If I don’t pull you up on it it’s because I think you’re in the same camp as my neighbour.

Thank you - that is appreciated. And I do also appreciate being called out when I fuck up cause I like to try and do better and learn when I'm wrong (as I was over the Timpson's joke).

At the risk of damaging our new-found harmony, I will say that the Conservative membership (or at least the ones likely to vote in the leadership election) does skew more reactionary as a whole. If we were just talking outright and overtly bigoted people, then I'd agree that it's (hopefully) a very small minority, but if we're including the "I'm not racist, but..." people who get angry when there are too many black people in advertisements, then I would say there's enough that it's a political force in that electorate (if hopefully still a minority).

I just also think who she is as a politician means it won't be an issue for her.

Puja

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 2:14 pm https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg ... 73b30eee94


Timpson’s finger prints all over this.
I did lol that we’re looking towards the US for less punitive ideas. The general view of US prisons is chain gangs and electric chairs.

Zhivago wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 12:59 pm Starmer is one of those people who has been promoted above his competency. It happens from time to time across all organisations. Mostly it happens due to factors outside of the control of the individual who benefits from the circumstances, but they don't recognise that their success strongly influenced by chance and instead believe in their own inimitable agency.

In the specific case of Starmer, he had benefited from predecessors who made him look good in comparison. First Corbyn and then the Tory dregs. His election result was a very low vote share that would have never granted him power in normal circumstances, yet he clearly believes that he himself has achieved a landslide victory rather than one falling into his hands.

As seen from his attitude towards the gifts, one major flaw he has is a sense of entitlement and lack of humility. Along with his sense of entitlement is an undercurrent of hypocrisy and willingness to engage in dishonesty in order to get what he wants. Essentially a belief that the ends justify the means. This was clear from the beginning when he lied his way to the Labour leadership. He spins this behaviour as ruthlessness and is evidently proud of this 'quality' of his. It is however a great moral flaw that will be his undoing.

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 2:12 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 1:40 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 12:43 pmAll fair enough but unless you feel there is a large enough subset of the membership who are racist and misogynist to affect the outcome of the leadership, which I’m arguing there isn’t and you also seem to think there isnt, then it’s a lazy argument to join in with. I think there’s a minority of people who voted for Corbyn due to them being antisemitic and consequently felt emboldened to be antisemitic but at no point did I actually say on here, or anywhere else, that his chances of being elected are dependent on that because they are a minority and it unfairly taints all you Commies with the same brush.

It’s just also so farking lazy and reductive and, ultimately, gets in the way of good reasoned debate.

I’ll also admit that I can be overly sensitive but when you’ve had incidents such as a very good friend’s wife, who I also class as a friend, tell me after a few wines that she doesn’t know how I can be a Tory as I’m a nice bloke - I explained my position on major policy and you could see the realisation that it’s possible to be nice and a Tory spread across her face - and a, not drunk, neighbour openly state as a complete non sequitur that “I like you but I don’t like your politics” - I didn’t explain my policy positions, I just now think he’s c**t - then you get bored of these pointless arguments about people of the fringe.

I don’t think you’re a dick, I enjoy debating with you and think it’s worthwhile to do it which is why I’ve pulled you up on it twice recently, even if you think it unfair. If I don’t pull you up on it it’s because I think you’re in the same camp as my neighbour.

Thank you - that is appreciated. And I do also appreciate being called out when I fuck up cause I like to try and do better and learn when I'm wrong (as I was over the Timpson's joke).

At the risk of damaging our new-found harmony, I will say that the Conservative membership (or at least the ones likely to vote in the leadership election) does skew more reactionary as a whole. If we were just talking outright and overtly bigoted people, then I'd agree that it's (hopefully) a very small minority, but if we're including the "I'm not racist, but..." people who get angry when there are too many black people in advertisements, then I would say there's enough that it's a political force in that electorate (if hopefully still a minority).

I just also think who she is as a politician means it won't be an issue for her.

Puja

Completely agree that the current Tory membership is much further right than the pop as a whole. It’s also quite a bit further right than the Cameron years - as Labour became on the left leading up to and during the Corbyn leadership years - and I saw it moving that way when having the joy of making the intro calls to new members of my local association. When told that there was no vetting procedure to keep out the dodgy ones I resigned as chair and didn’t renew my membership when it lapsed. All that said, I still believe, having dipped my toe back in recently, it’s a small % (based on members local to me only obvs but absent of any hard data it’s the best we’ll get, unless anyone has any hard data in which case please point me in the right direction) and was actually surprised that a person who I clashed with repeatedly years ago over Brexit had been kicked out for racist posts on social media. You’ve also got to take into account a lot of the more right wing members will have moved to Reform, albeit they may still have the right to vote if their membership hasn’t lapsed.
Long story short, imo the racist and misogynists aren’t really a big enough factor to swing anything in the leadership contest so I’d argue that if people don’t stop with the lazy tropes it will only stifle important/useful debate.

Zhivago wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 12:59 pm Starmer is one of those people who has been promoted above his competency. It happens from time to time across all organisations. Mostly it happens due to factors outside of the control of the individual who benefits from the circumstances, but they don't recognise that their success strongly influenced by chance and instead believe in their own inimitable agency.

In the specific case of Starmer, he had benefited from predecessors who made him look good in comparison. First Corbyn and then the Tory dregs. His election result was a very low vote share that would have never granted him power in normal circumstances, yet he clearly believes that he himself has achieved a landslide victory rather than one falling into his hands.

As seen from his attitude towards the gifts, one major flaw he has is a sense of entitlement and lack of humility. Along with his sense of entitlement is an undercurrent of hypocrisy and willingness to engage in dishonesty in order to get what he wants. Essentially a belief that the ends justify the means. This was clear from the beginning when he lied his way to the Labour leadership. He spins this behaviour as ruthlessness and is evidently proud of this 'quality' of his. It is however a great moral flaw that will be his undoing.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 10:08 pm FFS the NHS is not safe in Streeting's hands.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... h-ministry

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 10:27 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 10:08 pm FFS the NHS is not safe in Streeting's hands.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... h-ministry

"But the Conservatives criticised the move as “jobs for the boys” and said it showed that Labour view government business as “a gravy train for your mates”."

W O W. They're probably not wrong, but wow. The gall on them to be offering those kind of critiques after the last few years.

Puja

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 11:51 pm

Zhivago wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 12:59 pm Starmer is one of those people who has been promoted above his competency. It happens from time to time across all organisations. Mostly it happens due to factors outside of the control of the individual who benefits from the circumstances, but they don't recognise that their success strongly influenced by chance and instead believe in their own inimitable agency.

In the specific case of Starmer, he had benefited from predecessors who made him look good in comparison. First Corbyn and then the Tory dregs. His election result was a very low vote share that would have never granted him power in normal circumstances, yet he clearly believes that he himself has achieved a landslide victory rather than one falling into his hands.

As seen from his attitude towards the gifts, one major flaw he has is a sense of entitlement and lack of humility. Along with his sense of entitlement is an undercurrent of hypocrisy and willingness to engage in dishonesty in order to get what he wants. Essentially a belief that the ends justify the means. This was clear from the beginning when he lied his way to the Labour leadership. He spins this behaviour as ruthlessness and is evidently proud of this 'quality' of his. It is however a great moral flaw that will be his undoing.

He seems to be fueled by personal ambition and nothing else. He has no ideas, not a clue what to do now he's in charge other than to manage the status quo. Unfortunately he was elected to change things, not (just) manage things. Farage will decide who wins next time.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 7:55 am

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 10:27 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 10:08 pm FFS the NHS is not safe in Streeting's hands.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... h-ministry

"But the Conservatives criticised the move as “jobs for the boys” and said it showed that Labour view government business as “a gravy train for your mates”."

W O W. They're probably not wrong, but wow. The gall on them to be offering those kind of critiques after the last few years.

Puja

Yeah. Obviously the NHS is even less safe in the hands of the Tories.

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 9:55 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 7:55 am

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 10:27 pm

"But the Conservatives criticised the move as “jobs for the boys” and said it showed that Labour view government business as “a gravy train for your mates”."

W O W. They're probably not wrong, but wow. The gall on them to be offering those kind of critiques after the last few years.

Puja

Yeah. Obviously the NHS is even less safe in the hands of the Tories.

The NHS needs a proper review and reform. There are ways to bring in private investment without turning this into America. Outcomes are currently not good for patients in many areas and that should be the focus, not how the money is provided.

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 9:54 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 11:51 pm

Zhivago wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 12:59 pm Starmer is one of those people who has been promoted above his competency. It happens from time to time across all organisations. Mostly it happens due to factors outside of the control of the individual who benefits from the circumstances, but they don't recognise that their success strongly influenced by chance and instead believe in their own inimitable agency.

In the specific case of Starmer, he had benefited from predecessors who made him look good in comparison. First Corbyn and then the Tory dregs. His election result was a very low vote share that would have never granted him power in normal circumstances, yet he clearly believes that he himself has achieved a landslide victory rather than one falling into his hands.

As seen from his attitude towards the gifts, one major flaw he has is a sense of entitlement and lack of humility. Along with his sense of entitlement is an undercurrent of hypocrisy and willingness to engage in dishonesty in order to get what he wants. Essentially a belief that the ends justify the means. This was clear from the beginning when he lied his way to the Labour leadership. He spins this behaviour as ruthlessness and is evidently proud of this 'quality' of his. It is however a great moral flaw that will be his undoing.

He seems to be fueled by personal ambition and nothing else. He has no ideas, not a clue what to do now he's in charge other than to manage the status quo. Unfortunately he was elected to change things, not (just) manage things. Farage will decide who wins next time.

He has played the first 100 days really badly. Waiting until the actual budget has been a mistake, the policy announcements this far have been reasonable enough but none have really landed with a bang. Plus the idea of cabinet members breaking cover this early and arguing against the treasury in public is not a good one.

The budget needs to sent a clear message and direction of travel. Most government departments are facing very significant cuts to their operational budgets which is causing a lot of alarm, following years of austerity, even if wages are being increased a little.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2024 12:23 pm

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 9:55 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 7:55 am
Yeah. Obviously the NHS is even less safe in the hands of the Tories.

The NHS needs a proper review and reform. There are ways to bring in private investment without turning this into America. Outcomes are currently not good for patients in many areas and that should be the focus, not how the money is provided.

Let's not call for reform without knowing what kind of reform that is. I'd prefer gradual improvement over misguided reform.

If the private sector is involved it needs to have no input on strategy because it will always be guided by profit maximisation.

If it is to be involved, the costs need to be properly balanced against the benefits. Is it genuinely cheaper than doing in-house? This is fine for catering and cleaning - these are not medical skills. But private medicine in competition with the NHS uses the same doctors, trained at great expense by the NHS, creating a scarcity of those same doctors in the NHS and pushing up wage demands. Subcontracting medical work can also de-skill the NHS, which is costly in the long run, leading to dependence on the private sector which can then ramp up the price. There should be no assumption that the private sector is more efficient, there's no evidence for it. If an area of the NHS is not working optimally, that can be solved by reorganization. Bring the private sector in and there are a lot of new costs, primarily paying shareholders but also all the overheads of running a business, personnel, accounting etc.

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2024 3:22 pm There are some brilliant ideas on the public consultation page. One of my favourites is from a certain Dr H. Shipman.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2024 3:58 pm Reeves' plans to borrow more for investment look promising*. And clearly the markets are pretty calm about it. Sure yields went up - there would have to be a knee-jerk reaction upwards to this announcement - but +0.06% is just a murmur.

* but we shall see what she will actually spend it on . . .