Snap General Election called

[Sandydragon]

SOM,

Not going to quote, post will be too lengthy.

I think we can both agree that the name calling is purile and pathetic.

Is Trump a fascist? It’s easy to say yes except I do t think he ticks all the boxes. His first term was more chaotic than ideological. The plans he may have for the second term are worrying.

Whatever, he’s definitely authoritarian in intent and is only constrained by whatever constitutional control might be left. He would definitely be a dictator if he could get away with it. When he’s imprisoning political opponents etc, a discussion whether he meets all the requirements for a dictator is second place to the point that he would be a dictator.

We struggle to learn from history if we think that certain things are only in the past. Like fascists need to have jackboots and swastikas to be fascists. That's why a list of characteristics is helpful - it allows us to be dispassionate (well, a bit more anyway) about our judgements. We can spot would-be fascists before they attain ultimate power.

Agree that we need to learn from the past and if a politician is obviously showing the characteristics of a fascist then call them what they are.

But. The debate below was moving towards how anyone could vote Tory, implying the party was fascist. That’s rubbish. Equally rubbish is that Tory voters are by default fascist.

[Stom]

The original point, not made by me, was that the conservatives were closer to fascism than Labour was. By virtue of being right of centre, of course they are. Likewise Labour are closer to communism than the Tories are by dint of being a left of centre party.

Dual back to the Corbyn era and the comparison would have been even more obvious.

And to be clear I’m not calling Labour comminist, in the same way I’m not calling the Tories fascist. Labelling either group that way is quite absurd, even if some individual members of each party tack close.

Touched a nerve somewhere is appears.

Which, again, shows a vital misunderstanding of the complexities of politics. It’s not left and right. It’s not even that horseshoe I mentioned before.

But communism is much much closer to fascism than it is to social democrat ideology. And it’s especially far from the labor movement, which is actually quite conservative in modern terms.

By dint of their illiberalism, the modern Tory party is closer to both fascism and communism than Labour, by quite some distance.

The difference is that fascists reject individualism because of bigotry and fear, and communism rejects it because it’s a threat to the system.

I agree that the extremes are far closer than they may wish to admit.

But you still seem to be struggling to understand the point I was originally making.

Well, I did. I think it’s perfectly fair to suggest that the Tory party has flirted with fascism, and the likes of Braverman would drag it further toward that.

You then made a comment that Labour were just as communist as the conservatives are fascist, which I also reject.

I think it’s dangerous to not call out fascist behavior for free of offending. That doesn’t mean calling people fascists, nor did I call Tory voters fascists. I merely pointed out that, in my mind, voting Tory was an implicit acceptance of their actions, even if those actions were fascist in nature.

I accepted Mells point about voting for the individual.

So, yes, I’m not sure what I could have done to prove that I understood your point, I just completely disagree with it.

[Puja]

Agree that we need to learn from the past and if a politician is obviously showing the characteristics of a fascist then call them what they are.

But. The debate below was moving towards how anyone could vote Tory, implying the party was fascist. That’s rubbish. Equally rubbish is that Tory voters are by default fascist.

Was it?

Puja

[morepork]

Agree that we need to learn from the past and if a politician is obviously showing the characteristics of a fascist then call them what they are.

But. The debate below was moving towards how anyone could vote Tory, implying the party was fascist. That’s rubbish. Equally rubbish is that Tory voters are by default fascist.

Was it?

There’s that nerve. But on a different limb.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Agree that we need to learn from the past and if a politician is obviously showing the characteristics of a fascist then call them what they are.

But. The debate below was moving towards how anyone could vote Tory, implying the party was fascist. That’s rubbish. Equally rubbish is that Tory voters are by default fascist.

Was it?

Puja

It wa moving that way.

[Sandydragon]

Which, again, shows a vital misunderstanding of the complexities of politics. It’s not left and right. It’s not even that horseshoe I mentioned before.

But communism is much much closer to fascism than it is to social democrat ideology. And it’s especially far from the labor movement, which is actually quite conservative in modern terms.

By dint of their illiberalism, the modern Tory party is closer to both fascism and communism than Labour, by quite some distance.

The difference is that fascists reject individualism because of bigotry and fear, and communism rejects it because it’s a threat to the system.

I agree that the extremes are far closer than they may wish to admit.

But you still seem to be struggling to understand the point I was originally making.

Well, I did. I think it’s perfectly fair to suggest that the Tory party has flirted with fascism, and the likes of Braverman would drag it further toward that.

You then made a comment that Labour were just as communist as the conservatives are fascist, which I also reject.

I think it’s dangerous to not call out fascist behavior for free of offending. That doesn’t mean calling people fascists, nor did I call Tory voters fascists. I merely pointed out that, in my mind, voting Tory was an implicit acceptance of their actions, even if those actions were fascist in nature.

I accepted Mells point about voting for the individual.

So, yes, I’m not sure what I could have done to prove that I understood your point, I just completely disagree with it.

You’ve misread my post.

O said Labour were closer to communism than the Tories by dint of being towards the left of politics. Same way the Tories are closer to fascism by being on the right.

At least read the post before calling your own argument nonsense

[Which Tyler]

It wa moving that way.

Please show your working - because IMO the words used in this thread do not back this up.

[Puja]

Agree that we need to learn from the past and if a politician is obviously showing the characteristics of a fascist then call them what they are.

But. The debate below was moving towards how anyone could vote Tory, implying the party was fascist. That’s rubbish. Equally rubbish is that Tory voters are by default fascist.

Was it?

Puja

It wa moving that way.

Was it though?

Puja

[Sandydragon]

I voted for this Conservative Party as I know the MP is a good bloke, a One Nation Conservative* and someone who enjoys and is a good constituency mp. He and Boris don’t get along if that helps people reconcile my decision. I also voted Con as I believe a strong official opposition is a necessity for good law making and if the Tories lost my seat then there most definitely would not be a strong official opposition - not that there is now, particularly. Having as many One Nation MPs as possible in the cpp is also important to me (and the country, imo) as I want the party to move back towards the centre over the next five years. As Starmer has done with Labour.

I don't get in brother. In a FFP environment how could your vote not enable the most toxic platforms of that party?

The Conservatives are going to elect their new leader and the first rounds of that are going to be voted for by the Conservative MPs. If the only ones left after the July 4th mass-murder are toxic bigoted fuckers, then they will vote for a toxic bigoted fucker leader, especially if they can point to everyone who was sensible getting voted out as evidence that the "Will of the People" is that they need to go further right to win elections. So therefore keeping a sensible Tory MP in could be seen as a good plan.

I mean, I think they will select a toxic bigoted fucker anyway, simply because the majority of those who kept their seats are the rabid fringe cause they were in safe seats (and because the Party membership get the final call when it's narrowed down to two candidates, and last time they did that, they picked Truss), but I can see Mell's logic there, even if it's not a decision I would make.

Puja

Well for a start puja you’ve suggested that what’s left of the Tory party will be toxic bigoted fuckers. Who could suggest them eh?

[Sandydragon]

Was it?

Puja

It wa moving that way.

Was it though?

Puja

That’s my reading of it. You were the one who queried how someone with sympathy for prisoners could possibly be Tory, or related to one. Many references to the Tory party now being further to the right.

I’m not going to go through this whole thread and write an essay. Nor am I making a moderators call. But my reading of your and others posts is that this debate is creeping that way. Lots of lazy labelling (without supporting essay writing).

[Puja]

I don't get in brother. In a FFP environment how could your vote not enable the most toxic platforms of that party?

The Conservatives are going to elect their new leader and the first rounds of that are going to be voted for by the Conservative MPs. If the only ones left after the July 4th mass-murder are toxic bigoted fuckers, then they will vote for a toxic bigoted fucker leader, especially if they can point to everyone who was sensible getting voted out as evidence that the "Will of the People" is that they need to go further right to win elections. So therefore keeping a sensible Tory MP in could be seen as a good plan.

I mean, I think they will select a toxic bigoted fucker anyway, simply because the majority of those who kept their seats are the rabid fringe cause they were in safe seats (and because the Party membership get the final call when it's narrowed down to two candidates, and last time they did that, they picked Truss), but I can see Mell's logic there, even if it's not a decision I would make.

Puja

Well for a start puja you’ve suggested that what’s left of the Tory party will be toxic bigoted fuckers. Who could suggest them eh?

You realise that you have literally just quoted me actively defending Mells's decision to vote Tory and saying that I understand his reasoning, right?

Puja

[Stom]

I agree that the extremes are far closer than they may wish to admit.

But you still seem to be struggling to understand the point I was originally making.

Well, I did. I think it’s perfectly fair to suggest that the Tory party has flirted with fascism, and the likes of Braverman would drag it further toward that.

You then made a comment that Labour were just as communist as the conservatives are fascist, which I also reject.

I think it’s dangerous to not call out fascist behavior for free of offending. That doesn’t mean calling people fascists, nor did I call Tory voters fascists. I merely pointed out that, in my mind, voting Tory was an implicit acceptance of their actions, even if those actions were fascist in nature.

I accepted Mells point about voting for the individual.

So, yes, I’m not sure what I could have done to prove that I understood your point, I just completely disagree with it.

You’ve misread my post.

O said Labour were closer to communism than the Tories by dint of being towards the left of politics. Same way the Tories are closer to fascism by being on the right.

At least read the post before calling your own argument nonsense

And I disagree with that premise, as I’ve said 3 times. And I feel it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of politics.

I even said that the illiberalism of the conservatives puts them closer to communism than Labour.

I don’t know how clearer I can make it

[Sandydragon]

The Conservatives are going to elect their new leader and the first rounds of that are going to be voted for by the Conservative MPs. If the only ones left after the July 4th mass-murder are toxic bigoted fuckers, then they will vote for a toxic bigoted fucker leader, especially if they can point to everyone who was sensible getting voted out as evidence that the "Will of the People" is that they need to go further right to win elections. So therefore keeping a sensible Tory MP in could be seen as a good plan.

I mean, I think they will select a toxic bigoted fucker anyway, simply because the majority of those who kept their seats are the rabid fringe cause they were in safe seats (and because the Party membership get the final call when it's narrowed down to two candidates, and last time they did that, they picked Truss), but I can see Mell's logic there, even if it's not a decision I would make.

Puja

Well for a start puja you’ve suggested that what’s left of the Tory party will be toxic bigoted fuckers. Who could suggest them eh?

You realise that you have literally just quoted me actively defending Mells's decision to vote Tory and saying that I understand his reasoning, right?

Puja

What’s left of the Tories will be the toxic bigoted fuckers. Nice.

Nice wide brush there.

[Sandydragon]

Well, I did. I think it’s perfectly fair to suggest that the Tory party has flirted with fascism, and the likes of Braverman would drag it further toward that.

You then made a comment that Labour were just as communist as the conservatives are fascist, which I also reject.

I think it’s dangerous to not call out fascist behavior for free of offending. That doesn’t mean calling people fascists, nor did I call Tory voters fascists. I merely pointed out that, in my mind, voting Tory was an implicit acceptance of their actions, even if those actions were fascist in nature.

I accepted Mells point about voting for the individual.

So, yes, I’m not sure what I could have done to prove that I understood your point, I just completely disagree with it.

You’ve misread my post.

O said Labour were closer to communism than the Tories by dint of being towards the left of politics. Same way the Tories are closer to fascism by being on the right.

At least read the post before calling your own argument nonsense

And I disagree with that premise, as I’ve said 3 times. And I feel it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of politics.

I even said that the illiberalism of the conservatives puts them closer to communism than Labour.

I don’t know how clearer I can make it

You made a point you don’t agree with and i argue that the original post was nonsense. So you continue to argue.

Right o

[Puja]

Well for a start puja you’ve suggested that what’s left of the Tory party will be toxic bigoted fuckers. Who could suggest them eh?

You realise that you have literally just quoted me actively defending Mells's decision to vote Tory and saying that I understand his reasoning, right?

Puja

What’s left of the Tories will be the toxic bigoted fuckers. Nice.

Nice wide brush there.

If the only ones left after the July 4th mass-murder are toxic bigoted fuckers, then they will vote for a toxic bigoted fucker leader, especially if they can point to everyone who was sensible getting voted out as evidence that the "Will of the People" is that they need to go further right to win elections. So therefore keeping a sensible Tory MP in could be seen as a good plan.

The word "if" is fairly important to read there for actual comprehension of the sentence, as well as the context of the conversation being about voting for a OneNation Tory instead of looking at a total wipeout, which would leave only the extremes.

However, I am still struggling to get over you literally using a post of me defending someone's reasons for voting Tory as evidence that I am attacking everyone voting Tory. I get that you've been overwhelmed by people outside of the board making comments and my relatively benign joke about Timpson the Tory (which I did apologise for, as being a cheap and unworthy quip) was the proverbial straw. But I've not accused or implied anyone of fascism in this discussion, either politicians or voters, and I'm not thrilled about having words put into my mouth.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Well, I did. I think it’s perfectly fair to suggest that the Tory party has flirted with fascism, and the likes of Braverman would drag it further toward that.

You then made a comment that Labour were just as communist as the conservatives are fascist, which I also reject.

I think it’s dangerous to not call out fascist behavior for free of offending. That doesn’t mean calling people fascists, nor did I call Tory voters fascists. I merely pointed out that, in my mind, voting Tory was an implicit acceptance of their actions, even if those actions were fascist in nature.

I accepted Mells point about voting for the individual.

So, yes, I’m not sure what I could have done to prove that I understood your point, I just completely disagree with it.

You’ve misread my post.

O said Labour were closer to communism than the Tories by dint of being towards the left of politics. Same way the Tories are closer to fascism by being on the right.

At least read the post before calling your own argument nonsense

And I disagree with that premise, as I’ve said 3 times. And I feel it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of politics.

I even said that the illiberalism of the conservatives puts them closer to communism than Labour.

I don’t know how clearer I can make it

NB I don't think you should be using the term communism here - it's too broad a category, and does not imply illiberalism. Perhaps totalitarian communism or soviet communism or Leninism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

[Stom]

You’ve misread my post.

O said Labour were closer to communism than the Tories by dint of being towards the left of politics. Same way the Tories are closer to fascism by being on the right.

At least read the post before calling your own argument nonsense

And I disagree with that premise, as I’ve said 3 times. And I feel it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of politics.

I even said that the illiberalism of the conservatives puts them closer to communism than Labour.

I don’t know how clearer I can make it

NB I don't think you should be using the term communism here - it's too broad a category, and does not imply illiberalism. Perhaps totalitarian communism or soviet communism or Leninism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

If you refer back to my previous post on illiberalism, you can see my working

Basically, both groups require an "us vs them" mentality, and a form of collective solidarity. However, the goal of that solidarity, and the way in which that solidarity is gained, are very, very different.

Either way, I do not think it is fair to say Labour are anywhere near communism, considering the implications that has to certain people, while the Tories have demonstrably flirted with fascist policies and I'd say more than flirted with fascist rhetoric.

That a certain poster, who accused others of being "triggered", got triggered by the conversation, and decided that my assertion that I believe a vote for the Tories is an implicit acceptance of their worst parts, before accepting Mells' point on individuals (I'm too caught up in Hungary and our politics here sometimes, and lose sight of what is actually a very different system despite the paper similarities), got us caught up in a endless cycle of semantics that I just did not understand, because it was not about logic, but about being hurt...

I am not calling anyone a fascist.

I AM going to continue to call out fascist policies, rhetoric, and behaviors as fascist.

No-one is attacking individuals here (except Braverman, she deserves verbal attack).

[Sandydragon]

You’ve misread my post.

O said Labour were closer to communism than the Tories by dint of being towards the left of politics. Same way the Tories are closer to fascism by being on the right.

At least read the post before calling your own argument nonsense

And I disagree with that premise, as I’ve said 3 times. And I feel it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of politics.

I even said that the illiberalism of the conservatives puts them closer to communism than Labour.

I don’t know how clearer I can make it

NB I don't think you should be using the term communism here - it's too broad a category, and does not imply illiberalism. Perhaps totalitarian communism or soviet communism or Leninism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

That’s a bit like insisting that Primitive and Wesleyan Methodists are completely different.

[Sandydragon]

You realise that you have literally just quoted me actively defending Mells's decision to vote Tory and saying that I understand his reasoning, right?

Puja

What’s left of the Tories will be the toxic bigoted fuckers. Nice.

Nice wide brush there.

If the only ones left after the July 4th mass-murder are toxic bigoted fuckers, then they will vote for a toxic bigoted fucker leader, especially if they can point to everyone who was sensible getting voted out as evidence that the "Will of the People" is that they need to go further right to win elections. So therefore keeping a sensible Tory MP in could be seen as a good plan.

The word "if" is fairly important to read there for actual comprehension of the sentence, as well as the context of the conversation being about voting for a OneNation Tory instead of looking at a total wipeout, which would leave only the extremes.

However, I am still struggling to get over you literally using a post of me defending someone's reasons for voting Tory as evidence that I am attacking everyone voting Tory. I get that you've been overwhelmed by people outside of the board making comments and my relatively benign joke about Timpson the Tory (which I did apologise for, as being a cheap and unworthy quip) was the proverbial straw. But I've not accused or implied anyone of fascism in this discussion, either politicians or voters, and I'm not thrilled about having words put into my mouth.

Puja

Because you’re missing the point.

That quip highlights the view of many on here that the Tories can’t possible include people who are compassionate and genuinely care about society. In itself, assuming that the Tories are full of racists and fascist forms a kind of bigotry that British politics can do without. The term fascist gets bandied about a lot, yet a proper analysis would not actually apply that tag to the party as a whole.

Your’ joke’ just highlighted the crass nature of some political views that the other side are scum and must be treated as such.

[Sandydragon]

And I disagree with that premise, as I’ve said 3 times. And I feel it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of politics.

I even said that the illiberalism of the conservatives puts them closer to communism than Labour.

I don’t know how clearer I can make it

NB I don't think you should be using the term communism here - it's too broad a category, and does not imply illiberalism. Perhaps totalitarian communism or soviet communism or Leninism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

If you refer back to my previous post on illiberalism, you can see my working

Basically, both groups require an "us vs them" mentality, and a form of collective solidarity. However, the goal of that solidarity, and the way in which that solidarity is gained, are very, very different.

Either way, I do not think it is fair to say Labour are anywhere near communism, considering the implications that has to certain people, while the Tories have demonstrably flirted with fascist policies and I'd say more than flirted with fascist rhetoric.

That a certain poster, who accused others of being "triggered", got triggered by the conversation, and decided that my assertion that I believe a vote for the Tories is an implicit acceptance of their worst parts, before accepting Mells' point on individuals (I'm too caught up in Hungary and our politics here sometimes, and lose sight of what is actually a very different system despite the paper similarities), got us caught up in a endless cycle of semantics that I just did not understand, because it was not about logic, but about being hurt...

I am not calling anyone a fascist.

I AM going to continue to call out fascist policies, rhetoric, and behaviors as fascist.

No-one is attacking individuals here (except Braverman, she deserves verbal attack).

And you still can’t understand the original point I made, based on a measurement you introduced. Nothing to do with being hurt (do you seriously think I care that much what you write). I just took your argument to its obvious conclusion. The emotional reaction is in you and some others, not on me.

[Stom]

NB I don't think you should be using the term communism here - it's too broad a category, and does not imply illiberalism. Perhaps totalitarian communism or soviet communism or Leninism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

If you refer back to my previous post on illiberalism, you can see my working

Basically, both groups require an "us vs them" mentality, and a form of collective solidarity. However, the goal of that solidarity, and the way in which that solidarity is gained, are very, very different.

Either way, I do not think it is fair to say Labour are anywhere near communism, considering the implications that has to certain people, while the Tories have demonstrably flirted with fascist policies and I'd say more than flirted with fascist rhetoric.

That a certain poster, who accused others of being "triggered", got triggered by the conversation, and decided that my assertion that I believe a vote for the Tories is an implicit acceptance of their worst parts, before accepting Mells' point on individuals (I'm too caught up in Hungary and our politics here sometimes, and lose sight of what is actually a very different system despite the paper similarities), got us caught up in a endless cycle of semantics that I just did not understand, because it was not about logic, but about being hurt...

I am not calling anyone a fascist.

I AM going to continue to call out fascist policies, rhetoric, and behaviors as fascist.

No-one is attacking individuals here (except Braverman, she deserves verbal attack).

And you still can’t understand the original point I made, based on a measurement you introduced. Nothing to do with being hurt (do you seriously think I care that much what you write). I just took your argument to its obvious conclusion. The emotional reaction is in you and some others, not on me.

I still don’t get it because when you clarified, it was the entire point I replied to: I did not misunderstand your point unless you’re unable to write down what your brain is thinking.

Which is definitely possible here.

[Sandydragon]

If you refer back to my previous post on illiberalism, you can see my working

Basically, both groups require an "us vs them" mentality, and a form of collective solidarity. However, the goal of that solidarity, and the way in which that solidarity is gained, are very, very different.

Either way, I do not think it is fair to say Labour are anywhere near communism, considering the implications that has to certain people, while the Tories have demonstrably flirted with fascist policies and I'd say more than flirted with fascist rhetoric.

That a certain poster, who accused others of being "triggered", got triggered by the conversation, and decided that my assertion that I believe a vote for the Tories is an implicit acceptance of their worst parts, before accepting Mells' point on individuals (I'm too caught up in Hungary and our politics here sometimes, and lose sight of what is actually a very different system despite the paper similarities), got us caught up in a endless cycle of semantics that I just did not understand, because it was not about logic, but about being hurt...

I am not calling anyone a fascist.

I AM going to continue to call out fascist policies, rhetoric, and behaviors as fascist.

No-one is attacking individuals here (except Braverman, she deserves verbal attack).

And you still can’t understand the original point I made, based on a measurement you introduced. Nothing to do with being hurt (do you seriously think I care that much what you write). I just took your argument to its obvious conclusion. The emotional reaction is in you and some others, not on me.

I still don’t get it because when you clarified, it was the entire point I replied to: I did not misunderstand your point unless you’re unable to write down what your brain is thinking.

Which is definitely possible here.

Poster A suggests that the Tories are closer to fascist than Labour.
Poster b suggests Labour is closer to communism than the Tories if, as hinted, poster A is describing politics as a horseshoe.

You spend days trying to be clever and play the man not the ball. I suggest it’s not me with the comprehension problem. We’re done.

[Mikey Brown]

And I disagree with that premise, as I’ve said 3 times. And I feel it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of politics.

I even said that the illiberalism of the conservatives puts them closer to communism than Labour.

I don’t know how clearer I can make it

NB I don't think you should be using the term communism here - it's too broad a category, and does not imply illiberalism. Perhaps totalitarian communism or soviet communism or Leninism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

That’s a bit like insisting that Primitive and Wesleyan Methodists are completely different.

I don’t get this point. The whole “we’ve seen communism given a chance and it just doesn’t work” seems to often remove the totalitarian dictators from the equation completely.

Either communism can’t exist without that kind of influence or it’s fair to distinguish between the concept and the execution.

[Sandydragon]

NB I don't think you should be using the term communism here - it's too broad a category, and does not imply illiberalism. Perhaps totalitarian communism or soviet communism or Leninism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

That’s a bit like insisting that Primitive and Wesleyan Methodists are completely different.

I don’t get this point. The whole “we’ve seen communism given a chance and it just doesn’t work” seems to often remove the totalitarian dictators from the equation completely.

Either communism can’t exist without that kind of influence or it’s fair to distinguish between the concept and the execution.

Communism has clearly evolved as various faction splinter off. Very common with extremists. But in my opinion they owe their origins to the same starting point, a bit like Methodism (although I don’t suggest Methodists are extremists).

There is a core of violence in communism though which suggests that the violence done in its name can’t be totally divorced from the original concept. So a totalitarian government emerging from a communism philosophy isn’t that surprising. The Soviet Union might not be what Marx intended but I’d suggest it was an interpretation of his writings. Later on it’s all
About keeping power and privilege.

[Puja]

What’s left of the Tories will be the toxic bigoted fuckers. Nice.

Nice wide brush there.

If the only ones left after the July 4th mass-murder are toxic bigoted fuckers, then they will vote for a toxic bigoted fucker leader, especially if they can point to everyone who was sensible getting voted out as evidence that the "Will of the People" is that they need to go further right to win elections. So therefore keeping a sensible Tory MP in could be seen as a good plan.

The word "if" is fairly important to read there for actual comprehension of the sentence, as well as the context of the conversation being about voting for a OneNation Tory instead of looking at a total wipeout, which would leave only the extremes.

However, I am still struggling to get over you literally using a post of me defending someone's reasons for voting Tory as evidence that I am attacking everyone voting Tory. I get that you've been overwhelmed by people outside of the board making comments and my relatively benign joke about Timpson the Tory (which I did apologise for, as being a cheap and unworthy quip) was the proverbial straw. But I've not accused or implied anyone of fascism in this discussion, either politicians or voters, and I'm not thrilled about having words put into my mouth.

Puja

Because you’re missing the point.

That quip highlights the view of many on here that the Tories can’t possible include people who are compassionate and genuinely care about society. In itself, assuming that the Tories are full of racists and fascist forms a kind of bigotry that British politics can do without. The term fascist gets bandied about a lot, yet a proper analysis would not actually apply that tag to the party as a whole.

Your’ joke’ just highlighted the crass nature of some political views that the other side are scum and must be treated as such.

My 'joke' (as previously said) was about a family that's famous for prisons reform and compassion towards offenders, having a member who was an MP for a party that is famously pro-"if you can't do the time, don't do the crime". Where is the missing step that's led you to the conclusion that I "was moving towards how anyone could vote Tory, implying the party was fascist, and that Tory voters are by default fascist"?

I really do feel that you are reading what you want to be angry about me saying, instead of what I'm actually saying.

Puja