Counter-point: if I know the position that a company takes on an issue then I have the information that I need to vote with my wallet.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.
- Thread starter Cowley
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Maybe for some, and I don't deny that's an element, but as far as I can see all the major parties at the moment want more-or-less the same policies, so the effect of that is currently minimal to me.
What has changed is what governments can actually do - their ability to effect economic change, for example, has withered away over the past 50 years in the face of the rise of the multinational corporations, banks, and markets. (see : Corbyn, Truss).
As I mentioned on the recent elections thread, I wouldn't hold out a lot of hope for that given what happened in Ely at the elections we just had - Labour with a barrage of publicity pretending they could win the council when they haven't actually won a seat here for 20 years, splitting the Lib Dem vote. Didn't actually affect the specific results here in the end, but it certainly could have done.
It's easy to see what will be the attack lines from the Tories at the next election, especially given the noises from the Lib Dems in the last few days that they may require reversing Brexit as a condition of such a coalition. (Not that the Tories latest U-turn on repealing EU regulations will help them much in that regard).
--
Well, yes - so I'd argue it is also in the interests of the companies themselves to remain politically neutral, for precisely that reason. Look what happened to Bud Light in the last few weeks, for example.
Yup. Lots of triggered right-wingers have gone out and bought massive amounts of Bud Light so that they can pour them out on the ground, shoot them, blow them up etc.
I think they'd be happy with that result, but actually their sales have dropped 25% or so pretty much overnight, which is a Ratner-level collapse.Yeah, I know that sales are down but I get a chuckle every time I see a video of someone destroying the thing they just bought as a protest.
But it goes back to the point you made previously - every company knows that the best cold-hearted, capitalist strategy is to stay silent and sell to both sides but sometimes it's necessary to take a position on what the management/shareholders think is right and ride out any losses.
In the case of AB InBev, a 25% drop in sales of one sub-brand in one market isn't going to be the end of the world.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Why are some opinions (“economic opinions”) OK but not others? If a company wishes to comment on matters that is a prerogative for that company’s management.
If shop floor staff disagree then they are informed and can choose their employment options accordingly.
I prefer companies setting their positions out as it allows me to be more informed when placing my business, or when considering my employment options.
There probably is a certain amount of cynicism in some positions companies take, especially with things like rainbows during Pride. But equally it allows people like Fox to place their business accordingly; if Fox doesn’t like Sainsbury celebrating Black History Month then he can withdraw his custom (and bang on about it at great length).
LGBT is far more than trans. Comparing the rainbow flag to the swastika and sarcastically referring to the “holy month” is not exactly empowering to free speech, is it? It’s more about silencing dissenting opinions.
Culture warriors, like all extremists, aren’t interested in free speech. Look how Fox’s mates in Turning Point UK are behaving about- shock- parents freely making a choice to take their children to story sessions led by a drag artist. No freedom of speech there.
Most votes are wasted votes. That is the reality of FPTP. Unless you are a swing voter in a marginal constituency, your vote is pretty much meaningless.
26 constituencies in 2019 were won by less than a 2% margin. 14 of these were won by the Tories, the total majority in those seats was 8258. If 4000 people had voted the other way, the Tories would have lost a third of their landslide. They got 56% of seats on a 43% popular vote. Labour got 32% on 33% votes, and the Lib Dem’s got 1% of seats on 11%.
Meanwhile, the top 10 safest seats are all Labour, which explains why Labour’s seat share is less than its vote share.
The 2023 constituency reform currently going through is only going to make this worse, estimates are the Tories will gain 10 seats under this
We need PR. We’ve always needed PR. I doubt Labour are brave enough to ever go for it though.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Quite. People have protested by switching to Coors Light and Miller Light, which have both seen a 20% rise. Miller Light and Coors Light are owned by, er, AB InBev.
Bud Light have also screwed up their response, so not only are the right wingers boycotting it, so are LGBT bars.
Last edited:
Well, economic opinions reflect the conditions of operating a business, it would be odd if a company didn't have an opinion on that, whether they choose to state it openly or not.
As for the rest, of course it is up to them, but it is also fair to call it out and complain about it. I don't think society has been improved by companies getting involved in political stuff, quite the opposite in fact.
I don't see why someone should have to make that choice if it is irrelevant to the running of the business.
It is, though you'd be forgiven for thinking that this wasn't the case over the last few years. I continue to try not to debate this in this thread, however.
It shows a very strong disagreement, in a way I wouldn't personally support even if I fully agreed with the underlying intent. I don't see how it silences anything though.
They're protesting about something they don't think should be happening. That's part of free speech too.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
So you agree they’re protesting about someone else exercising their right to free speech, and demanding that they lose their right to free speech?
You don’t see how arranging rainbow flags in the shape of a swastika is designed to intimidate? And that intimidation has the purpose of silencing people? Hmm.
No, they're not arguing that people shouldn't be able to debate whether drag queen story hour should exist - or not. That's not the same as disapproving of it actually happening.
For a fairly extreme but obvious example, I'd strongly defend the right of people to argue that the age of consent should be lowered to say 10, but of course I would also argue that acting on that belief should remain illegal and it shouldn't happen.
I saw it at the time on his Twitter feed, and I thought it was a clumsy method of debate and a rather silly thing to do. I suppose some may have been intimidated by it, but I'm not entirely sure why such people care less either way what Fox thinks.
Last edited:
Wow. I hadn't read anything about that. It's a pretty astonishing drop, particularly for a brand that's gone to a lot of effort to be LGBT-friendly in the past. I was kind of hoping that the failure of the JK Rowling boycott to make any difference to anything might stop people on both sides playing these kinds of games. Still, as you say it's not exactly going to break the bank, and from Bud's point of view will provide some really interesting data on how you can make an impact using influencer marketing.
Let me guess... Blackpool North and Blackpool South get combined into one constituency and a new constituency of Sheepsby-on-the-Moss, consisting of some small villages and several thousand cattle and sheep, has been created.
Gloster
Veteran Member
Let me guess... Blackpool North and Blackpool South get combined into one constituency and a new constituency of Sheepsby-on-the-Moss, consisting of some small villages and several thousand cattle and sheep, has been created.
And a dachshund named Colin.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
(Shifting to the 'Conservative' thread since that seems more relevant for a discussion about Suella Braverman's views)
Was she deliberately trying to antagonize the public? That seems unlikely to me, most obviously because most people are not going to be antagonized by that phrase. Only a minority who see themselves as 'woke' or align with 'woke' causes are likely to be antagonized by it. That phrase looks to me more like an expression of annoyance at people (often on the left) who seem to think that they have superior morals on immigration and don't notice that the Government is actually trying to solve practical problems that don't have any easy solutions. As such, the made up word 'wokerati' does convey that nuance rather cleverly.
Having said that, I'm not sure it was an appropriate thing for a Government minister to say in that context - it seems to me more the kind of phrase that would be appropriate in comedy satire. But it was a one-off and isn't exactly the crime of the century. I feel here that some people are just looking for excuses to take offense at anything a Conservative minister says.
Stoke up racism? So with your post, we're not quite back to the thing where people concerned about immigration levels just get branded racist, but you seem to be running pretty close.
Personally I'd be reluctant to use the word 'invasion' because to me it's a bit on the emotive side, but I can't see anything that objectionable about it. After all, in other contexts, it would be quite legitimate to talk about an 'invasion of tourists' or an 'invasion of football fans' or an 'invasion of students' or an 'invasion of people from the city buying 2nd homes', so why should it be any different when talking about illegal immigrants? It's well within one of the meanings of the word 'invasion' as (to quote the Cambridge dictionary) 'an occasion when a large number of people or things come to a place in an annoying and unwanted way', so it's usage does seem to be correct (at least, if you regard the numbers of illegal immigrants as a problem).
To my mind this is another example that appears to be, people just looking for excuses to take offense instead of taking the issues on merit
Was she deliberately trying to antagonize the public? That seems unlikely to me, most obviously because most people are not going to be antagonized by that phrase. Only a minority who see themselves as 'woke' or align with 'woke' causes are likely to be antagonized by it. That phrase looks to me more like an expression of annoyance at people (often on the left) who seem to think that they have superior morals on immigration and don't notice that the Government is actually trying to solve practical problems that don't have any easy solutions. As such, the made up word 'wokerati' does convey that nuance rather cleverly.
Having said that, I'm not sure it was an appropriate thing for a Government minister to say in that context - it seems to me more the kind of phrase that would be appropriate in comedy satire. But it was a one-off and isn't exactly the crime of the century. I feel here that some people are just looking for excuses to take offense at anything a Conservative minister says.
Stoke up racism? So with your post, we're not quite back to the thing where people concerned about immigration levels just get branded racist, but you seem to be running pretty close.
Personally I'd be reluctant to use the word 'invasion' because to me it's a bit on the emotive side, but I can't see anything that objectionable about it. After all, in other contexts, it would be quite legitimate to talk about an 'invasion of tourists' or an 'invasion of football fans' or an 'invasion of students' or an 'invasion of people from the city buying 2nd homes', so why should it be any different when talking about illegal immigrants? It's well within one of the meanings of the word 'invasion' as (to quote the Cambridge dictionary) 'an occasion when a large number of people or things come to a place in an annoying and unwanted way', so it's usage does seem to be correct (at least, if you regard the numbers of illegal immigrants as a problem).
To my mind this is another example that appears to be, people just looking for excuses to take offense instead of taking the issues on merit
Gloster
Veteran Member
Without getting into a lengthy discussion, my personal opinion is that Braverman is setting herself up for the next leadership election by playing to the prejudices of the people who will decide who replaces Sunak. If she reckons that excessive anti-immigrant and anti-woke (define as you will) rhetoric will improve her chances of getting this specific group to support her in a leadership bid, then she will spout them to her heart’s content. What her actual opinions are, who knows? What the effect on the country is, who cares?
The ability of Governments (and by extension, electorates) to influence economic affairs has indeed been reduced by the parties you mention. However, as mentioned previously, more self sufficiency in basic needs can help to reverse this.
There is also still a lot of scope for Government to influence policy in a lot of areas. Housing, for example is an area that is difficult to "off-shore".
Transport has been used as a lever to influence the cost of living crisis (the various continental experiments in rail and our own £2 bus fare scheme).
Perhaps what the Tory party needs next to lead it is a MacMillanite.
The Conservatives seem to be quite good at selling properties and land off-shore, especially in London, leaving the resident population with an ever increasing inadequate housing stock.
Goodbye Tory prospects in 2029 if that happens. I rather suspect that if (as seems likely) the Tories do not win the next election, they will take the hint from the electorate and become more moderate, not less.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I'm not sure it would be a small minority. I suspect anyone who identifies themselves as liberal / left-of-centre are going to be antagonised by it.
And quite aside from this, it's not appropriate language from someone high up in Government. Would any pre-2019 Tory government have used this sort of language? I very much doubt it.
Sorry this sounds a bit critical - but, to me, that sounds too much like making excuses for her. I don't attempt to defend Labour or Lib Dem people who say stupid or offensive things. If I was a senior Tory, I'd probably see Braverman as a fringe figure suitable only for the backbenches, comparable to Chope, Swayne and the like, and be wanting to promote more mainstream figures who have respect for that section of the population who will not vote for them, even if they disagree with them. Just like the Labour mainstream under Starmer have little time for the more extreme views, or silly language, in their party, rightly in my opinion.
Again (and once again, sorry if this comes across critical) this sounds too much like making excuses for her.
Members of the government should be using professional and measured language. I was no fan of Thatcher or Tebbit, but these two, while often acerbically critical of those whose attitudes they didn't approve of ("get on their bikes" etc) would never use offensive language while on the job, so to speak. It just seems to me that the newer generation of Tory MPs - those who have been elected since about 2010 - in particular, seem much more reactionary and less respectful of polite discourse than the old-guard.
Last edited:
317 forever
Established Member
Your idea with Hampshire is similar to how the European elections worked out. The good thing democratically is that it could encourage more voter participation in General Elections, as people stand a greater chance of getting at least 1 representative of their preferred party.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The Tories are of course famously against proportional representation.
They have imposed the need on photo-ID to vote for elections without consulting other parties. It would be funny if other parties including Labour, the LibDems and the SNP imposed proportional representation for Westminster elections without consulting the Tories.
Last edited:
Electoral Fraud Act (Northern Ireland) 2002, was an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, it introduced voter id in Northern Ireland, so would have been introduced when Labour were in power.They have imposed the need on photo-ID to vote for elections without consulting other parties. It would be funny if other parties including Labour, the LibDems and the SNP imposed proportional representation for Westminster elections without consulting the Tories.
Is there usually an expectation that governments will consult the other parties when implementing manifesto pledges?The Tories are of course famously against proportional representation.
They have imposed the need on photo-ID to vote for elections without consulting other parties. It would be funny if other parties including Labour, the LibDems and the SNP imposed proportional representation for Westminster elections without consulting the Tories.
Gloster
Veteran Member
No, but I believe (not certain) that there has been a convention that governments consult with other parties over changes to the electoral and parliamentary system. Of course, they don’t have to pay any attention to the feedback from the consultations…
I don’t recall much consultation before Blair removed most of the hereditary peers.
Though isn’t the parliamentary system effectively a sort of consultation? Other parties can submit amendments etc. which the government might even accept.
There was consultation. The original intention was, quite rightly, to get rid of all of them, but Blair compromised to get the bill through easily.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
No worries at all about sounding critical. This is after all a debate, so criticism (hopefully, constructive) of each other's opinions kinda goes with the game
But I feel very sure that I'm not trying to make excuses for Braverman. To me, a lot of the criticism of the language she and others use really does come across as manufactured offence. I mean - we have a situation where it's now something like 40 thousand people per year are entering one small area of the UK - and whatever sympathies you might have for their plight - they are coming uninvited and illegally. That completely matches the meaning of invasion, when used in the sense of, a large number of people entering an area. Braverman is basically telling it how it is - and that really shouldn't be something that anyone should object to. I can understand a concern to the extent that 'invasion' is a somewhat emotive word, and where possible I think it's best to try to avoid emotive language. But off the top of my head, I can't actually think of any other word in the English language that has the required meaning, so I'm not sure what other word people who take offence at the word 'invasion' expect politicians to use?
WelshBluebird
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 5,609
But it doesn't. Invasion involves the use of force and an intent to take over. That is categorically not happening.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
No. The word invasion is used in several senses. Look for example at the Cambridge dictionary, which gives three meanings, of which only the first necessarily involves use of force. When people talk about large numbers of illegal migrants as an invasion, they are clearly using the 2nd meaning, which does not imply force or an intent to take over.
CambridgeDictionary said:
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Interpreting it charitably, it's a poor choice of words because people can read it as the first meaning (which is incidentally incorrect as an invasion doesn't always involve taking control of a country).
A term such as "influx" could be used. The fact it wasn't suggests it's a dog-whistle to the far right and/or deliberately intended to offend others.
WelshBluebird
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 5,609
Oh come on, don't be so naïve.
Some people saying it absolutely do mean the 1st meaning (or at least are trying to evoke feelings of the 1st meaning), and even those who do mean the 2nd meaning should know full well that some people (including their supporters) will take it to mean the 1st meaning.
It isn't any different to the usual dogwhistles used (where what they are saying out loud could be interpreted as somewhat reasonable, but the actual meaning behind it, and what a lot of the supporters will hear, is something a lot more extreme).
At the very least a government minister should not be using such language (and many Tories, including some in government, are in agreement with me on that).
birchesgreen
Established Member
Shouldn't the Home secretary actually be doing something the problem rather than cutting heel promos?
- Status