Join the Labour Party and save your country!

kingstongraham

ExCyclist wrote:

Nothing bothers me - especially an internet forum. Thanks for the laughs though, son. You're a treat. X

Are you going to start calling him "treacle", to prove that you aren't willing to seriously address the article posted?

Here's some starting points: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/07/a-l ... orbynista/

bompington

So, since I made a casual post commenting on how left-wingers seem to feel that actual debate and persuasion is not needed as Torees are just evil and wrong, I don't seem to have seen much persuasive argument.

"Thanks for the laughs though, son. You're a treat. X" is possibly the most cliched and pathetic piece of keyboard warrior-speak I have ever seen on this forum.

mamba80

bompington wrote:

So, since I made a casual post commenting on how left-wingers seem to feel that actual debate and persuasion is not needed as Torees are just evil and wrong, I don't seem to have seen much persuasive argument.

"Thanks for the laughs though, son. You're a treat. X" is possibly the most cliched and pathetic piece of keyboard warrior-speak I have ever seen on this forum.

whats the point? all you did was deride left wingers without added a jot to the debate, your contribution was as useless as Ex C

bompington

mamba80 wrote:

bompington wrote:

So, since I made a casual post commenting on how left-wingers seem to feel that actual debate and persuasion is not needed as Torees are just evil and wrong, I don't seem to have seen much persuasive argument.

"Thanks for the laughs though, son. You're a treat. X" is possibly the most cliched and pathetic piece of keyboard warrior-speak I have ever seen on this forum.

whats the point? all you did was deride left wingers without added a jot to the debate, your contribution was as useless as Ex C

Based on easy-to-spot observations of posts on this thread. Along with everywhere else at the moment. So I challenged people to come up with a reasoned argument, but here we are just getting more of the same...

mamba80

bompington wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

bompington wrote:

So, since I made a casual post commenting on how left-wingers seem to feel that actual debate and persuasion is not needed as Torees are just evil and wrong, I don't seem to have seen much persuasive argument.

"Thanks for the laughs though, son. You're a treat. X" is possibly the most cliched and pathetic piece of keyboard warrior-speak I have ever seen on this forum.

whats the point? all you did was deride left wingers without added a jot to the debate, your contribution was as useless as Ex C

Based on easy-to-spot observations of posts on this thread. Along with everywhere else at the moment. So I challenged people to come up with a reasoned argument, but here we are just getting more of the same...

i think someone did challenge the article and the reasons why, it was dismissed without any reasoned argument by Stev0.

It would nt matter if TM launched Nuclear war on Scotland, stev0 would still defend the Tories, just as he did on DC's pig fcuking, the eco mess that is Brexit and TM's disastorous calling of a GE.... i mean how on earth can that be defended?

he has a pathological hatred of Labour, constantly harping back to Communism, the 70's, Venezuela, Cuba and most recent Stalin, can that be countered????? no, because its illogical.

for me this thread has past its sell by date and is as Alain and ExC said.

rolf_f

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

If current population trends continue, there will be more old gits than ever in 2022. If Stevo's theory holds true, and the elderly are natural Tories, Labour are screwed. Maybe forever.

Probably not. As the referendum showed, we'll vote for any change no matter how ridiculous on the basis that change will solve all of our problems. Pensions and inheritance tax issues etc should ensure that in time, a permanent Tory govt would suffer a landslide defeat at the hands of the elderly.

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

So, since I made a casual post commenting on how left-wingers seem to feel that actual debate and persuasion is not needed as Torees are just evil and wrong, I don't seem to have seen much persuasive argument.

"Thanks for the laughs though, son. You're a treat. X" is possibly the most cliched and pathetic piece of keyboard warrior-speak I have ever seen on this forum.

Not quite sure that was my response but anyway.

Stevo_666

bompington wrote:

So, since I made a casual post commenting on how left-wingers seem to feel that actual debate and persuasion is not needed as Torees are just evil and wrong, I don't seem to have seen much persuasive argument.

"Thanks for the laughs though, son. You're a treat. X" is possibly the most cliched and pathetic piece of keyboard warrior-speak I have ever seen on this forum.

True that.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

whats the point? all you did was deride left wingers without added a jot to the debate, your contribution was as useless as Ex C

He simply pointed out the lack of willingness or ability of a certain group of people to debate the points - which has been borne out very well on this thread. So his contribution was way more valuable than Ex-cyclist (hard not to be mind).

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

As per my posts above; what effective arguments do the Tories have to get the young to buy into them?

This is quite embarassing to the rational Tory



4% on housing particularly made me chuckle/should worry Tories.

Good selective use of stats.

Passage of time is the main one - these people will gain life experience, wisdom and become less idealistic / naive about promises of free stuff. By time the next election comes many will be in the age bracket above and partly for the reasons above, will tend to favour the tories more.

rick_chasey

Now that is condescending.

Especially coming from a party that is promising a cake and eat it Brexit.

tangled_metal

18-24 year olds in 20 14 was about 6 million, registered voters/people on the electoral roll for general elections is 45,325,100. That's about 39million more voters outside of the electoral group that's formed Corbyn's growth in support. Add in the information that's brought up so often about the young less likely to turn out but the older voters are more likely to turn out.

So all this evidence shows is a minority segment of the UK electorate see more in Corbyn than in the Tories. Doesn't mean labour are going to hold that until the General election, that they'll stick with those views into the next age demographic and they'll turn out in force for Corbyn. Plus it doesn't mean it'll make much of an impact on 2022 or whichever year before then that the next GE happens in.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Now that is condescending.

Especially coming from a party that is promising a cake and eat it Brexit.

Maybe, but there is a reasonable amount of truth in it.

People to become more tory as they get older - why do you think that is?

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Now that is condescending.

Especially coming from a party that is promising a cake and eat it Brexit.

Maybe, but there is a reasonable amount of truth in it.

People to become more tory as they get older - why do you think that is?

They have capital?

The advantage of having opportunities has been eroded away by time so they are less relevant?

Menopause endured anxiety?

Etc

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Now that is condescending.

Especially coming from a party that is promising a cake and eat it Brexit.

Maybe, but there is a reasonable amount of truth in it.

People to become more tory as they get older - why do you think that is?

They have capital?

The advantage of having opportunities has been eroded away by time so they are less relevant?

Menopause endured anxiety?

Etc

Possibly. And the ones I mentioned above.

rick_chasey

You think promising bs is exclusive to one part of the political spectrum?

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

You think promising bs is exclusive to one part of the political spectrum?

No, but Corbyns promises of free stuff to people who were likely to be swayed into voting for him while he probably thought he would never have to make good those promises as he wasn't going to win (regardless of how they might be paid for) did take the biscuit.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You think promising bs is exclusive to one part of the political spectrum?

No, but Corbyns promises of free stuff to people who were likely to be swayed into voting for him while he probably thought he would never have to make good those promises as he wasn't going to win (regardless of how they might be paid for) did take the biscuit.

What, more so than a cake & eat it Brexit?

Or how keeping a triple lock on pensions was sustainable?

Or how they will cut the deficit without reducing services?

Come on

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You think promising bs is exclusive to one part of the political spectrum?

No, but Corbyns promises of free stuff to people who were likely to be swayed into voting for him while he probably thought he would never have to make good those promises as he wasn't going to win (regardless of how they might be paid for) did take the biscuit.

What, more so than a cake & eat it Brexit?

Or how keeping a triple lock on pensions was sustainable?

Or how they will cut the deficit without reducing services?

Come on

Come on what?

Do you think all of Corbyns election promises were sensible and properly costed/thought through?

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

Do you think all of Corbyns election promises were sensible and properly costed/thought through?

It was well documented during the election that Labour at least pretended to do a costing.
Conservative relied purely on soundbites. Apparently that was enough for the electorate.

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

pretended

You said it.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You think promising bs is exclusive to one part of the political spectrum?

No, but Corbyns promises of free stuff to people who were likely to be swayed into voting for him while he probably thought he would never have to make good those promises as he wasn't going to win (regardless of how they might be paid for) did take the biscuit.

What, more so than a cake & eat it Brexit?

Or how keeping a triple lock on pensions was sustainable?

Or how they will cut the deficit without reducing services?

Come on

Come on what?

Do you think all of Corbyns election promises were sensible and properly costed/thought through?

I really don't get why you can't bring yourself to be critical of May or the Conservatives in general. RC and PB are clearly not suggesting that Labour's proposals were 'better'.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You think promising bs is exclusive to one part of the political spectrum?

No, but Corbyns promises of free stuff to people who were likely to be swayed into voting for him while he probably thought he would never have to make good those promises as he wasn't going to win (regardless of how they might be paid for) did take the biscuit.

What, more so than a cake & eat it Brexit?

Or how keeping a triple lock on pensions was sustainable?

Or how they will cut the deficit without reducing services?

Come on

Come on what?

Do you think all of Corbyns election promises were sensible and properly costed/thought through?

I really don't get why you can't bring yourself to be critical of May or the Conservatives in general. RC and PB are clearly not suggesting that Labour's proposals were 'better'.

My point is about what he promised. Of course people will try to divert and they did try - I'm just trying to stay on topic

There are plenty of people criticising the tories on here without me doing it...

rick_chasey

If both sides do it it's not a differentiating argument.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

If both sides do it it's not a differentiating argument.

It is if the degree to which they do it is markedly different.

rick_chasey

The ol Stevo merrygoround

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

The ol Stevo merrygoround

Or maybe the old Rick being simplistic and seeing things in black and white rather than shades of grey?

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

If both sides do it it's not a differentiating argument.

It is if the degree to which they do it is markedly different.

Precisely.
Labour may have pretended to cost their promises, Conservative didn't even bother trying.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The ol Stevo merrygoround

Or maybe the old Rick being simplistic and seeing things in black and white rather than shades of grey?

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

If both sides do it it's not a differentiating argument.

It is if the degree to which they do it is markedly different.

I seem to remember the IFS giving both the major parties' manifestos short shrift (and they didn't think much of anyone else's for that matter). But that is all history now; what Corbyn promised a few months ago is now more or less irrelevant. The fact that large parts of it would have been unachievable doesn't make May's alternatives any more achievable. Being "not as bad as Labour" - a party that for all Corbyn's worthy rhetoric, seems as interested in denying it's most recent period of real achievement as it does with dealing with today's problems - strikes me as a pretty meagre boast. What's sad is that the obvious ambition and apparent awareness of May's speech on becoming prime minister, seems to have just evaporated. And very little has taken its place from either inside or outside the party.