The Conservative Party

blueinsa said:
Did you hear the speaker last night very clearly say that he knows people of all parties and on all sides of this debate are getting threats?

I did.

All sides need to pack it the fuck in.
Click to expand...


Aye but when was the last left wing terror plot or serious attack on an official in this country?

Pe

Beside we are too busy having committee meetings and making placards to get round to serious violence.
 
urban genie said:
Aye but when was the last left wing terror plot or serious attack on an official in this country?

Pe

Beside we are too busy having committee meetings and making placards to get round to serious violence.
Click to expand...

What has that got to do with what the speaker said last night?

Threats are threats surely?

Rhetoric is rhetoric and if calls for it to stop are being issued then all sides need to adhere.

I'm sure your insistence that people on the left are far too busy making placards will be of comfort to those that have received the threats.

Last year we had Boris and May effigies being burned on Bonfires and just last week a severed head effigy of the PM was used by an artist at the Mercury awards as he felt the need to make his own political statement.

Of course its whitewashed away but imagine for one second the outrage and rightly so btw if the effigy burned is one of Soubry or the head is Swinsons?

It all needs to stop and only then can fingers be pointed at those who refuse to listen and continue.
 
blueinsa said:
What has that got to do with what the speaker said last night?

Threats are threats surely?

Rhetoric is rhetoric and if calls for it to stop are being issued then all sides need to adhere.

I'm sure your insistence that people on the left are far too busy making placards will be of comfort to those that have received the threats.

Last year we had Boris and May effigies being burned on Bonfires and just last week a severed head effigy of the PM was used by an artist at the Mercury awards as he felt the need to make his own political statement.

Of course its whitewashed away but imagine for one second the outrage and rightly so btw if the effigy burned is one of Soubry or the head is Swinsons?

It all needs to stop and only then can fingers be pointed at those who refuse to listen and continue.
Click to expand...

Was just pointing out that right wing extremist seem to act more on the rhetoric and as was pointed out in the house, comments attributed to johnson have been used when death threats have been made.

Never denied language from either side can be inflamirary and needs to be curbed/toned down.

Just seems the hard right has more sociopaths in general who will act.
 
Rascal said:
I just don't get why they want to come to Manchester, its a Tory free zone, its historically Labour, home to the Co-Operative movement, the birthplace of Trade Unions, a City of radical leftist thought, Marx and Engels, Peterloo, a working class city, the suffragettes.

They come here and close down areas of the City, create travel disruption, bring loads of police with them and have to have an armoured circle around the conference hall. They know there will be huge demonstrations and a good chance of public disorder and maybe rioting.

Why don't they hold it in the home counties well away from us. They are fucking hated in Manchester, apart from the usual suspect gang on here
Click to expand...
Think you will find The Co-Operative Society that exists today was founded in Rochdale, they lost last night, they are losing their Market, leave them something to hang their hats on.

Also, although the first ever TUC conference (tautology) in the UK was held in Manchester and had its offices there it wasn’t the birthplace of the Union movement, I apologise for being pedantic.
 
hammocity said:
Think you will find The Co-Operative Society that exists today was founded in Rochdale, they lost last night, they are losing their Market, leave them something to hang their hats on.

Also, although the first ever TUC conference (tautology) in the UK was held in Manchester and had its offices there it wasn’t the birthplace of the Union movement, I apologise for being pedantic.
Click to expand...
Pedantry is fine, I like it ;)
 
urban genie said:
Was just pointing out that right wing extremist seem to act more on the rhetoric and as was pointed out in the house, comments attributed to johnson have been used when death threats have been made.

Never denied language from either side can be inflamirary and needs to be curbed/toned down.

Just seems the hard right has more sociopaths in general who will act.
Click to expand...

Clearly on threats and we are talking threats it appears both sides act and send them as described by the speaker last night mate.

Sociopaths is todays flavour of the day.

Bandied around like confetti as a slur against political enemies by folk who i have no doubt are not qualified to use it.
 
blueinsa said:
Clearly on threats and we are talking threats it appears both sides act and send them as described by the speaker last night mate.

Sociopaths is todays flavour of the day.

Bandied around like confetti as a slur against political enemies by folk who i have no doubt are not qualified to use it.
Click to expand...

Actually studies are where I got the sociopath connection to the right wing, it has been stidied and finding are sociopaths tend to favour right wing conservative politics
 
TheRemainsOfTheDave said:
Do you not agree that it is difficult to discuss a divisive issue without anger coming into it? Linking what one person says and how another (unlinked) person acts is tenuous, even if it might be despicable. These people will use any words or phrases spoken by advocates of their cause (both sides) whether it be an individual or media outlet, so any tenuous link can be achieved but death threats are a crime and should be investigated accordingly by independent bodies, not used as a political tool. Those MPs were understandably angry but were incorrect to attribute these threats directly to one single person without proper investigation and the speaker should have intervened.

In my opinion the government came out in counter-attack mode yesterday (as a response to being humiliated in being forced back to the house) and it wound up the opposition benches. I think that was the plan, along with as many references to "Surrender Act" as possible.
Click to expand...

No I don't agree at all. If you are incapable of discussing a difficult issue in Parliament without your emotions getting the better of you, you shouldn't be in Parliament. Moreover, the prime minister's language wasn't a question of something regrettable being said in the heat of the moment, it was plainly part of a concerted strategy. That is why the prime minister's appearance was preceded by the appalling performance of the attorney general. It was chosen specifically to be inflammatory. There is simply no doubt about that whatsoever, and you yourself accept that in the final paragraph. Whatever your views on Brexit it should be possible to discuss it without using language such as 'betrayal' or 'surrender' because neither is either accurate or fair, even if you view the Act taking no deal off the table as a mistake.

What was complained of by Paula Sheriff and other opposition MPs was that the Prime Minister's rhetoric makes it more likely, not less, that a second MP will be murdered as a result, and he was asked to tone down his language as a result. The reason he chose not to was precisely because it was a deliberate strategy. Let me emphasise that point: because he wishes to obtain a political advantage, he has persisted in a course of action that certain MPs believe adds to the threat to their lives. Not just their lives, either: Jo Swinson's child has been the subject of a death threat.

I don't think it is in the slightest tenuous to link what the Prime Minister says to death threats being made to his political opponents when the same words are used in those threats, and I'm very surprised that anyone thinks it is tenuous at all. Jess Philips cited an instance of the phrase 'dead in a ditch' being used in a threat against her. You know where that phrase comes from as well as everyone else on this thread. If you think that is a tenuous link then I despair of you.
 
Chris in London said:
No I don't agree at all. If you are incapable of discussing a difficult issue in Parliament without your emotions getting the better of you, you shouldn't be in Parliament. Moreover, the prime minister's language wasn't a question of something regrettable being said in the heat of the moment, it was plainly part of a concerted strategy. That is why the prime minister's appearance was preceded by the appalling performance of the attorney general. It was chosen specifically to be inflammatory. There is simply no doubt about that whatsoever, and you yourself accept that in the final paragraph. Whatever your views on Brexit it should be possible to discuss it without using language such as 'betrayal' or 'surrender' because neither is either accurate or fair, even if you view the Act taking no deal off the table as a mistake.

What was complained of by Paula Sheriff and other opposition MPs was that the Prime Minister's rhetoric makes it more likely, not less, that a second MP will be murdered as a result, and he was asked to tone down his language as a result. The reason he chose not to was precisely because it was a deliberate strategy. Let me emphasise that point: because he wishes to obtain a political advantage, he has persisted in a course of action that certain MPs believe adds to the threat to their lives. Not just their lives, either: Jo Swinson's child has been the subject of a death threat.

I don't think it is in the slightest tenuous to link what the Prime Minister says to death threats being made to his political opponents when the same words are used in those threats, and I'm very surprised that anyone thinks it is tenuous at all. Jess Philips cited an instance of the phrase 'dead in a ditch' being used in a threat against her. You know where that phrase comes from as well as everyone else on this thread. If you think that is a tenuous link then I despair of you.
Click to expand...

Do you suggest politicians shouldn't be allowed to use strategy in much the same way a prosecuting Barrister would in a murder trial?

Isn't an in your face, deliberately confrontational and antagonistic approach very much part of the war chest in court when trying to get what you want and a result?

Genuine question

As for dead in the ditch, it isnt exactly new or coined by the PM.

die in the last ditch

die desperately defending something

die fighting to the last extremity

This expression comes from a remark attributed to King William III (1650-1702). Asked whether he did not see that his country was lost, he is said to have responded : There is one way never to see it lost, and that is to die in the last ditch. Last-ditch is often used as an adjective meaning desperately resisting to the end.
 
LOL .... liz Truss in Parliament now trying to explain why we are selling Arms to Saudi Arabia and their coalition so they can wage war and bomb Yemen .... whilst at the same time sending State aid of £770 million to Yemen to relieve suffering caused by the War and Bombing


YCMIU ...
 
urban genie said:
Actually studies are where I got the sociopath connection to the right wing, it has been stidied and finding are sociopaths tend to favour right wing conservative politics
Click to expand...

Yes they do.

When you have a political philosophy based on the maintenance of a specific social order, it's intellectual rationale has to legitimise it, so our betters have to justify their lofty position, by concocting all sorts of nonsense to affirm it.

So we have the demonization of the working class, with the usual bullshit rolled out....The deserving and undeserving poor, welfare dependency, stupidity, workshy, sloth, idleness and so on.

Anyone questioning this system is rent-a-mob, stupid, beardy student type, and an old favourite in here "consumed with envy".

Here's the text book definition of a sociopath...

A sociopath is a term used to describe someone who has antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). People with ASPD can't understand others' feelings. They'll often break rules or make impulsive decisions without feeling guilty for the harm they cause.

So it's not difficult to see that sociopaths are drawn towards right wing politics, when you have no empathy and no regard for the consequences of your actions, then it's effortless to pursue policies that hurt, damage, kill, because these policies don't effect you, and you have no regard for those that it does.
 
Chris in London said:
No I don't agree at all. If you are incapable of discussing a difficult issue in Parliament without your emotions getting the better of you, you shouldn't be in Parliament. Moreover, the prime minister's language wasn't a question of something regrettable being said in the heat of the moment, it was plainly part of a concerted strategy. That is why the prime minister's appearance was preceded by the appalling performance of the attorney general. It was chosen specifically to be inflammatory. There is simply no doubt about that whatsoever, and you yourself accept that in the final paragraph. Whatever your views on Brexit it should be possible to discuss it without using language such as 'betrayal' or 'surrender' because neither is either accurate or fair, even if you view the Act taking no deal off the table as a mistake.

What was complained of by Paula Sheriff and other opposition MPs was that the Prime Minister's rhetoric makes it more likely, not less, that a second MP will be murdered as a result, and he was asked to tone down his language as a result. The reason he chose not to was precisely because it was a deliberate strategy. Let me emphasise that point: because he wishes to obtain a political advantage, he has persisted in a course of action that certain MPs believe adds to the threat to their lives. Not just their lives, either: Jo Swinson's child has been the subject of a death threat.

I don't think it is in the slightest tenuous to link what the Prime Minister says to death threats being made to his political opponents when the same words are used in those threats, and I'm very surprised that anyone thinks it is tenuous at all. Jess Philips cited an instance of the phrase 'dead in a ditch' being used in a threat against her. You know where that phrase comes from as well as everyone else on this thread. If you think that is a tenuous link then I despair of you.
Click to expand...
I hear what you are saying and agree with some parts of it. I don't like Johnson - he's obnoxious - but there have been many angry exchanges in the HoC since its inception and it is unlikely to stop soon. What the government did, as we agree on, is to raise the bar, but as much as you don't like it, it isn't right to assume there is a causal link between what one person says and another person does, without proper investigation, during political debate as it is more likely to inflame the matter that you and I so clearly want to dampen.

Outside of the house is another issue though.
 
blueinsa said:
Do you suggest politicians shouldn't be allowed to use strategy in much the same way a prosecuting Barrister would in a murder trial?

Isn't an in your face, deliberately confrontational and antagonistic approach very much part of the war chest in court when trying to get what you want and a result?

Genuine question

As for dead in the ditch, it isnt exactly new or coined by the PM.

die in the last ditch

die desperately defending something

die fighting to the last extremity

This expression comes from a remark attributed to King William III (1650-1702). Asked whether he did not see that his country was lost, he is said to have responded : There is one way never to see it lost, and that is to die in the last ditch. Last-ditch is often used as an adjective meaning desperately resisting to the end.
Click to expand...

Politicians are free to adopt whatever strategy, within the law, they choose. The prime minister was asked to moderate that strategy because of a perceived increased risk to the personal safety of MPs - and, in Jo Swinson's case, that of her child.

He refused.

In current circumstances those death threats in my view have to be taken extremely seriously, and for the prime minister to dismiss it out of hand is behaviour
I personally regard as the most cuntish of cuntish behaviour. ​

The death threat to Jess Philips that referred to her dying in a ditch specifically referenced Boris Johnson's use of the phrase, but thank you for the interesting account of the history and origins of that particular saying.

(genuine answer!)
 
As the numbers in the HoC stand Johnson could be trapped in role until the 5 year Parliament is up theoretically. He could be made to go and get as many extensions as the EU will give us - if he doesn't or crashes us out he breaks the law. Thats why the calls from the right wing press and Johnson and Evans and IDS and JRM and s on and so on grow more and more hysterical because they can shout what the fuck they like a remedy in the form of a confidence vote or a GE is unobtainable to them because of their own actions - its their own self inflicted impotence that frustrates them the most.
 
TheRemainsOfTheDave said:
I hear what you are saying and agree with some parts of it. I don't like Johnson - he's obnoxious - but there have been many angry exchanges in the HoC since its inception and it is unlikely to stop soon. What the government did, as we agree on, is to raise the bar, but as much as you don't like it, it isn't right to assume there is a causal link between what one person says and another person does, without proper investigation, during political debate as it is more likely to inflame the matter that you and I so clearly want to dampen.

Outside of the house is another issue though.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately you will only ever get to demonstrate that link conclusively in circumstances where another MP has been murdered. All you can do before the point at which that happens is point to the risks, and take such steps as are reasonably necessary to moderate those risks.

To gain a political advantage, the Prime Minister refused to take any such steps.
In the light of Jo Cox's murder, I regard the prime minister's dismissal of death threats against MPs (which the police I am happy to say take far more seriously) as utterly despicable.​
 
Chris in London said:
The death threat to Jess Philips that referred to her dying in a ditch specifically referenced Boris Johnson's use of the phrase
Click to expand...

In what way did it specifically reference his use of the phrase? Did it say I've used this phrase because the PM did?

Absolutely agree death threats or threats of violence should be treated seriously and given they are against the law, hopefully the police investigate and prosecute accordingly. I remember last night the speaker clearly telling the house that he knows that members of all parties, on both sides of the debate had received threats and that everyone was responsible for the tone and language used. I

From what I saw and heard the majority, right across the house ignored and carried on regardless.

Happy to call it out but less so to just focus on the one man as frankly its disingenuous to do so.

Chris in London said:
but thank you for the interesting account of the history and origins of that particular saying.
Click to expand...

No thank you for the sarcasm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top