Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    My side? What is this, tribal warfare? It the Tories are being muppets and are straying from the path I'll put my hands up and say so. I'm not going to follow them blindly out of some misguided sense of party loyalty.
    A most excellent approach.

    Abolition of all workers rights? I know you know that's not the goal of the Tory party. Melodramatic much?
    I would actually assert that there are some within the Tory Party who are completely opposed to any form of statutory minimum standards in the labour market, and have publicly called for further repeals despite the already vicious attacks on the rights of workers, like

    (a) The increase in the unfair dismissal continuity of service requirement from one year to two. So effectively increasing a probation period to two years, as if a competent business can't tell after about 6 months whether someone is worth keeping

    (b) The Trade Union and Labour Relations Act Amendment Order 2013, reducing collective redundancy consultation periods from 90 days to 45 days

    (c) Introduction of fees for employment tribunals, which is incredibly cynical knowing that most sacked workers can't afford to shell out £1,000

    And on and on. It's quite clear they believe that the worker should be at the beck and call of the employer.

    I can't believe you just used that. That's such a logical fallacy.
    An oldie but a goodie. And I don't see how it is a logical fallacy. Which logical fallacy is it? It's reasonable to aver that someone's pre-existing interest and bias in a subject makes what they say both predictable and dismissable.

    They're probably desperate to return to power I'd imagine.
    I couldn't agree more. And they're frustrated because they know New Labour won't be returning to power. New Labour is dead. Their faction has been utterly destroyed.

    Oh and by the way, attacking religion for the sake of it isn't cool.
    Oh I don't attack it for its own sake. I attack it on merit (or lack thereof)

    I'd like to know who you would take moral and political lessons on, because I'd wager a pony that they've got skeletons in their closet.
    Living or dead? If the latter, Alexander Hamilton. If the former, my political mentor (who is now a private citizen, and also a friend, so I'll decline to bring his name into the public domain if it's all the same to you).

    Religion is contemptible and worthy of ridicule on its own meretricious grounds, but Tony Blair takes it to the next level with his self-delusion.

    Wow, you come up with some really asinine conclusions.
    I'm just going off what you have said yourself. I'm pleased that we agree that we can both treat Tony Blair's words with the contempt they deserve.

    So, using your logic, you hold Lord Ashcroft in high esteem?
    The difference was that Lord Ashcroft commissioned a study, so he kind of has a bit of support for his assertion. Whereas the rants of proven liars like Tony Blair and former communist-turned-spiv Alan Johnson are simply the dying howls of their political faction within the party.

    They know that the unions have a seat at the top table again and they hate it. Why? Because their paymasters hate it. They're paid to hate it. They're basically professional liars.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    Certainly, he moved the party to the right. And this is not unprecedented in the history of the Labour Party. What is risible is the claim that this must be a permanent rightward shift and that Thatcher must be given credit, when we can see even now the Labour Party moving back leftwards and the neoliberals and Blairites having been routed.



    The Conservatives opposed every single one. I would agree; they are out of step with the times.
    This is just my view of course, but I think if Labour continued with their wayward socialist agenda, then polls wouldn't have been as strong, and Labour probably wouldn't have won a historic three elections.

    I think, despite everything, the electorate does warm to a right-wing agenda more than what it does to the left. I'm purely basing that on speculation, of course, but if Thatcher was so horrible, the question we have to ask is why was Thatcher voted in '87 (given how in 1979 people wanted Labour out, and 1983 she won because of the Falklands war), and why did Major won in 92, despite the poll tax fiasco and internal congruity within the Tory party?

    Poor leaders represent ineffecent opposition. Foot and Kinnock were out of touch with what Britain wanted. Ignoring the Liberal Democrats, purely because up until Cleggmania kicked off, the fight was between Tory / Labour.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    This is quite typical of an opponent of gay marriage. As soon as they know they've lost the issue, the undermine the very institution they were claiming was absolutely vital and crucial. I would agree,though, that the economy is in the gutter thanks to the Tories and that their unpopularity has something to do with this.

    And gay marriage not popular? I'm sorry, you must be starkers. Politicians are falling all over themselves to endorse marriage equality, they can't do i quickly enough. Even GOP Senators are now endorsing it.

    Oh and the polls are quite clear about the popularity or lack of it. A supermajority of British voters approve, and the vast majority of people's whose opinions are actually valuable approve. Those opposed are a vocal and radical minority who are attempting to overturn what will be the law of the land.

    Actually, you might well be right about the EU and immigration. But the Tories can't help themselves regards rewarding their rich mates and demonising anyone on welfare, and this is a huge blunder. The British people are hating their divisive rhetoric, and the Conservative Party is digging its own grave.

    I think what you mean to say is that you oppose those four, and you believe that everyone else must as well. Certainly, I'd grant there is a niche of left-wing opposition to the EU and immigration, but that is rarely tied in with gay marriage. Unless you can provide a citation (just one) that these "millions" exist?
    I'm not actually an opponent of gay marriage, I'm simply stating that gay marriage is not an issue for the majority of voters. This is, after all, a debate about the future of the Conservative party, not about whether we think their policies are right or wrong. There is not a "supermajority" of people in support of gay marriage, and I don't see why you're under the impression that there is.

    Again, I personally think that Osborne and IDS's obsession with welfare is pathetic, and that the Tories will lose to Labour by a large margin in 2015. The real question is where the Tories go beyond that. You seem convinced they will be out of power for another couple of decades, I'm saying that they can come back in the election after that if they have a coherent plan for growth and make a real attempt to stem the tide of losing support to UKIP.

    The primary issue for people when voting is the economy. Gay marriage has only become an issue now in an attempt for leaders to deflect attention away from their abject economic policy. I'm not saying that I disagree with gay marriage (quite the opposite), just that a) there is not a "supermajority" of people in favour of it (I'd be interested to see a source for this), b) many of those people in favour of it (like myself) will vote based on economic issues and not on a party's policy on gay marriage.

    As for left-wing opposition to immigration and the EU:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ng-than-tories

    Basically, working-class, Mail reading types who oppose aggressively right-wing economic policy but also oppose the EU, immigration, the ECHR etc.

    As I have already stated, people do not fit neatly into left/right boxes, you only have to look at libertarians as an example of this.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    I would actually assert that there are some within the Tory Party who are completely opposed to any form of statutory minimum standards in the labour market, and have publicly called for further repeals despite the already vicious attacks on the rights of workers, like
    There are also probably some hardcore communists in the Labour party. I atleast can undestand that that isn't actually representative of the entire party or indeed centre-left politics.

    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    (a) The increase in the unfair dismissal continuity of service requirement from one year to two. So effectively increasing a probation period to two years, as if a competent business can't tell after about 6 months whether someone is worth keeping
    You'd be suprised. As it is a lot of firms are reluctant on hiring because the complete and utter ball ache it is to get rid of them if they turn out to be a nonce.

    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    (b) The Trade Union and Labour Relations Act Amendment Order 2013, reducing collective redundancy consultation periods from 90 days to 45 days
    Hmm, can't say I've ever been through a redundancy consultation so I don't know how long it takes, but three months seems a bit faffing long.

    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    (c) Introduction of fees for employment tribunals, which is incredibly cynical knowing that most sacked workers can't afford to shell out £1,000
    There's a remissions system in place for those who can't afford the fees, and it will hopefully stop the excessive claims for sexual harrasment just because someone got fired and all that nonsense, an extension of our compensation culture.

    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    And on and on. It's quite clear they believe that the worker should be at the beck and call of the employer.
    No, they simply believe there needs to be a balance.

    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    An oldie but a goodie. And I don't see how it is a logical fallacy. Which logical fallacy is it? It's reasonable to aver that someone's pre-existing interest and bias in a subject makes what they say both predictable and dismissable.
    Wikipedia lists it under Ad Hominem circumstantial. They actually use that case as an example. Just because someone would say something in a certain circumstance is in itself irrelevant to whether or not they're telling the truth. At best it defeats their statement but it never furthers your own assertion.

    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    I couldn't agree more. And they're frustrated because they know New Labour won't be returning to power. New Labour is dead. Their faction has been utterly destroyed.
    What are the current factions of the Labour party?

    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    Oh I don't attack it for its own sake. I attack it on merit (or lack thereof)
    You're attacking someone because they're devoutly religious, in a debate that has nothing to do with religion, and yet you claim you don't attack it for the sake of it? Good one.

    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    Living or dead? If the latter, Alexander Hamilton. If the former, my political mentor (who is now a private citizen, and also a friend, so I'll decline to bring his name into the public domain if it's all the same to you).
    Well, a quick glance at Hamilton's wikipedia page, wasn't he a rowdy scoundrel that couldn't keep his tackle in his pants?

    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    Religion is contemptible and worthy of ridicule on its own meretricious grounds, but Tony Blair takes it to the next level with his self-delusion.
    Oh here we go. Pretentious much?

    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    I'm just going off what you have said yourself. I'm pleased that we agree that we can both treat Tony Blair's words with the contempt they deserve.
    The electorate clearly like him, it's all well for everyone to jump on the Iraq war bandwagon now but he bloody well won three general elections. I can recognise he carries weight with some people even if I myself don't like the bugger, something you should probably grasp as well. Just because it's your opinion doesn't mean it's everyones.

    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    The difference was that Lord Ashcroft commissioned a study, so he kind of has a bit of support for his assertion. Whereas the rants of proven liars like Tony Blair and former communist-turned-spiv Alan Johnson are simply the dying howls of their political faction within the party.
    As I said, Blair won three general elections, I'd imagine he knows a thing or two about winning over the electorate.

    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    They know that the unions have a seat at the top table again and they hate it. Why? Because their paymasters hate it. They're paid to hate it. They're basically professional liars.
    Yeah, sure, that's why :rolleyes:
    It's amazing how you can descend so easily from well thought out logical debate into bizarre quasi-conspiracies.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    X
    I'm not going to do a line by line refutation, the debate-worthy stuff is getting a little thin and you're floating back towards the ad hominem. I will refute your last point and ardent defence of Tony Blair.

    There's a reason he's despised in both parties. The man is a scumbag, which is amply demonstrated by his taking of huge bags of cash from the brutal Kazakh dictatorship to advocate their interests and tell the world what a free and democratic place they are.

    Maybe you wouldn't have any objections to taking a pay cheque from torturers and killers. I would.

    Edit: And if you're using Hamilton's affair with Maria Reynolds as a basis for criticism you are really showing that you don't know much about the man. It's worth actually reading a biography (or even his wikipedia page) to see what an amazing person he was.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    I'm not going to do a line by line refutation, the debate-worthy stuff is getting a little thin and you're floating back towards the ad hominem.
    :rolleyes:
    Nice attempt at trying to save face over the fact that you have no answers though, I'll give you that.

    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    There's a reason he's despised in both parties. The man is a scumbag, which is amply demonstrated by his taking of huge bags of cash from the brutal Kazakh dictatorship to advocate their interests and tell the world what a free and democratic place they are.
    I don't see the appeal of Tony Blair, but there must be a reason he won three general elections. My argument isn't really that hard to understand. He knows how to win elections. Ed Miliband, as of yet, doesn't, and somehow manages to score lower than David Cameron on personal approval opinion polls. If it's Ed Miliband's ambition to actually win over the electorate, he might want to pay attention to them, not you.

    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    Maybe you wouldn't have any objections to taking a pay cheque from torturers and killers. I would.
    You accuse me of logical fallacies and running dry on debate worthy stuff and then the very next paragraph you come out with stuff like that? Strawman or what?


    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    Edit: And if you're using Hamilton's affair with Maria Reynolds as a basis for criticism you are really showing that you don't know much about the man. It's worth actually reading a biography (or even his wikipedia page) to see what an amazing person he was.
    Says the man attacking Tony Blair for being a devout Christian. You really are quite a hypocrite.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    :rolleyes:
    Nice attempt at trying to save face over the fact that you have no answers though, I'll give you that.
    Difference being that some of us don't have our entire day to spend chatting on StudentRoom. But please arrogate to yourself some imagined trophies if it makes you feel better.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 002)
    Labour will win outright in 2015. We dont play games with the LibDems.
    TSR is a left leaning forum but somehow you managed to get all those red gems lool!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheBritishArmy)
    I'm not actually an opponent of gay marriage, I'm simply stating that gay marriage is not an issue for the majority of voters. This is, after all, a debate about the future of the Conservative party, not about whether we think their policies are right or wrong. There is not a "supermajority" of people in support of gay marriage, and I don't see why you're under the impression that there is.

    Again, I personally think that Osborne and IDS's obsession with welfare is pathetic, and that the Tories will lose to Labour by a large margin in 2015. The real question is where the Tories go beyond that. You seem convinced they will be out of power for another couple of decades, I'm saying that they can come back in the election after that if they have a coherent plan for growth and make a real attempt to stem the tide of losing support to UKIP.

    The primary issue for people when voting is the economy. Gay marriage has only become an issue now in an attempt for leaders to deflect attention away from their abject economic policy. I'm not saying that I disagree with gay marriage (quite the opposite), just that a) there is not a "supermajority" of people in favour of it (I'd be interested to see a source for this), b) many of those people in favour of it (like myself) will vote based on economic issues and not on a party's policy on gay marriage.

    As for left-wing opposition to immigration and the EU:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ng-than-tories

    Basically, working-class, Mail reading types who oppose aggressively right-wing economic policy but also oppose the EU, immigration, the ECHR etc.

    As I have already stated, people do not fit neatly into left/right boxes, you only have to look at libertarians as an example of this.
    Generally well said

    Though welfare spending is rather high and hence is an easy target


    I'm pretty sure the Tories will do well in England- as they almost always do (bar left-leaning parts of London)

    I think most people would think twice before making Ed Milliband prime minister!
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.