Jump to content

All things Labour Party


CHAPEL END CHARLIE

Recommended Posts

No as his views are given completely within context and under massive scrutiny. Like Bush, the man is clearly of very limited intelligence and a danger to the planet.
Actually many of his supposed views have been taken wildly out of context or exaggerated by a media who sieze on every crumb of a story or a quote and often blow it out of all proportion. Personally I think its an idiotic tactic because the actual stuff that trump does is silly enough without the made up stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want another Arab Spring or yet another Western intervention (of course you do, you're a Blairite)? Because they worked out so well.

Unfortunately you useful idiots (to the Torys) have cried wolf so many times regarding Corbyn that none of us pay attention anymore. He's the best of a bad bunch and reading about the Iranian protests, just the sort of politician they too seem to be crying out for.

 

So you'll be condemning those brave women in Iran publicly removing their headscarves and being carted off to a brutal imprisonment in Evin prison (Google it)? You'll stay silent about the protests in Iran recently over vast corruption and violence of the regime? All on the grounds that, like the Arab Spring, these acts are invariably some kind of Western-financed revolt? You do realise, do you, that the socialism that Corbyn is supposed to be in favour of is internationalism - socialists have always supported popular uprisings under dictators (you won't remember the campaigns against Pinochet, the Juntas in Argentina, Apartheid and even the Soviet empire). Except now it's ok apparently to back violent dictators like Assad and the Iranian regime - and to stay silent about Putin's crimes against his own people - out of some fatuous, unthinking view that to even criticise dictators is to be pro-western in some perverted way?

 

Oh, and on the subject of the 'Blairite' accusation, somehow I - I suspect unlike you - managed to be on that March in February 2003. I've always detested Blair's faux-Stalinist targets culture, and I welcomed the election of Ed Miliband, whose personality wasn't up to it but whose policies have been stolen left, right and centre. You reach for the Blairite' label because you want to paint anti-war voters and pro-war, and social democrats as 'neo-liberal' (in Corbyn-speak, Victorian capitalist) enemies of the people.

 

But let's get back on topic: can you articulate a single coherent argument as to why Corbyn took a considerable amount of money from the Iranian regime's propaganda mouthpiece while at the same time failing to condemn the brutal hangings of gay people and the imprisonment, torture and murder of any who raised their hands against the regime?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

God, terrible to think somebody targeted a party leader and wanted then dead. Last time I remember that happening it was Corbyns mates trying to murder Maggie.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Wonder what Corbyn’s fan boys make of his last few days.

 

Meetings with Czech “diplomat “, which may or may not have led to payment. Poor old Jezza didn’t realise he was a spy, who would have thought “diplomat” was actually spy in the Cold War era.

 

He then tweets attacking the Government for the death of a poor homeless chap. Before it emerges he was an illegal alien pedophile on the run.

 

Vote cancelled at labour meeting because his candidate was losing & bird pushed off stage by lefty bully.

 

And finally St Brendan Cox is exposed as a pervert, hilarious watching Labour virtual signallers defending him on Sunday TV and having their hypocrisy exposed for all to see.

 

Meanwhile the polls continue to be neck and neck.

 

It’s all going to fall apart, hopefully not too soon that they can get some moderates in before the takeover of the party is complete.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the Czech "spy" is a truly reliable source of information...

 

https://evolvepolitics.com/the-czech-spy-linked-to-corbyn-has-just-claimed-personal-credit-for-launching-live-aid/

 

I wouldn't class myself as a "fan-boy" (as you put it LD) - I like him enough and I think he has a genuine empathy for people in a way that no Tory is capable of - but this "revelation" is a total non-story. It was 30 years ago and it's such an obvious smear attempt. At least he has admitted to meeting the guy.

 

Compare that to Boris Johnson, the serving Foreign Secretary, meeting a top level Russian intelligence officer then denying he had ever met him, despite photographs emerging of them having dinner together. I notice that this wasn't splashed all over the front pages of several tabloids and discussed at length on news programmes.

 

Which of the two events do you think were more likely to compromise British security?

Edited by Sheaf Saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if the person in charge of the NEC (The group who are supposed to deal with complaints, does this) What hope is there?

 

 

http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/18/labour-face-claims-bullying-angry-scenes-key-meeting-7322247/

Thornbury retorted when asked about this and said "it was just one of those things"

 

the absolute double standards shown openly towards Brendan Cox just highlights the mess they are in. one Labour MP dismissing what he did as he was "on a journey"...... fair enough

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of this is small beer compared to the stunningly awful fact that while May leads the most toxic, incompetent government of modern times, all Corbyn can manage, midterm, is to be four percentage points behind her.

 

It's not that Corbyn is dangerous. It's that he is beyond useless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This country is crying out for a new political party with some passion, some impetus and dare I say it some "momentum". All we have at the moment is a tory party dying on its a*se with a damp rag of a leader and the terrifying prospect of a socialist and the radical Labour left in power in the form of corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell and Momentum. Our political system is partly to blame which means that no one else can come to power in the same way Macron has in France. Those parts of the electorate who only ever vote Tory or Labour are also to blame too. Politics in Britain is incredibly stale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what way?

 

Genuinely interested to know your reasoning behind this statement.

 

They will make whatever institutional changes they can to entrench their position. They hold extreme views and cannot tolerate debate / exchange of ideas. They look to shut down opponents.

 

Basically, they are extreme dogmatists. I think, to some extent, Corbyn is a bit of a patsy but that's irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of this is small beer compared to the stunningly awful fact that while May leads the most toxic, incompetent government of modern times, all Corbyn can manage, midterm, is to be four percentage points behind her.

 

It's not that Corbyn is dangerous. It's that he is beyond useless.

 

Yeah, that too. It's all hypothetical as he's got no chance of winning an election. If he did, I would be seriously worried though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the Czech "spy" is a truly reliable source of information...

 

https://evolvepolitics.com/the-czech-spy-linked-to-corbyn-has-just-claimed-personal-credit-for-launching-live-aid/

 

I wouldn't class myself as a "fan-boy" (as you put it LD) - I like him enough and I think he has a genuine empathy for people in a way that no Tory is capable of - but this "revelation" is a total non-story. It was 30 years ago and it's such an obvious smear attempt. At least he has admitted to meeting the guy.

 

 

Anybody who claims they didn't realise that "diplomats" from the Warsaw Pact countries were in fact spies is either a half wit or a liar.

 

Corbyn could be found to have taken Russian money (he's taken Iranian) for information and his sheep supporters would still claim it's a smear or it was 30 years ago. The only thing he could do that would be unpalatable to lefties is vote Brexit. We know he could grab and chick by the throat and say he's going to **** her, and not be condemned outright. Anyway at the end of the day it's not his lemmings or the people that hate him that'll make any difference, it's the voters in the Tory/Labour marginals he needs to convince. Will this story help in that cause, pretty doubtful. Is there more going to come out, you can bet your life there is.

 

There's a reason this incompetent prime minister is still ahead in the polling, and Jezza can see it every time he looks in the mirror

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you honestly not thing of any examples of bullying and/ or aggressive behaviour by members of momentum over the last few years?

 

It's interesting that when you do a google search for 'Momentum bullying', pretty much the only results that get returned are some dubious, unfounded accusations of bullying, usually from people with an axe to grind (mostly Blairites who can't accept that their time in the party is over), and only reported in the usual suspect pro-Tory newspapers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This country is crying out for a new political party with some passion, some impetus and dare I say it some "momentum". All we have at the moment is a tory party dying on its a*se with a damp rag of a leader and the terrifying prospect of a socialist and the radical Labour left in power in the form of corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell and Momentum. Our political system is partly to blame which means that no one else can come to power in the same way Macron has in France. Those parts of the electorate who only ever vote Tory or Labour are also to blame too. Politics in Britain is incredibly stale.

 

For once Hypo, we are in complete agreement. The entire political system in this country is completely outdated and no longer fit for purpose.

 

We need sweeping changes to bring us out of the dark ages, like rules which prevent a party who only manage 24% of the available vote from gaining an overall majority, or which prevent elected representatives from standing up in Parliament and telling blatant, outright lies to the house and the public with complete impunity.

Edited by Sheaf Saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They will make whatever institutional changes they can to entrench their position. They hold extreme views and cannot tolerate debate / exchange of ideas. They look to shut down opponents.

 

Basically, they are extreme dogmatists.

 

All of this applies just as much, if not more so, to the Tories as it does to Labour. In fact, it probably applies to every political party that has ever existed or ever will do.

 

The plans to re-draw the constituency boundaries to favour them is a prime example of your first point.

 

As for not tolerating debate and looking to shut down opponents, remember "People have had quite enough of experts" anyone?

Edited by Sheaf Saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of this applies just as much, if not more so, to the Tories as it does to Labour. In fact, it probably applies to every political party that has ever existed or ever will do.

 

The plans to re-draw the constituency boundaries to favour them is a prime example of your first point.

 

As for not tolerating debate and looking to shut down opponents, remember "People have had quite enough of experts" anyone?

 

I disagree. Whilst there are some bad eggs in every party, this lot have a militant tendency to silence opposition and the prospect of McDonnell in power is hideous.

 

As to your lazy Tory bashing, complete piffle. The boundary changes are proposed by an independent commission and it was recognised by Parliament in 2011 that the constituencies need a rethink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting that when you do a google search for 'Momentum bullying', pretty much the only results that get returned are some dubious, unfounded accusations of bullying, usually from people with an axe to grind (mostly Blairites who can't accept that their time in the party is over), and only reported in the usual suspect pro-Tory newspapers.

 

Yeah it's all a big media conspiracy. No concerning behaviour from Momentum members whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. Whilst there are some bad eggs in every party, this lot have a militant tendency to silence opposition and the prospect of McDonnell in power is hideous.

 

As to your lazy Tory bashing, complete piffle. The boundary changes are proposed by an independent commission and it was recognised by Parliament in 2011 that the constituencies need a rethink.

 

Oh absolutely. The far left are in a class of their own when it comes to silencing dissent and creating legislation specifically designed to prevent others from talking when they don't like what they are saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all well and good when corbyn supporters like bexy saying "but the tories do it"

 

all parties have muppets and/or unsavoury types

 

Labour at the moment are Top Trumps on that front!

 

shouldn't the opposition be leading the polls let alone against this version of the tory party

 

corbyn is a million miles off getting into power. the best thing for this tory party is him remaining where he is

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. Whilst there are some bad eggs in every party, this lot have a militant tendency to silence opposition and the prospect of McDonnell in power is hideous.

 

As to your lazy Tory bashing, complete piffle. The boundary changes are proposed by an independent commission and it was recognised by Parliament in 2011 that the constituencies need a rethink.

 

Can you give me some examples of this?

 

I'm not a devout follower of Labour/Momentum looking to defend them at all costs by the way - far from it. I'm just genuinely interested to find out why you think this way and why you presume that the problem is worse than it is in other parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh absolutely. The far left are in a class of their own when it comes to silencing dissent and creating legislation specifically designed to prevent others from talking when they don't like what they are saying.

 

But how exactly can you say that about the current incarnation of Labour/Momentum, when they are not, and never have been, in a position of power to do so?

 

Or are you just lazily comparing them to other, historical far-left regimes like the Soviet Union?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all well and good when corbyn supporters like bexy saying "but the tories do it"

 

all parties have muppets and/or unsavoury types

 

Labour at the moment are Top Trumps on that front!

 

shouldn't the opposition be leading the polls let alone against this version of the tory party

 

corbyn is a million miles off getting into power. the best thing for this tory party is him remaining where he is

 

If you bother to read my earlier post from yesterday, you will find that I am not a Corbyn 'supporter'. But then you always have been fond of using strawman arguments.

 

I actually agree with you in a way. With the Tories being in such disarray and reliant on a massive bribe to an extremist NI party to maintain their majority, a better opposition would have them on the ropes. It is to the detriment of all of us that we don't have that better opposition.

 

But I have to take issue with your assertion that Labour are miles ahead in the muppet/unsavoury type top trumps stakes.

 

May, Gove, Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Hammond, Fox, Grayling, Patel... I could go on, but you get the picture.

Edited by Sheaf Saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you bother to read my earlier post from yesterday, you will find that I am not a Corbyn 'supporter'. But then you always have been fond of using strawman arguments.

 

I actually agree with you in a way. With the Tories being in such disarray and reliant on a massive bribe to an extremist NI party to maintain their majority, a better opposition would have them on the ropes. It is to the detriment of all of us that we don't have that better opposition.

 

But I have to take issue with your assertion that Labour are miles ahead in the muppet/unsavoury type top trumps stakes.

 

May, Gove, Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Hammond, Fox, Grayling, Patel... I could go on, but you get the picture.

then why are they miles off ever winning power.

 

no way will the country allow a gaggle like Abbott, Thornbury, Mcdonall and Corbyn get into power.

 

those you have listed seems not to be the case

 

who ever you put up from the higher echelons of the Conservative Party, they simply do not compare to communist Mcdonall or dianne Abbott

 

had jezza surrounded himself with normal Labour type of politicians, his obvious alarming short comings would be ignored

but he hasn't..

Edited by Batman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you bother to read my earlier post from yesterday, you will find that I am not a Corbyn 'supporter'. But then you always have been fond of using strawman arguments.

 

I actually agree with you in a way. With the Tories being in such disarray and reliant on a massive bribe to an extremist NI party to maintain their majority, a better opposition would have them on the ropes. It is to the detriment of all of us that we don't have that better opposition.

 

But I have to take issue with your assertion that Labour are miles ahead in the muppet/unsavoury type top trumps stakes.

 

May, Gove, Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Hammond, Fox, Grayling, Patel... I could go on, but you get the picture.

What exactly has rees-mogg done in your mind that makes him a muppet or an unsavoury character? Other than being posh and having some opinions on abortion and brexit that some disagree with, what has he said or done that is so offensive?

 

I disagree with much of what corbyn says but I don't think he is unsavoury, I mostly think he is someone who believes what he says and has good intentions. In many ways he is a useful tool for those sinister people behind him like mcdonnell who genuinely are scary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

then why are they miles off ever winning power.

 

But they are not "miles off" are they. Depending on which polls you put your faith in, there is only a couple of percentage in it right now. It would only take a massive disaster from the Tory government (like, let's say, making a massive f*ck up with Brexit) to put Labour ahead.

 

Yes, they should be doing better given how utterly incompetent May's government is proving itself to be, but to suggest they are "miles off ever winning power", is miles off the mark ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly has rees-mogg done in your mind that makes him a muppet or an unsavoury character? Other than being posh and having some opinions on abortion and brexit that some disagree with, what has he said or done that is so offensive?

 

I disagree with much of what corbyn says but I don't think he is unsavoury, I mostly think he is someone who believes what he says and has good intentions. In many ways he is a useful tool for those sinister people behind him like mcdonnell who genuinely are scary.

 

I'm glad you brought up the abortion opinions, because he is openly against all abortion laws (including in cases of rape) but then makes a tidy sum from sitting on the board of a company that makes contraceptives.

 

He's happy to vote in favour of things like the bedroom tax, but then happily accepts £7m of public money to refurbish his wife's ancestral home.

 

He believes the existence of food banks in the 6th richest country in the world is a wonderful thing.

 

He strikes me as somebody who would happily take us back to Victorian times if he could, throwing the poor into workhouses. To me, he personifies the very worst kind of corrupt, self-serving, entitled, out-of-touch elitist in our society. A relic of a bygone age that refuse to die out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad you brought up the abortion opinions, because he is openly against all abortion laws (including in cases of rape) but then makes a tidy sum from sitting on the board of a company that makes contraceptives.

 

He's happy to vote in favour of things like the bedroom tax, but then happily accepts £7m of public money to refurbish his wife's ancestral home.

 

He believes the existence of food banks in the 6th richest country in the world is a wonderful thing.

 

He strikes me as somebody who would happily take us back to Victorian times if he could, throwing the poor into workhouses. To me, he personifies the very worst kind of corrupt, self-serving, entitled, out-of-touch elitist in our society. A relic of a bygone age that refuse to die out.

 

 

There's so much to dislike Rees-Mogg it's hard to just pick one thing:

 

Consistently voted for reducing housing benefit for social tenants deemed to have excess bedrooms (which Labour describe as the "bedroom tax")

 

Consistently voted against raising welfare benefits at least in line with prices

 

Consistently voted against paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability

 

Consistently voted for a reduction in spending on welfare benefits

 

Consistently voted against an annual tax on the value of expensive homes (popularly known as a mansion tax)

 

Generally voted against laws to promote equality and human rights

 

Consistently voted against allowing marriage between two people of same sex

 

Consistently voted against equal gay rights

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad you brought up the abortion opinions, because he is openly against all abortion laws (including in cases of rape) but then makes a tidy sum from sitting on the board of a company that makes contraceptives.

That's a misrepresentation of his views as I understand them. He claims to be a devout Catholic and thus follows the teachings of the Pope. He has referred to this issue himself where he points out that there is no hypocrisy:

 

“It would be wrong to pretend that I like it but the world is not always what you want it to be. “Kalbe Farma obeys Indonesian law so it’s a legitimate investment and there’s no hypocrisy. The law in Indonesia would satisfy the Vatican.” Mr Rees Mogg does not have any of his own personal money invested in the fund, and has not personally managed investments since he became an MP in 2010.

 

He's happy to vote in favour of things like the bedroom tax, but then happily accepts £7m of public money to refurbish his wife's ancestral home.

 

It was his mother in law's house and he had no involvement in the campaign to restore it. It wasn't anything to do with him.

 

 

He believes the existence of food banks in the 6th richest country in the world is a wonderful thing.

He's correct when he says that the reason that food bank use has risen is at least in part because there is no longer a policy at job centres not to tell people of their existence- something that the Job Centre routinely did under Labour.

 

He strikes me as somebody who would happily take us back to Victorian times if he could, throwing the poor into workhouses. To me, he personifies the very worst kind of corrupt, self-serving, entitled, out-of-touch elitist in our society. A relic of a bygone age that refuse to die out.

 

Personally I think that's a hugely unfair accusation based primarily on the fact that he happens to be rich and posh. The truth is that the current hard left Labour party do not give a stuff about ordinary working people and the lower class. A large part of it consists of comfortable middle class people pandering to a caricature of what they believe the working class to be and telling those people what is best for them. They looked down their noses at the legitimate concerns of those people during brexit, dismissed many of them as racist and sexist and had very little interest in their legitimate concerns.Hard left Labour under Corbyn is not the party of the working class.

 

In most interviews I have seen of him, he has demonstrated that he realises what a fortunate position he is in and also what a responsible job he has to represent his constituency. You have no evidence at all that suggests he would be eager to "take us back to Victorian times" or "throw people in the workhouse" that's just your own bias getting the better of you because you don't like the man. The fact he can get on with such hideous harpies like Jess Phillips says a lot. Say what you like about him and where he has come from but at least he is genuine and says what he thinks honestly and with no hideous pretence like Cameron- in that sense he is rather similar to Corbyn.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's so much to dislike Rees-Mogg it's hard to just pick one thing:

 

Consistently voted for reducing housing benefit for social tenants deemed to have excess bedrooms (which Labour describe as the "bedroom tax")

 

Consistently voted against raising welfare benefits at least in line with prices

 

Consistently voted against paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability

 

Consistently voted for a reduction in spending on welfare benefits

 

Consistently voted against an annual tax on the value of expensive homes (popularly known as a mansion tax)

 

Generally voted against laws to promote equality and human rights

 

Consistently voted against allowing marriage between two people of same sex

 

Consistently voted against equal gay rights

 

You haven't provided any context with this list so it's largely meaningless. As an example, Philip Davies is often condemned by feminists for voting against a bill against violence against women and domestic violence, but what they don't tell you is that it is because he opposed violence against everyone including women and opposed the fact that women were singled out. It would be much more interesting to listen to why Rees-Mogg voted against these bills and I rather suspect the answer would not be because he is a heartless monster who despises the poor. Much more likely that he is ideologically opposed to the way our benefits system works- we would have to ask him for details. Much too simplistic to use someone's voting record as a stick to beat them with- and the same with Corbyn and his record too.

Edited by hypochondriac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You haven't provided any context with this list so it's largely meaningless. As an example, Philip Davies is often condemned by feminists for voting against a bill against violence against women and domestic violence, but what they don't tell you is that it is because he opposed violence against everyone including women and opposed the fact that women were singled out. It would be much more interesting to listen to why Rees-Mogg voted against these bills and I rather suspect the answer would not be because he is a heartless monster who despises the poor.

 

I don't think you can argue that it's meaningless - this isn't one vote taken out of context - his voting record show he has consistently voted against welfare benefits and gay rights (7 votes against to 0 for). I think you can draw pretty good conclusions from how ministers have voted over the course of their career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's so much to dislike Rees-Mogg it's hard to just pick one thing:

 

Consistently voted for reducing housing benefit for social tenants deemed to have excess bedrooms (which Labour describe as the "bedroom tax")

 

Consistently voted against raising welfare benefits at least in line with prices

 

Consistently voted against paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability

 

Consistently voted for a reduction in spending on welfare benefits

 

Consistently voted against an annual tax on the value of expensive homes (popularly known as a mansion tax)

 

Generally voted against laws to promote equality and human rights

 

Consistently voted against allowing marriage between two people of same sex

 

Consistently voted against equal gay rights

 

Yeah, but apart from that, what have the Roman's ever done for us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Consistently voted against an annual tax on the value of expensive homes (popularly known as a mansion tax)

 

 

When were these votes?

 

Anyway what's JRM got to do with Tory Government, he's a backbencher. Every party has head bangers on their back benches, although some gerrymander theirs into a leadership contest. For every JRM whose voting record is there for his constituency voters to see and act upon, there's a Keith Vav, selling washing machines to nubile young men behind their backs.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corbyn could be found to have taken Russian money (he's taken Iranian) for information and his sheep supporters would still claim it's a smear or it was 30 years ago.

 

To be fair to Corbyn, he only took £27,000 worth Iranian state money for his television appearances AFTER the torture and forced televised confession (on the same channel) of an Iranian journalist.

 

We know he could grab and chick by the throat and say he's going to **** her, and not be condemned outright.

 

I'm not sure your attitude to women, Lord 'Chicks' Pony, is quite right. This may help:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you can argue that it's meaningless - this isn't one vote taken out of context - his voting record show he has consistently voted against welfare benefits and gay rights (7 votes against to 0 for). I think you can draw pretty good conclusions from how ministers have voted over the course of their career.
Simply giving a list of votes for or against something without providing the reasons for voting that way is ridiculously simplistic. Far better to look at the reasoning behind those votes as I explained with the Philip Davies example. He may have reasoning that I disagree with but I'm not going to condemn any political for voting against something - including the likes of corbyn- without listening to why they voted against it. They could have perfectly logical reasons even if I disagree with their opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply giving a list of votes for or against something without providing the reasons for voting that way is ridiculously simplistic. Far better to look at the reasoning behind those votes as I explained with the Philip Davies example. He may have reasoning that I disagree with but I'm not going to condemn any political for voting against something - including the likes of corbyn- without listening to why they voted against it. They could have perfectly logical reasons even if I disagree with their opinion.

 

It isn't simplistic at all. He has voted 'consistently' for a cut in spending on welfare benefits - out of 54 votes he has voted 52 times against, 0 for and been absent twice. The same with higher benefits for illness and disability (14 votes against, 0 for). By all means try and find his arguments against each of the bills but I think it's pretty reasonable to infer what his beliefs are from how he votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't simplistic at all. He has voted 'consistently' for a cut in spending on welfare benefits - out of 54 votes he has voted 52 times against, 0 for and been absent twice. The same with higher benefits for illness and disability (14 votes against, 0 for). By all means try and find his arguments against each of the bills but I think it's pretty reasonable to infer what his beliefs are from how he votes.

 

It's absolutely unreasonable to infer his reasoning for these votes until you've heard his reasons. It's one of the reasons that politics is so grossly polarised. I'd rather make my mind up on any politician by listening to what they say and their reasonings before jumping to the bit where we condemn them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})