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

[DavidinSouthampton]

Precisely. The basic premise is that different cultures are legitimate, and therefore should not be forcibly changed. It additionally does not allow that actions that are illegal in the UK be permitted if such actions are part of a group's culture. This means that discrimination against women and homosexuals is not legal in this country, even if it is a norm in a particular culture.

And cultures of course evolve. Working class white culture once meant meat and two veg, men-only bars, and give the missus a slap once in a while if she stepped out of line.

Multiculturalism does not mean that cultures should be kept separate. It is possible that some members of some cultures may chose to live separate lives, and this is the opposite of integration and is bad, but this is not 'multiculturalism'. It is bad primarily for those who chose that path, since they miss out.

Multiculturalism is therefore nothing more than the opposite of cultural persecution. Which is essentially mostly racism.

Oh and if people refuse to learn English then I see no reason why the taxpayer should fund interpreters. If you chose to live in this country, by all means cling on to your culture (the aspects of it that are legal) but FFS learn the language. I see no contradictions here.

With you just about all the way there.

having worked for a church-based organisation and venturing from that in to inter-faith matters, it is normally a joy to work with serious people from other faiths - the guiding principle normally being that you respect people’s different beliefs, which normally comes to a “there’s (far) more that unites us than divides us.” Decent people. from all faiths will abhor what Braverman is saying

 

[Tubby Mondays]

Anyone writing off the Tory’s at the election may be disappointed.

Never underestimate the capacity of the U.K. public to be duped by Daily Mail fuelled ravings about foreigners, migrants, etc

Lest we forget the 2016 referendum.

I fear you might be right.

 

[rogersix]

The thing about Labour's return to electability is that even under Corbyn they always had a decent core of MPs with a few stars on the rise that could turn it around and return the party back from the wilderness of the far left towards the centre. The party - and Starmer - have made a series of largely good decisions that have got them back in the game.

However, you cannot say the same opportunity is there for the Tories. They have purged their party of moderates while those with any sense of conscience and good sense are standing down at the next GE. You'll be left with c. 160-200 right-wing Brexiteers pandering to a declining, ageing membership who are so senile they forced Liz Truss upon us as PM. I don't see where they go from here. It's like the electorate and the rest of the world have sussed them out for the complete bunch of chancers they are.

i'll have you know they are the most successful political party in global history!

shameless opportunists? millions will vote for them again!

i don't know why

 

[The Clamp]

The thing about Labour's return to electability is that even under Corbyn they always had a decent core of MPs with a few stars on the rise that could turn it around and return the party back from the wilderness of the far left towards the centre. The party - and Starmer - have made a series of largely good decisions that have got them back in the game.

However, you cannot say the same opportunity is there for the Tories. They have purged their party of moderates while those with any sense of conscience and good sense are standing down at the next GE. You'll be left with c. 160-200 right-wing Brexiteers pandering to a declining, ageing membership who are so senile they forced Liz Truss upon us as PM. I don't see where they go from here. It's like the electorate and the rest of the world have sussed them out for the complete bunch of chancers they are.

I really hope that is the case.

It is encouraging to see them alienating every pocket of society with each new “policy” or announcement.

Still, they are also very good at saying what certain people want to hear. It seems to count for nothing that they rarely follow up any of these announcements with anything but screeching U- Turns.

 

[nicko31]

Unfortunately, in the last 13 years so much damage has been done by legislation, a lot of which hasn’t even been report by client journalists, Labour will need more than 5 years to sort it out.
Imo, the best thing Labour could do, is bring in PR, so no party ever gets a huge majority again. Then they can start to get us onto an even keel. I think they will reject it and we will lurch again.

Labour won't bring in PR because it will reduce their chances of governing alone.

 

[nicko31]

I really hope that is the case.

It is encouraging to see them alienating every pocket of society with each new “policy” or announcement.

Still, they are also very good at saying what certain people want to hear. It seems to count for nothing that they rarely follow up any of these announcements with anything but screeching U- Turns.

Starting to feel like they don’t give a shit and are making policy on the basis they will lose to Starmer.

It’s their final hurrah, f&&k net zero and reward their mates and feather their own nests for the future.

 

[Bodian]

Starting to feel like they don’t give a shit and are making policy on the basis they will lose to Starmer.

It’s their final hurrah, f&&k net zero and reward their mates and feather their own nests for the future.

'Starting to feel like they don't give a shit'? Starting??

 

[clapham_gull]

Starting to feel like they don’t give a shit and are making policy on the basis they will lose to Starmer.

I think it's more about gearing up for opposition and individuals manoeuvring to be the next leader.

I think she's actually daring the Prime Minister to sack her.

In terms of Net Zero that's probably a strategic move. The polls have seen them gain a point or two over the last few days.

The vast majority of those people are not climate change deniers but worried about how much they will pay for it.

But still a classic 2023 Tories U-turn on their own policies then blame the other side for it.

 

[rogersix]

'Starting to feel like they don't give a shit'? Starting??

as the tories know that they are in the wilderness for at least ten years, they don't care about the "optics" anymore, and are solely focused on the asset stripping

 

[Hugo Rune]

as the tories know that they are in the wilderness for at least ten years, they don't care about the "optics" anymore, and are solely focused on the asset stripping

Indeed.

It’s all about their future careers after Parliament. Getting in with the Oil companies is going to be very lucrative for many of them. Some in the car industry might be very pleased with them also. Finally, if they can overhaul or get rid of inheritance tax keeping the rich richer, they’ll have won many wealthy friends.

And as for their red wall voters, they think that their MP’s content on GBeebies along with Braverman’s hate speeches are keeping them happy.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Precisely. The basic premise is that different cultures are legitimate, and therefore should not be forcibly changed. It additionally does not allow that actions that are illegal in the UK be permitted if such actions are part of a group's culture. This means that discrimination against women and homosexuals is not legal in this country, even if it is a norm in a particular culture.

And cultures of course evolve. Working class white culture once meant meat and two veg, men-only bars, and give the missus a slap once in a while if she stepped out of line.

Multiculturalism does not mean that cultures should be kept separate. It is possible that some members of some cultures may chose to live separate lives, and this is the opposite of integration and is bad, but this is not 'multiculturalism'. It is bad primarily for those who chose that path, since they miss out.

Multiculturalism is therefore nothing more than the opposite of cultural persecution. Which is essentially mostly racism.

Oh and if people refuse to learn English then I see no reason why the taxpayer should fund interpreters. If you chose to live in this country, by all means cling on to your culture (the aspects of it that are legal) but FFS learn the language. I see no contradictions here.

Part of the language problem, in Yorkshire, as I remember it, was that Asian women were kept at home, so weren’t able to learn English, but that was a past generation. In the last 40 years, all have attended school, and now go out to work so out in the world and integrating.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Part of the language problem, in Yorkshire, as I remember it, was that Asian women were kept at home, so weren’t able to learn English, but that was a past generation. In the last 40 years, all have attended school, and now go out to work so out in the world and integrating.

Yep. So even my sop to the gammon was a fake sop.

Some nasty bat phoned 606 the other day moaning that in her job she was paid per client and if 'they don't speak English' she didn't get paid. Unfortunately this went unchallenged. She later revealed that the only politician with any good 'solutions' is Nigel Something.

I am tired and bored of gormless lying racists.

 

[Machiavelli]

I think it's more about gearing up for opposition and individuals manoeuvring to be the next leader.

I think she's actually daring the Prime Minister to sack her.

In terms of Net Zero that's probably a strategic move. The polls have seen them gain a point or two over the last few days.

The vast majority of those people are not climate change deniers but worried about how much they will pay for it.

But still a classic 2023 Tories U-turn on their own policies then blame the other side for it.

Great post.
In terms of Braverman, her being sacked c6 months prior to the election will assist her leadership credentials. She won't be as associated with a defeat, and what she's got to say is oh so popular with the membership, who have the final say on the next leader (and their 'new' direction).
CC/Net Zero is hugely problematic for (post-)Thatcherite Tories -- and she remains the icon of the majority of MPs and members. Tackling it requires the state, and an active state. Ideologically, the only way they've used the state is as a tool against itself. If they're to enact Net Zero, they're effectively critiquing their ideology. This is less of a problem for more traditional Burkean conservatives that are resistant to change, eg what used to be known as the wets.

 

[Peteinblack]

No-one will ever do business with the Tories again I feel. Lib Dems were nearly wiped out when they tried it and the SNP would only do it if a referendum was included, now we know the Tories love a referendum, but that's a big ask.

The Tories will get in again simply because people have short memories and Labour will have to make some tough calls to sort out this mess.

Well, a lot of people will probably 'forget' the awful premierships of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, and the tens of £ billions they spaffed, but the same voters will remember (or allow themselves to be reminded by the Daily Mail) the 2008 financial crash and 1978-79 winter of discontent, and cite either/both of these as a reason not to vote Labour.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Indeed.

It’s all about their future careers after Parliament. Getting in with the Oil companies is going to be very lucrative for many of them. Some in the car industry might be very pleased with them also. Finally, if they can overhaul or get rid of inheritance tax keeping the rich richer, they’ll have won many wealthy friends.

And as for their red wall voters, they think that their MP’s content on GBeebies along with Braverman’s hate speeches are keeping them happy.

Well it certainly seems to be working on NSC's Burnley red wall contingent

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Well, a lot of people will probably 'forget' the awful premierships of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, and the tens of £ billions they spaffed, but the same voters will remember (or allow themselves to be reminded by the Daily Mail) the 2008 financial crash and 1978-879 winter of discontent, and cite either/both of these as a reason not to vote Labour.

Which is a socially acceptable way of saying, "I'm voting for the party who kicks out the most brown people and is happy to grind every public service into the dirt if it means my taxes won't go up"

 

[Blackadder]

Actually, the X spat (Twitter spat) from Fox shows interaction the conversation was planned so Wootton should be suspended too.

And now he has been

 

[A1X]

 

[Badger Boy]

Good for her for sticking to her point, asking really clear questions which can not be spun. He's a really cunning little toad in that interview, what a mistake to put him in front of people - they should go back to hiding him away. What a mess.

 

[Peteinblack]

Which is a socially acceptable way of saying, "I'm voting for the party who kicks out the most brown people and is happy to grind every public service into the dirt if it means my taxes won't go up"

I've always said that the current government is largely about 'punching down' - saying to impoverished or disadvantaged sections of society "We won't actually do anything to improve your wages, job security or public services, but we will crap hard on the people we think you dislike or blame for your hardships; immigrants, welfare 'scroungers', environmentalists, liberals, the Woke, etc. And enough of you will applaud us - even though we'll be crapping on you as well."