A final thought - about the forum mostly. Some years back our family had problems where some people started taking things others said badly. In fact they had not been meant like that. We resolved it by all agreeing to assume that what others did or said were with "good motive" We deliberately assumed if something was said it was out of kindness or pleasantness. I know it cannot be the same with strangers but...... if some of the posters on here would take every comment as a genuine thought of the writer it would help. If what they have said is ignorant or wrong then it should be easy to correct them. If you cannot then maybe your own view is open to question. We should not always ask for "proof"- many things are "well known" even when wrong. If a person believes something that we think stupid even then we either ignore it or correct with real argument. There is another phrase "where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise" Let some people remain where they are. In my view that goes as much for discussions about politics as it does in talking to each other. I abhor the views expressed by some here that take Conservatives, Bankers, Royalty, Rich people as some sort of devils. They actually have the same DNA as you to less than 0.00001% difference. Try assuming the Conservatives believe they are creating a better world rather than just helping their rich friends. We all have different solutions to life. In making arguments assume your opponent is well informed and acts out of goodness and then tell them why they are so wrong. This will never happen. Tomorrow one of the posts on here will slag off the Tories for being Tory. We are so ungenerous.
There does seem to be a default position on this forum that anything right of centre is fair game for abuse whilst any defence is a wind up or goading. As I said a long time ago if this was a rugby forum the bias would be the other way around. There should be room for all views even some more extreme.
I would not place all Tories in the same catagory Azimov. Our political system favours the continuation of a 2 party system, so many people remain in those parties - simply though fear of the other. I think that eg. Tony Blair is probably closer in his ideas to John Major than he is to Jeremy Corbyn. Likewise I think that Kenneth Clarke was probably closer to 'soft Labour' than he was to Thatcher. To lump all Tories together in one pot is like saying that all Germans wear Lederhosen. The main thing is to realize that our ideas are not our own - they have all come from somewhere, friends, experiences, the literature we have been exposed to etc. The 'ego' would like to think that they are our ideas but they aren't. It was all a matter of luck - had I been born with a large inheritance then I could guess that my present politics might be different.
Castro was no friend of democracy, he was a revolutionary dictator. Castro had tens of thousands murdered, imprisoned or displaced. Regardless of how well he treated others and the high health and educational standards bestowed on the people of Cuba it strikes me as too high a price to pay: much like Hitler in the early 1930's, like it or not, the parallels are there. My German teacher at school told us how "Herr Hitler" pulled the country up from beneath the gutter before he lost the plot, or rather he revealed his true intentions once he had consolidated power. She was a survivor of the Hamburg fire bombing and represented West Germany at the Rome Olympics. A lovely lady. Unlike thatcher who was, in my Dad's words, "uncaring, unchristian and undemocratic". She divided this country deliberately, destroyed communities - no small number of people died as a direct result of her policies. It is still going on today. Corbyn entertained terrorists in the past and seems to me somewhat uncomfortable with the idea that, since he's possible PM in waiting, he has to temper some of his radical tendencies. Castro was no hero to me, nor is Corbyn. Less so Hitler, thatcher, trump (pence is worse) or farage.... fascists all however the last four like to dress themselves up. Asimov: SH is a bit of a drive by. He'll start an argument then off he will pop. Occasionally he returns to quote whatever statistics, or slant thereof, he feels props up his argument. I find his politics, and the way he argues them, ugly to tell you (and obviously him) the truth but I don't know him personally and I find his football related comments more worthy of my interest. And no, as you'll see, I don't necessarily agree with the others (Leo and Cologne in particular) on many subjects but I have noticed that SH is the only one who really provokes their ire usually by means of an unnecessary dig or thinly veiled insult. Like I said: politically ugly. Their opinions of him in this regard are not without foundation, alas.
You are right about not all Tories in the same category - equally all other parts of the political spectrum. But just for fun - and for you I know it is asking a lot - but pretend you are a current Tory Cabinet minister - perhaps Jeremy Hunt. You are part of a government that essentially believes that people shape their own destiny and the free market is the best economic system there is, you do not believe that striking to achieve your aims is the proper way to go. You do not believe there is enough money to go around to help solve all of the problems faced by society nor that people who could do more for themselves but fail to deserve less help and support than other "genuine" causes. Add a few other assumptions of your own about mainstream Theresa May personnel. Now read the comments made on this forum over the last year about the Tories and see if you can see hatred and loathing expressed towards these people who just believe something different to you. Andy, Bolton and Toby in particular would have them all as devils - people who have no moral compass or conscience and far from just having their own solutions to how best to improve our country they simply are in power to feather the nests of their own class - when they are not apparently porking pigs. Little or no attempt is made to understand a right wing agenda and then to say why it is not good - we just have to believe that those who follow it are mindless morons brainwashed by the evil rag media. I see nobody on this forum who argues that cause. As such the forum is sterile with a bunch of people who all hold similar views telling the same jokes by number as they already know them in detail.
The problem which I have with neo liberal ideas (which are mostly believed in by Tories) is their idea of a trickle down theory - namely the mistaken idea that if you allow the rich to become richer that this will create wealth. Unfortunately the left has not re engaged in this argument, but has largely abandoned Keynesian economics. The best way to kick start an economy is, in contrast, to create spending power at the bottom of the pyramid - this strikes me as economic good sense, and was the dominant economic theory in Europe at the time of the post war boom. But I cannot call someone evil or stupid simply because they have a different economic theory.
I do not include you in my criticism of this board. You explain what you think and why so people can agree or not. You do not poke idle fun at others whose views are so clearly miles from yours. You do not impugn the integrity or honesty of those you disagree with. You are not like a handful of mass posters on here. Shame - could get some real debate going but it does not happen.
Do I understand you correctly Fez, that you consider Corbyn as being a Fascist ? If this is on the basis of him having had discussions with so called 'terrorists' in the past - then I'm not sure where this takes us. We label people terrorists normally because they are deemed as enemies and also because they are not 'state' organisations. But why do we not call leaders of state terrorists ? Was George Bush not also a terrorist ? In which case Tony Blair was also in collaberation with terrorists. Is it unacceptable to believe that those who we actually call terrorists should not be invited to talks - whereas we are open to talks with leaders of state ?
Asimov, have you noticed that Conservative views are well under represented on this political forum. WFC is based in Hertfordshire where all eleven constituencies have electorates that have chosen a parliamentary candidate with Conservative views. Most constituencies have very secure seats meaning the overwhelming majority of the Conservative electorate disagree with much of the lefty views predominate on this forum. Have you noticed the further away from Vicarage Road posters live the more extreme the views are?
Watford as a constituency has been Labour, Liberal and Conservative in the past. So I guess it's somewhere near the middle of the political spectrum. Also there are very few on this forum who actually live there - this is normal for football forums. Locals don't need to search out internet forums in order to talk about their local clubs. Nearly all of us on here have lived in Watford at some time. Looking around the various political threads on these forums the QPR. threads are slightly conservative, Southampton very balanced, Norwich further left, and Bristol City clearly right wing - none of these correspond with those actual constituencies.
I will be commenting from a hotel in Lanzarote soon, I'll try not to sing The Red Flag on my balcony whilst sipping my G&T.
I don't think most Tories give a damn about Keynes or other economists. Most would not know a trickle down theory if you presented it to them. Unlike most on here you seem keen on actual politics. The Tories I see are people who think Labour are just useless so wont vote for them. When the LibDems were fashionable they got this "middle ground" vote - people who don't care too much about politics or economics but care about their own families and tend to vote for people who wont spoil it for them. Labour are seen as the give away party - find a good cause and chuck money at it no matter where it comes from. So Tories get the vote as they wont upset the boat. Tories do not like the idea of earning money and then letting others take it from them - so they support tax cuts even if they help the rich most. Maybe I am wrong and people are more politically interested than I think but to be honest this is why the likes of the Daily Mail do so well - they tell people that the bad people will hurt them - and are generally believed. Worked for the EU referendum too. Nasty elite want to give money and everything to Europeans at your expense. Too simplistic - yes. Is the left agenda better? I don't know - I have rarely heard anyone tell me what is so great about what they want - they just drivel on about helping their fellow man so if you do not agree with them you are party of the nasty party.
Obviously the far right candidate has lost but not far off 50% of the electorate has voted for what has been described as a 'Nazi' Party. Could have been worse but far from ideal.
Interesting that you describe Norbert Hofer as a Nazi - he is a great fan of Margaret Thatcher. Also interesting to note that you do not refer to the fact that 53.6% voted for the Green Party candidate.
Fillon of France, like many sensible politicians, is also a fan of Thatcher. Whilst Hofer has clearly lost nobody knows the percentages until all the votes have been counted. It is a sign of your low expectation of fielding a candidate against a far right opponent that just over half of the votes is seen as a victory. This still means nearly 50% prefer a far right candidate. Something must be very wrong in Austria, namely too much immigration.
It very much depends on what you mean by far right SH. I do not see him as being any further right than Thatcher was. It should also be remembered that there were only 2 candidates and that it was for the Presidency, which is a largely symbolic role in Austria. Describing someone as a Nazi, in a country where even the publishing of Mein Kampf is illegal, and where you can receive 2 years imprisonment for a Nazi salute is somewhat misleading. By the same logic you could describe Ukip as a Nazi party because Ukip are slightly to the right of the Austrian Freedom Party. Anyway, we have a Green as President of Austria so it's time to get the beers out.
I did not describe his party as Nazi, I said they had been described in the past as a 'Naz' party. Nobody with any political knowledge would describe Thatcher's Conservatives or UKIP as anywhere near a Nazi party. Austria is still left with an electorate very unhappy over the EU's immigration policy.
