Tories at war

The Tories are tearing themselves apart in what is a furious, vitriolic civil war.
War rooms, kill zones and venomous hatred are fuelled by personal hatred and personal ambition over the good of the country.
It was a  binary vote over confidence in May.
The ERG LOST. , Get over it.
But how can ANYONE actually support this shambles?
Mogg, IDS and Johnson should start new far right ERG party , and merge with the remnants of Farage's old UKIP which hasn't become aligned to extreme Britain First Tommy Robinson.

Andy wrote:The Tories are tearing themselves apart in what is a furious, vitriolic civil war.
War rooms, kill zones and venomous hatred are fuelled by personal hatred and personal ambition over the good of the country.
It was a  binary vote over confidence in May.
The ERG LOST. , Get over it.
But how can ANYONE actually support this shambles?
Mogg, IDS and Johnson should start new far right ERG party , and merge with the remnants of Farage's old UKIP which hasn't become aligned to extreme Britain First Tommy Robinson.

Yes, the Tories are at war...and political history appears to be repeating itself; it's not the first time that the party has descended into internecine  meltdown over Europe.

There is already talk about the creation of a new far Right party, but frankly I can't see that happening. Farage still commands a degree of respect and his rejection of any sort of political alliance that includes the likes of Tommy Robinson has put paid to the idea of "New UKIP" having any sort of impact.

And there are vast differences between now and the creation of the old SDP led by Labour moderates such as David Owen and Shirley Williams, as the de facto Marxist Corbyn knows full well.

So what, currently, is the alternative?

Corbyn, even if anyone knew what he stands for,  could not possibly form a government if asked to do so in the unlikely event of a  total collapse of the current administration; he would have to cobble together a pretty motley and unworkable coalition of minor parties that would not last more than a few weeks in office, inevitably taking down the economy and probably the enforcement of public order in the meantime.  

The SNP, as a major player, would obviously re-kindle their demand for Scottish independence which, if successful would inevitably lead to the break up of the UK, and the isolation of the Northern Irish parties could well result in the outbreak of  new "troubles" and possibly the forcible and EU-backed ultimate re-unification of the island of Ireland and decades, if not centuries, of renewed conflict.

And don't forget that Corbyn's leadership of Labour is almost solely within the gift of the ultra-Left Marxist Momentum faction that during the leadership contest all but eliminated opposition by sheer, naked bullying and intimidation of opposing candidates, including orchestrated social media stalking and harassment backed up by online threats of rape and assassination and even violent physical attacks.

Is that what you really want, Andy?

I lose count the number of times that I repeat I do not support Corbyn or the far left of the Labour party. I am a Blairite in his early days, and nowadays would prefer the centre left such as Starmer, Dan Jarvis, Umunna, both Milibands and Yvett Cooper run the show. They could even offer a coilition to the Lib Dems, SDP, DUP and the centre right of the Conservatives.
Don't let Thor or Nicko spin you the fallacy that I am far left. Even you are left of them.

Andy wrote:I lose count the number of times that I repeat I do not support Corbyn or the far left of the Labour party. I am a Blairite in his early days, and nowadays would prefer the centre left such as Starmer, Dan Jarvis, Umunna, both Milibands and Yvett Cooper run the show. They could even offer a coilition to the Lib Dems and the centre right of the Conservatives.
Don't let Thor or Vicki spin you the fallacy that I am far left. Even you are left of them.

So yet again Andy drags me into a debate, I am not involved in

I love how you seem obsessed with me mate 

I would say Fred and I share many of the same political views and I even have also some left wing views, but because you are closeminded you do not see that.

So if you do not support Corbyn, are you then not going to vote for Labour, whilst he is leader then?

As momentum have gained control over most of the party

I even stated to Eilzel that I would vote for labour if they got rid of the far left element

I wont vote Tory again, but as you say Didge if Labour get rid of their hard left, Corbyn @ Momentum I might vote for 'em.

nicko wrote:I wont vote Tory again,   but as you say Didge if Labour get rid of their hard left, Corbyn @ Momentum I might vote for 'em.

See two right minded people, being open minded mate  

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Andy wrote:The Tories are tearing themselves apart in what is a furious, vitriolic civil war.
War rooms, kill zones and venomous hatred are fuelled by personal hatred and personal ambition over the good of the country.
It was a  binary vote over confidence in May.
The ERG LOST. , Get over it.
But how can ANYONE actually support this shambles?
Mogg, IDS and Johnson should start new far right ERG party , and merge with the remnants of Farage's old UKIP which hasn't become aligned to extreme Britain First Tommy Robinson.

Yes, the Tories are at war...and political history appears to be repeating itself; it's not the first time that the party has descended into internecine  meltdown over Europe.

There is already talk about the creation of a new far Right party, but frankly I can't see that happening. Farage still commands a degree of respect and his rejection of any sort of political alliance that includes the likes of Tommy Robinson has put paid to the idea of "New UKIP" having any sort of impact.

And there are vast differences between now and the creation of the old SDP led by Labour moderates such as David Owen and Shirley Williams, as the de facto Marxist Corbyn knows full well.

So what, currently, is the alternative?

Corbyn, even if anyone knew what he stands for,  could not possibly form a government if asked to do so in the unlikely event of a  total collapse of the current administration; he would have to cobble together a pretty motley and unworkable coalition of minor parties that would not last more than a few weeks in office, inevitably taking down the economy and probably the enforcement of public order in the meantime.  

The SDP, as a major player, would obviously re-kindle their demand for Scottish independence which, if successful would inevitably lead to the break up of the UK, and the isolation of the Northern Irish parties could well result in the outbreak of  new "troubles" and possibly the forcible and EU-backed ultimate re-unification of the island of Ireland and decades, if not centuries, of renewed conflict.

And don't forget that Corbyn's leadership of Labour is almost solely within the gift of the ultra-Left Marxist Momentum faction that during the leadership contest all but eliminated opposition by sheer, naked bullying and intimidation of opposing candidates, including orchestrated social media stalking and harassment backed up by online threats of rape and assassination and even violent physical attacks.

Is that what you really want, Andy?

+1

Do you deny that you call me a lefty?  The correct label would be left centrist or moderate left. .
Without trying too hard I am sure I could dig out some posts.
It's all a bit irrelevant, in a thread is about the Conservatives, and whether they will split.
I think there is a real possibility.
The moderate wets, mainly lead by old timers such as Clarke and Heseltine, and the many sensible centre ground on one side, against the ERG and the right wing of the party, who could well align with Farage and the old UKIP..
I reckon the new far right UKIP will rebrand and become something of a pressure group like Britain First.
The real problem is the left and the right hand to balance each other.
Blair and Major were very similar politically, and balanced each other.
Corbyn is far left, but is also balanced by the likes of Mot, Boris,and IDS. The real politics still is in the centre ground, Starlet and those I mentioned v May , Javid and the moderates.

Andy wrote:Do you deny that you call me a lefty?  The correct label would be left centrist or moderate left. .
Without trying too hard I am sure I could dig out some posts.
It's all a bit irrelevant, in a thread is about the Conservatives, and whether they will split.
I think there is a real possibility.
The moderate wets, mainly lead by old timers such as Clarke and Heseltine, and the many sensible centre ground on one side, against the ERG and the right wing of the party, who could well align with Farage and the old UKIP..
I reckon the new far right UKIP will rebrand and become something of a pressure group like Britain First.

Diversion alert and a complete copout to my question

Well modeate left is still left Andy, which is not really an issue. What I object to is how constantly the left cannot take stand up and be counted in regards to wrongs on the left and be critical of said poor policies. They instead go, as you and others do. Into complete defensive mode

Again, I thnk this country would work best with a mixed and balanced left and right governement which would have them then make compremises for a better country

Anyway, have things to do, all the best

Up at 4.30am myself. Laters.

Andy wrote:I lose count the number of times that I repeat I do not support Corbyn or the far left of the Labour party. I am a Blairite in his early days, and nowadays would prefer the centre left such as Starmer, Dan Jarvis, Umunna, both Milibands and Yvett Cooper run the show. They could even offer a coilition to the Lib Dems, SDP, DUP and the centre right of the Conservatives.
Don't let Thor or Nicko spin you the fallacy that I am far left. Even you are left of them.

I didn't say that you are, but you have a pathological hatred of the Tories and are clearly a Labour supporter and voter...and Corbyn is the leader of a party that is controlled by an ultra Left coterie that has a proven record of harassment, stalking, bullying, intimidation, violence...and racism. Perhaps you forget that it was a Labour woman MP of Jewish background who had to be escorted into the Mother of Parliaments under the protection of police officers because of the vile threats made against her, and another Labour woman MP whose constituency office was attacked because she did not support Corbyn's candidature for the leadership.

Frankly, I see little difference between scum like that and the perpetrators of Kristalnacht...yet what are decent, moderate Labour supporters doing about it? Little more than cheering him on in the hope that he can force an election that would put him and his strorm troopers in power.

Clearly your intense dislike of Corbyn and Labour matches mine of Rees-Mogg, Doris Johnson , IDS and their right wing cronies.

Andy wrote:Clearly your intense dislike of Corbyn and Labour matches mine of Rees-Mogg, Doris Johnson , IDS and their right wing cronies.

Clear you don't recognise the difference between a party leader and potential PM and party rank-and-file.

I've voted Labour in the past and am on record in this forum as supporting your views on the qualities of Labour MPs such as Umunna and Dan Jarvis.

Corbyn and McDonald, Marxist/ Communists who will fuck this country up if they ever get into power !

It's a bit fucked up now, but it's nothing compared to what will happen if those two jokers gain control !

nicko wrote:Corbyn and McDonald, Marxist/ Communists who will fuck this country up if they ever get into power !

            It's a bit fucked up now, but it's nothing compared to what will happen if those two jokers gain control !

What's wrong with Marxism?

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:Corbyn and McDonald, Marxist/ Communists who will fuck this country up if they ever get into power !

            It's a bit fucked up now, but it's nothing compared to what will happen if those two jokers gain control !

What's wrong with Marxism?

It inevitably means a one-party state.

Don't you value your right to vote for a party of your choice to govern you, and to have the basic human right of choice?

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What's wrong with Marxism?

It inevitably means a one-party state.

Don't you value your right to vote for a party of your choice to govern you, and to have the basic human right of choice?

Actually, true Marxism leads to a transcending state. Z. A. Jordan notes, "... the higher level of existence emerges from and has its roots in the lower; that the higher level constitutes a new order of being with its irreducible laws; and that this process of evolutionary advance is governed by laws of development which reflect basic properties of 'matter in motion as a whole'." Z. A. Jordan, The Evolution of Dialectical Materialism (1967).

Original Quill wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

It inevitably means a one-party state.

Don't you value your right to vote for a party of your choice to govern you, and to have the basic human right of choice?

Actually, true Marxism leads to a transcending state.  Z. A. Jordan notes, "... the higher level of existence emerges from and has its roots in the lower; that the higher level constitutes a new order of being with its irreducible laws; and that this process of evolutionary advance is governed by laws of development which reflect basic properties of 'matter in motion as a whole'."   Z. A. Jordan, The Evolution of Dialectical Materialism (1967).

Does it?

Show me a single example of this in history where it has?

In fact in every aspect of history it has led, as Fred quite rightly says. To a one party state.
This is the undeniable biggest myths perpetuated by the left. How they constantly deny that every proponent of Marxism, that has then formed a governement from this. Has been a one state party and authoritarian. That the left always claim that in each case its not true Marxism. Its the same babble often heard by religious apologists on what is a true Christian, Muslim etc. The reality is this, it has been and always will be a flawed policy as its based on a fundemental flaw

Prejudice

There is a very simple reason as to why this will always happen

1) It has always used forced to impose it views onto others.

2) It fails to understand the very aspects of the evolutionary nature of humans themselves

3) It fails to understand the psychological human nature of people, who wish to excel and succeed

4) It actually makes poverty far worse. Being the fact in every single example millions have been starved in order to impliment such a failed policy

5) Last of all, it fails to have a universal backing of the people. Based on numbers one to four

Thor wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Actually, true Marxism leads to a transcending state.  Z. A. Jordan notes, "... the higher level of existence emerges from and has its roots in the lower; that the higher level constitutes a new order of being with its irreducible laws; and that this process of evolutionary advance is governed by laws of development which reflect basic properties of 'matter in motion as a whole'."   Z. A. Jordan, The Evolution of Dialectical Materialism (1967).

Does it?

Show me a single example of this in history where it has?

In fact in every aspect of history it has led, as Fred quite rightly says. To a one party state.
This is the undeniable biggest myths perpetuated by the left. How they constantly deny that every proponent of Marxism, that has then formed a governement from this. Has been a one state party and authoritarian. That the left always claim that in each case its not true Marxism. Its the same babble often heard by religious apologists on what is a true Christian, Muslim etc. The reality is this, it has been and always will be a flawed policy as its based on a fundemental flaw

Prejudice

There is a very simple reason as to why this will always happen

1) It has always used forced to impose it views onto others.

2) It fails to understand the very aspects of the evolutionary nature of humans themselves

3) It fails to understand the psychological human nature of people, who wish to excel and succeed

4) It actually makes poverty far worse. Being the fact in every single example millions have been starved in order to impliment such a failed policy

5) Last of all, it fails to have a universal backing of the people. Based on numbers one to four

You don't know anything about it, ya ignorant asshole.

Marxism is not historical.  It is a theoretical state that never has existed.  It borrows the Hegelian idea that it is an evolving or historical phenomenon, but discussing it is a far cry from saying it ever existed. It is predictive, not descriptive.  If it's difficult to conceive of a metaphysical existence, imagine an omniscient, omnipotent, bearded old man, living among the clouds.  There are some people who actually believe that shit, too.

Marxism is irrelevant to contemporary British politics.