UK General Election 2015

Eighthours wrote:

Parksey wrote:It is less about her being on the Left or Right and more about her being an idiot in general.

She will have clearly read, somewhere, that opinion on Murdoch and just taken it as gospel, with critically disgesting it and considering other viewpoints.

Such a description applies to people on both sides of the spectrum and the lady being, presumably, left wing has no bearing on her intolerance or idiocy. She would still be an idiot if she were on the right.

So defensive, Parksey! I also mentioned the token far-right idiot!

Not defensive, and I know you mentioned the right-wing, anti-immigration guy too, and I agree with you on those QT comments too.

I would just detach any comments about idiocy from whether a person is left or ring wing. As we both seem to agree, they exist on both sides so labels of political affiliation may be redundant.

Probably because it's incredibly tiresome reading you bitch about random, insignificant pricks on the left all the time.

Eighthours wrote:

Parksey wrote:It is less about her being on the Left or Right and more about her being an idiot in general.

She will have clearly read, somewhere, that opinion on Murdoch and just taken it as gospel, with critically disgesting it and considering other viewpoints.

Such a description applies to people on both sides of the spectrum and the lady being, presumably, left wing has no bearing on her intolerance or idiocy. She would still be an idiot if she were on the right.

So defensive, Parksey! I also mentioned the token far-right idiot!

Talking of right wing idiots, I saw this Tweet earlier. It's not just the lefties on Twitter that like to call people banana splits.

@jk_rowling @Matthew_Ireson strawberry float off you Labour banana split. All you lefties are finished in this country, especially you JK bitchface.

— sjosiah0 (@Steve Josiah)

I've read 3 different opinions on the BBC coverage today alone. The Daily Moan and Telegraph said the BBC had a horrible election night and were biased against the Tories; The Statesmen have accused/stated the BBC of being biased towards the Tories, someone else mentioned the news editor is a bastard from The Times; and the Evening Standard said the coverage was great.

That to me says the BBC had a great 24 hours.

Alistair Campbell's denial of Labour's collapse was both tiring and entertaining. Also enjoyed watching Nick Robinson back to his best.

Channel 4's coverage was great to up until the exit poll which completely ruined the script.

I saw that too. What was Rowling's comment that prompt such a hate-filled reply? She's a Labour Party donor, right?

As I said yesterday, I detested tribalism in politics. The back-and-forth, the mud-slinging and the insults remind me of the Football Thread and of derby days. The same sort of blind, unthinking fandom.

I had it today again on Facebook. People in my home constituency should be "ashamed of themselves" for voting Conversative apparently. Whilst I think a Conservative MP is not the most apt choice for my town (which forms perhaps about a 1/4 of the political map there, I reckon), wishing shame upon people is a bit much.

Definitely not a fan of our MP's voting record in parliament however. Lagamorph was saying he was glad Stockton South was a beckon of blue in a sea of red, and I disagree. Not only because of the blue colour, but of the views of the man in the seat. Such things are important to consider, I feel, rather than just seeing map light up in "your" colour. These aren't goals being scored by your side in a football match.

Also, Nick, I thought Alastair Campbell was quite critical of the Labour collapse on QT? He was quite open about mistakes being made by Labour and what those mistakes were. You might not agree with his dissection, but in my eyes he did offer up an analysis of why they failed. He also gave the Conservative Party strategy credit, albeit it a rather backhanded way.

Parksey wrote:I saw that too. What was Rowling's comment that prompt such a hate-filled reply? She's a Labour Party donor, right?

As I said yesterday, I detested tribalism in politics. The back-and-

She said

For showing unbelievable guts in the face of impossible odds, @JimForScotland, get in Gryffindor. #NotMuchBloodyComfort

Cybernats (it's assumed) responded, such as;

@jk_rowling @Matthew_Ireson F*ck off you Labour C*NT. All you lefties are finished in this country, especially you JK b*tchface.

Her reply

@sjosiah0 The Internet doesn’t just offer opportunities for misogynistic abuse, you know. Penis enlargers can also be bought discreetly.

Lol burn

Parksey: Ridicule and the language of emotion - sadness, anger, shame - are both powerful and necessary forms of persuasion. As long as it doesn't stray into harassment - if it does you should call the police! - I don't see the problem in discussing issues at least in part in terms of how one feels or emotes about the subject.

And once again, even if you are going to take a principled stance against emotion in politics, you are ignoring exactly the same behaviour from the right and pretending this is an exclusively leftist problem. I'm beginning to wonder if you are being deliberately obtuse about this.

The comment aimed at Rowling is absolutely harassment by the way. I'm talking about the 'mean' comments on Parksey's FB feed or whatever.

Deliberately obtuse? I believe I have shown clear examples of why I think both right and left wing supporters have acted without class or consideration in the past 24 hours.

It's likely that my Facebook feed is largely working class people in the North-East who are particularly aggrevied at the Tories winning. Again, being disappointed at the result or by your side "losing" doesn't excuse insulting people so aggressively. You are right, ridicule can be an effective political weapon, but what I have seen is sheer hatred of the other "side" without considering that the people who vote Tory aren't the other side of some moral divide and will have their own (just) reasons for doing so.

I believe what these people are demonstrating is separate from emotion or ridicule in politics. It's intolerance.

Far from being obtuse, I have made several posts on the theme of intolerance in the past 24 hours. What I am rallying against is not ridicule, satire or emotionally-charged politics, but that these don't blur the line and cross in to openly hate and moral condemnation of people who voted contrary to your beliefs.

You said before that anyone will hold their own views to be the "right" way to govern - a view I agree with - but you also have to have the nous to realise that what is "right" is interpreted by many different people in many different ways. All of them equally believing in their own cause.

If you want to understand my contempt for the Conservatives then "follow the money" as the old saying goes. More than half Conservative party funding comes from hedge funds and other financial groups; in other words the very same organisations and individuals who collapsed the economy and caused the deficit to be racked up in the first place. Do you understand why I'm maybe a bit pissed that people would elect the political wing of these criminals to run the country they so badly damaged? It's very hard for me to reconcile an injustice of that scale with simple difference of opinion.

Meep wrote: More than half Conservative party funding comes from hedge funds and other financial groups; i

Unsurprisingly, that doesn't appear to be even slightly true.

Even assuming every corporate donation is from a financial group/hedge fund, it's a little over 35% of their fund raising based on this breakdown

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/lab ... heck/13899

(10 seconds and 1 Google Search that too me. I stopped for a sip of drink before clicking the first result t

Even a more recent result from the Guardian doesn't support you (although it's not explicitly denouncing it unlike C4)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -donations

Meep wrote:If you want to understand my contempt for the Conservatives then "follow the money" as the old saying goes. More than half Conservative party funding comes from hedge funds and other financial groups; in other words the very same organisations and individuals who collapsed the economy and caused the deficit to be racked up in the first place. Do you understand why I'm maybe a bit pissed that people would elect the political wing of these criminals to run the country they so badly damaged? It's very hard for me to reconcile an injustice of that scale with simple difference of opinion.

Yet Ed Miliband's biggest private donor was a hedge fund guy! As usual, the hypocrisy of his rhetoric was shameless.

http://order-order.com/2015/03/23/eds-2 ... 46EboBPVtg

Are you worried at all about Labour's financial backing by the unions, as a matter of interest?

Why would it? As funding goes its one of the most democratic sources (short of direct government funding, which no one is ever going to accept ever). Besides, unions did not cause the crash this time around; if anything the pendulum has swung too far the other way since the 70s and they are too weak now to effectively contribute to building sustainable business and employment models.

Parksey wrote:Deliberately obtuse? I believe I have shown clear examples of why I think both right and left wing supporters have acted without class or consideration in the past 24 hours.

It's likely that my Facebook feed is largely working class people in the North-East who are particularly aggrevied at the Tories winning. Again, being disappointed at the result or by your side "losing" doesn't excuse insulting people so aggressively. You are right, ridicule can be an effective political weapon, but what I have seen is sheer hatred of the other "side" without considering that the people who vote Tory aren't the other side of some moral divide and will have their own (just) reasons for doing so.

I believe what these people are demonstrating is separate from emotion or ridicule in politics. It's intolerance.

Far from being obtuse, I have made several posts on the theme of intolerance in the past 24 hours. What I am rallying against is not ridicule, satire or emotionally-charged politics, but that these don't blur the line and cross in to openly hate and moral condemnation of people who voted contrary to your beliefs.

You said before that anyone will hold their own views to be the "right" way to govern - a view I agree with - but you also have to have the nous to realise that what is "right" is interpreted by many different people in many different ways. All of them equally believing in their own cause.

Hear hear, Parksey. Quite a few people are making similar comments to yours on social media today. It's weird, Karl, that you don't seem to be able to see where the line is.

Meep wrote:Why would it?

Union policy and its unhealthy bought influence on the party.

The thing is a struggle to find direct examples of this supposedly huge bought influence in recent Labour governments in actual legislation. If I were the TUC I would probably ask for my money back.

ianf wrote:Probably because it's incredibly tiresome reading you bitch about random, insignificant pricks on the left all the time.

You don't understand what it's like being Eighthours and having random videogame journalists hold different views to you
OH THE SUFFERING
You may think the poor and those with any shred of concern for human or privacy rights were hurt the most by this election results but you would be wrong. That is nothing compared to the plight of a man who IS FORCED to stare at twitter AGAINST HIS WILL and read several comments by people who hold a different view to him

What could be worse? Nothing

The Unions are too weak?

Try telling that to people who live and work in London and rely on the tube service to get to work.