Topic: The Tory party thread... epic fail lol

[Dr. Beaker]

What a shock more dodgy dealing from the Tories being exposed on C4 news during the last election breaking election & data protection laws.

Pretty serious stuff that.

[pyroparty]

What a shock more dodgy dealing from the Tories being exposed on C4 news during the last election breaking election & data protection laws.

Vile fuckers. Amazed Yorky or "classy" Cara haven't turned it on to labour yet mind!

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Potentially illegal isn't it? Just seen a C4 journos tweet, not that I'd be shocked if it were illegal

[TheShanklyGates]

What could potential repercussions/punishments be if they're found guilty of paying canvassers?

[SP]

Vile fuckers. Amazed Yorky or "classy" Cara haven't turned it on to labour yet mind!

Stop being such a snide fucker.

Be civil or don't post.

[Red Beret]

Stop being such a snide fucker.

Be civil or don't post.

I wonder what Corbyn and McDonnell think of that? "Judge-made law" the Labour Party used to call it.

Do you mean the High Court?

Obviously it's a bourgeois construct - 'the man' - and good for nothing. Except when we agree with it, or want to challenge the Labour party because they don't like their rules.

Sorry, but I have to ask: You don't think either of these comments are snide?  We know Corbyn's a bit of a bell about this sort of thing - is it necessary to keep dredging it up, especially in the Tory thread?  Alan already had to clear the thread a few days back.

[gazzalfc]

What could potential repercussions/punishments be if they're found guilty of paying canvassers?

Potentially

Data protection
Election legislation breaches
Communication Act breaches

In reality there is enough plausible deniability to pass the buck long and far enough to have this brushed under the rug. Tory party will blame the call centre. Call centre will blame the tories. Someone will get fined and that'll be it

[Elmo!]

Sorry, but I have to ask: You don't think either of these comments are snide?  We know Corbyn's a bit of a bell about this sort of thing - is it necessary to keep dredging it up, especially in the Tory thread?  Alan already had to clear the thread a few days back.

Indeed.

snide
snʌɪd/Submit
adjective
1.
derogatory or mocking in an indirect way.

Seems like exactly what Yorky was doing. Also this one:

Excellent news.

[TepidT2O]

Turning into petty bickering now...

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Vile fuckers. Amazed Yorky or "classy" Cara haven't turned it on to labour yet mind!

A vicious attack on Corbyn and Labour is imminent, no doubt

[SP]

Sorry, but I have to ask: You don't think either of these comments are snide?  We know Corbyn's a bit of a bell about this sort of thing - is it necessary to keep dredging it up, especially in the Tory thread?  Alan already had to clear the thread a few days back.

Corbyn is not a poster on here and thus lacks the requirement of civility. If he had directed similar comments at you personally, he would have been similarly admonished.

On the political topics you must be civil to each other. That is the limit of our ambition. Enforcing civility to politicians is beyond my pay grade.

[Yorkykopite]

Sorry, but I have to ask: You don't think either of these comments are snide?

It wasn't snide. I was making a very serious point. Anyone who knows anything about Labour and working-class history knows that "judge-made law" was always seen to be the enemy of progress  - a way of undermining parliament's ability to legislate. From the Osborne Judgement in 1909 to Tony Benn and Michael Foot in the 1970s and 80s, the Labour Party has always been vigilant about resisting judges who usurp the powers of legislators. I sympathise with that.

So my question was a genuine one. Does the present Labour leadership think that "judge-made law" is good just because it's the Tories - this time - who are unable to legislate.

[So… Howard Philips]

It wasn't snide. I was making a very serious point. Anyone who knows anything about Labour and working-class history knows that "judge-made law" was always seen to be the enemy of progress  - a way of undermining parliament's ability to legislate. From the Osborne Judgement in 1909 to Tony Benn and Michael Foot in the 1970s and 80s, the Labour Party has always been vigilant about resisting judges who usurp the powers of legislators. I sympathise with that.

So my question was a genuine one. Does the present Labour leadership think that "judge-made law" is good just because it's the Tories - this time - who are unable to legislate.

I thought over the last few years the courts have been a bit of a thorn in the side of Government over benefits and immigration cases so I would  have thought Labour would be supportive.

[classycarra]

Sorry, but I have to ask: You don't think either of these comments are snide?  We know Corbyn's a bit of a bell about this sort of thing - is it necessary to keep dredging it up, especially in the Tory thread?  Alan already had to clear the thread a few days back.

Personally I'd have said mine clearly matches one definition of the word, but didn't think Yorky's was. And as John McDonnell doesn't post on here, and it would be unlikely to hurt his feelings anyway, I thought it'd be fine to post.

Didn't think mocking a politician in a politics thread would cause so much fuss. Not least because, to be fair to the fucker, I don't think McDonnell would be all that upset if he heard these dissenting views. Certainly he wouldn't shirk discussion/argument, and complain about the person saying it, just because he didn't like what someone was saying.

[Red Beret]

Corbyn is not a poster on here and thus lacks the requirement of civility. If he had directed similar comments at you personally, he would have been similarly admonished.

On the political topics you must be civil to each other. That is the limit of our ambition. Enforcing civility to politicians is beyond my pay grade.

So it's okay to be snide towards Corbyn as long as we're civil towards fellow posters?

That's fine, just wanted to be sure.  I'm no fan of Corbyn, but I welcome the clarification.  Seeing as we're still in the Tory thread and all.

[Yorkykopite]

I thought over the last few years the courts have been a bit of a thorn in the side of Government over benefits and immigration cases so I would  have thought Labour would be supportive.

I appreciate that. Courts today are obviously more liberal than they were 50 years ago (and certainly 107 years ago when the Labour manifesto coined the term "judge-made law"). The same is true of the House of Lords, which socialists now also look to in order to counteract Tory legislation emanating from the Commons.

But I am torn about this, and I imagine that Corbyn is too. The Commons, after all, is a representative body and the Lords and the courts aren't. The question we have to ask ourselves is not whether Tory legislation is good or not, but whether the courts should have the right to override the will of parliament. If you think it does, then it won't do to complain if, at some future date, the High Court finds judicial reasons for throwing out a railway re-nationalisation act by a Labour government.

(Sorry Andy if this is all a bit above your head).

[TepidT2O]

For balance, May is fucking awful at her job, and Corbyn would be just as dreadful.  But I can't dislike either personally.

Unlike many, I find the government's weakness distressing, as weak leadership has consistently been bad for for the country and its fortunes over the last couple of hundred years.

[SP]

So it's okay to be snide towards Corbyn as long as we're civil towards fellow posters?

That's fine, just wanted to be sure.  I'm no fan of Corbyn, but I welcome the clarification.  Seeing as we're still in the Tory thread and all.

People sniping at each other is incredibly tedious, and poisonous to any kind of mature debate. Within the Labour topic, we may again request people steer away from certain topics if it poisons the debate on there - much like the blanket ban on calling other posters Tories just because they did not share all of your views. Generally, if you are a twat to other posters, you create friction within the board, which with enough emotive stuff in there already leads to flashpoints.

On the flip side, being relentlessly snide about Corbyn without any intellectual clout to back it up is tedious. There are certain bores who are at the edge of the envelope there (and Yorky is not one of them - he generally passes the "I disagree, but it was worth reading" test). Those bores are just as tedious as other posters' Pravda service.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Personally I'd have said mine clearly matches one definition of the word, but didn't think Yorky's was. And as John McDonnell doesn't post on here, and it would be unlikely to hurt his feelings anyway, I thought it'd be fine to post.

Didn't think mocking a politician in a politics thread would cause so much fuss. Not least because, to be fair to the fucker, I don't think McDonnell would be all that upset if he heard these dissenting views. Certainly he wouldn't shirk discussion/argument, and complain about the person saying it, just because he didn't like what someone was saying.

He would probably think that having a go at a Labour Politician on a Liverpool website in a thread mocking the Tories was pretty fucking bizarre. There's people that hate the Labour Party more than they hate the Tories and their actions. Surreal.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I appreciate that. Courts today are obviously more liberal than they were 50 years ago (and certainly 107 years ago when the Labour manifesto coined the term "judge-made law"). The same is true of the House of Lords, which socialists now also look to in order to counteract Tory legislation emanating from the Commons.

But I am torn about this, and I imagine that Corbyn is too. The Commons, after all, is a representative body and the Lords and the courts aren't. The question we have to ask ourselves is not whether Tory legislation is good or not, but whether the courts should have the right to override the will of parliament. If you think it does, then it won't do to complain if, at some future date, the High Court finds judicial reasons for throwing out a railway re-nationalisation act by a Labour government.

(Sorry Andy if this is all a bit above your head).

It is above my head. This is the fucking Tory thread but continue being snide and pretending youre not

[gqP6w]

(Sorry Andy if this is all a bit above your head).

Think that counts as snide, SP what excuse will you make this time?

[SP]

I will just lock it. I have better things to do with my time that referee a playground spat.

For the record I would have gone with patronising rather than snide.