Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

[11101]

And yet the IFS also advised that the Conservative manifesto risked causing considerable damage to our economy and that after 7 more years of austerity they may not even be able to deliver the spending cuts they are proposing. But it must be nice to ignore that and pretend it's the youth at fault in some kind of arrogant 'we know better than you do, you're just not smart enough to understand the world' bullshit rhetoric. Conveniently ignoring the fact that statistically those with no formal qualifications are more likely to vote Conservative and those with a degree and higher levels of education are more likely to vote Labour or Lib Dem than Tory. I think you'll find that the youth are intelligent enough and are educated to a high enough standard to know what's going on without being patronised like that.

Don't confuse education with intelligence. The expansion of education amongst youth is cited as the major factor there in the very poll you took that from. Higher income levels voted for Conservatives to a larger degree than higher education levels voted for Labour. Higher income = more successful = more intelligent, or it could. Neither is completely perfect and neither are completely flawed.

And the IFS also said 'Labour’s proposals would raise spending to its highest level since the mid-1980s and tax levels to record levels in peacetime', 'its proposals could turn out to be economically damaging', and they were 'pretending that everything can be paid for by ‘someone else’.' Hardly a glowing endorsement.

 

[Smores]

And yet the IFS also advised that the Conservative manifesto risked causing considerable damage to our economy and that after 7 more years of austerity they may not even be able to deliver the spending cuts they are proposing. But it must be nice to ignore that and pretend it's the youth at fault in some kind of arrogant 'we know better than you do, you're just not smart enough to understand the world' bullshit rhetoric. Conveniently ignoring the fact that statistically those with no formal qualifications are more likely to vote Conservative and those with a degree and higher levels of education are more likely to vote Labour or Lib Dem than Tory. I think you'll find that the youth are intelligent enough and are educated to a high enough standard to know what's going on without being patronised like that.

That does seem characteristic of tory voters, ignore all the bad their own party does so they can justify their voting. Maybe i was wrong above and they genuinely don't see an issue with the tories actions.

On the reverse, most Labour and Lib Dem voters will quite openly self-reflect when their party commits acts they don't agree with and publicly slate them for it.

I'd go further and say the main regrets you'd see from Labour voters is they wish we hadn't started so many wars whilst Tories regret would be on taking too many immigrants. Telling i think

 

[Dobba]

It's reasonable because the last Labour government did it. Between wars*, deregulating the banking industry**, (to pay for) plumping up the public sector and throwing money at failed PFI schemes***, we've spent the last 8 years recovering from them and are far from finished yet.

*Which 19 Tory MPs abstained/voted against, the other 146 (including the arms dealing vicars daughter) voted in favour of.
**Which the Tories (and endorsed by David Cameron) argued didn't deregulate enough.
***Introduced by the Tories

 

[Zarlak]

Don't confuse education with intelligence. The expansion of education amongst youth is cited as the major factor there in the very poll you took that from. Higher income levels voted for Conservatives to a larger degree than higher education levels voted for Labour. Higher income = more successful = more intelligent, or it could. Neither is completely perfect and neither are completely flawed.

And the IFS also said 'Labour’s proposals would raise spending to its highest level since the mid-1980s and tax levels to record levels in peacetime', 'its proposals could turn out to be economically damaging', and they were 'pretending that everything can be paid for by ‘someone else’.' Hardly a glowing endorsement.

I'm not confusing anything with anything, whilst education doesn't automatically mean somebody is more intelligent, only an idiot would deny that education and intelligence go hand in hand given that the focus on education from university onwards is to develop intelligence and critical thinking/reasoning. Those who are educated are much more likely to be more intelligent than those who are not. I don't see how that's up for debate, those who have developed their ability for critical thinking will be able to perform this more effectively than those who have never focused on it, it's the reason that we try to bring education to areas of the world where it's lacking so please don't come in here pretending that the youth don't know anything and that only the older generation do. Higher income does not mean more intelligent at all there is no link there and it's no surprise that higher income votes for the party with a reputation for protecting those with higher income. Intelligence is measured by intellect, not by earnings. Don't confuse success with intelligence.

You're right on the IFS, it wasn't a glowing endorsement. But they also ripped the Tory manifesto to pieces. Something that isn't being acknowledged. They also said the Tories risked a 6 billion pound hit to the exchequer, would cause more austerity for promises that are unlikely to be deliverable and that they will likely damage the quality of public services while causing considerable damage to our economy and creating problems for public finances. So don't make out that the youth need educating on where money comes from when your own manifesto is being dammed. Your statement of 'it's what the youth don't realise' is just bullshit rhetoric to make yourself seem superior when it isn't true in the slightest.

 

[11101]

I'm not confusing anything with anything, whilst education doesn't automatically mean somebody is more intelligent, only an idiot would deny that education and intelligence go hand in hand given that the focus on education from university onwards is to develop intelligence and critical thinking/reasoning. Those who are educated are much more likely to be more intelligent than those who are not. I don't see how that's up for debate, those who have developed their ability for critical thinking will be able to perform this more effectively than those who have never focused on it, it's the reason that we try to bring education to areas of the world where it's lacking so please don't come in here pretending that the youth don't know anything and that only the older generation do. Higher income does not mean more intelligent at all there is no link there and it's no surprise that higher income votes for the party with a reputation for protecting those with higher income. Intelligence is measured by intellect, not by earnings. Don't confuse success with intelligence.

You're right on the IFS, it wasn't a glowing endorsement. But they also ripped the Tory manifesto to pieces. Something that isn't being acknowledged. They also said the Tories risked a 6 billion pound hit to the exchequer, would cause more austerity for promises that are unlikely to be deliverable and that they will likely damage the quality of public services while causing considerable damage to our economy and creating problems for public finances. So don't make out that the youth need educating on where money comes from when your own manifesto is being dammed. Your statement of 'it's what the youth don't realise' is just bullshit rhetoric to make yourself seem superior when it isn't true in the slightest.

You're missing my point. The older generation who definitely do vote Conservative didn't have access to education, and the younger generation who definitely don't vote Conservative have plentiful access to it. It's the age more than education and income that determines voting preferences, and that tends to change as those young people get older.

I think most people acknowledge the Tories are not in a great state right now. As the IFS study said the Tories may have to back down on some of their manifesto promises, but Labour's are complete fantasy. As it happens I didnt vote for either of them.

 

[Zarlak]

You're missing my point. The older generation who definitely do vote Conservative didn't have access to education, and the younger generation who definitely don't vote Conservative have plentiful access to it. It's the age more than education and income that determines voting preferences, and that tends to change as those young people get older.

I think most people acknowledge the Tories are not in a great state right now. But as the IFS study said the Tories may have to back down on some of their manifesto promises, but Labour's are complete fantasy.

That's ironic, because your summary of the IFS's findings are a complete fantasy. They said a damn sight more than that, and it was a hell of a lot more damning than you're passing it off as. The fact that the older generation didn't have access to education and the younger generation do if anything makes it even more patronising when after spending time in education, developing our critical thinking and reasoning skills that you then try to tell us that we don't understand where money comes from or that things need to be paid for. It's nothing but the last bastion you have to cling to to separate us and pretend you're superior when we don't agree with you. It's what you tell a 9 year old who tells you he's not going to have to work for a living when he's older because he's going to win the lottery, not what you tell a highly educated and intelligent adult just because you don't agree with them.

 

[11101]

That's ironic, because your summary of the IFS's findings are a complete fantasy.

This is what I said:

the IFS study said the Tories may have to back down on some of their manifesto promises

And this is the exact quote from the IFS:

the plans for continued austerity could prove impossible to deliver

Its the same thing.


How old do you think I am anyway?

 

[Zarlak]

This is what I said:



And this is the exact quote from the IFS:



Its the same thing.


How old do you think I am anyway?

Again, that's a complete fantasy summary of what they actually said, which is that it risks causing considerable damage to the economy. Something that says a lot more than 'may have to back down on some of their promises'. You're painting a completely different picture about the Tory manifesto making out as though it got a raised eyebrow when actually it got slammed, whilst at the same time making their comments on Labour's manifesto look like it was viewed as the apocalypse. I'm not sure how old you are, but your patronising comments towards the youth make me think you're older than I am at 29.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

It's safe tos say that neither manifesto was blessed by all its sums adding up. Yet while the Conservative offering was very...conservative in its investment intentions, Labour planned to enact significant changes (extent of borrowing, renationalisation, relatively marked alterations to corporate rates) when such might not be advisable.

The former was too static, the latter to extreme.

That does seem characteristic of tory voters, ignore all the bad their own party does so they can justify their voting. Maybe i was wrong above and they genuinely don't see an issue with the tories actions.

On the reverse, most Labour and Lib Dem voters will quite openly self-reflect when their party commits acts they don't agree with and publicly slate them for it.

I'd go further and say the main regrets you'd see from Labour voters is they wish we hadn't started so many wars whilst Tories regret would be on taking too many immigrants. Telling i think

No biases coming through in this post, not at all.

Labour and the Lib Dems repent the horrors of war, those to the right dwell on keeping out the rotten foreigner.

You know our parliamentary system better than that. You can't claim your vote was for a purely local representative and just wash your hands of the national consequences. There comes a time when the wider implications of a vote become impossible to ignore.

No, of course not, but it's an important consideration. He also supported Brexit, which was a fringe benefit from my personal PoV. Ultimately, he was replaced by some arrogant Labour creature, or such was his conduct prior to the election.

What a hero.

And a sarcastic good morning to you too!

 

[Mogget]

Reversing more of Osborne's stringent cuts to benefits. This was questioned during the campaign albeit to a modest degree, and were the Lib Dems the party of a decade ago such might have come up with even greater frequency. What was it, nearly three times as much on uni tuition as went into state support? It was an area which the chancellor repeatedly found himself in difficulty over, yet when the election arrived Corbyn contented himself with the low hanging fruit like the bedroom tax.

Hang on, are you criticising Labour for not reversing the cuts that the party you vote for brought in?

 

[LuisNaniencia]

Don't confuse education with intelligence. The expansion of education amongst youth is cited as the major factor there in the very poll you took that from. Higher income levels voted for Conservatives to a larger degree than higher education levels voted for Labour. Higher income = more successful = more intelligent, or it could. Neither is completely perfect and neither are completely flawed.

And the IFS also said 'Labour’s proposals would raise spending to its highest level since the mid-1980s and tax levels to record levels in peacetime', 'its proposals could turn out to be economically damaging', and they were 'pretending that everything can be paid for by ‘someone else’.' Hardly a glowing endorsement.

Have to disagree on that, higher income would generally be because people have been working longer and career progression. So higher income = older, not more intelligent.

 

[SparkedIntoLife]

The way politics increasingly creeps into youth culture and the entertainment industry makes me puke a little in my mouth. My perception may be biased as a conservative (small c) but most of it seems very one sided towards liberal, left wing politics.

Corbyn at Glastonbury reminds me of all the celebrities 'bravely' speaking up at awards shows, espousing liberal beliefs as though they are the moral bastions despite often very chequered personal lives. It just seems so smug and echo chambery.

You never get celebrities at events saying things like 'we need austerity due to our national debt' or 'immigration needs to be more carefully controlled'. You only get left wing views followed by a huge amount of cheers and back patting.

The entertainment industry is absurdly leftist. Left leaning people can often be wonderfully creative and abstract. Also, conservative politics often prioritises business over arts. Beyond that, though, there are many accounts of conservatives being discriminated against in Hollywood, the music industry etc. Also, the culture at events like Glastonbury and awards shows create a liberal bubble.

Whatever your political views, does this type of stuff really seem healthy?

 

[Silva]

The way politics increasingly creeps into youth culture and the entertainment industry makes me puke a little in my mouth. My perception may be biased as a conservative (small c) but most of it seems very one sided towards liberal, left wing politics.

Corbyn at Glastonbury reminds me of all the celebrities 'bravely' speaking up at awards shows, espousing liberal beliefs as though they are the moral bastions despite often very chequered personal lives. It just seems so smug and echo chambery.

You never get celebrities at events saying things like 'we need austerity due to our national debt' or 'immigration needs to be more carefully controlled'. You only get left wing views followed by a huge amount of cheers and back patting.

The entertainment industry is absurdly leftist. Left leaning people can often be wonderfully creative and abstract. Also, conservative politics often prioritises business over arts. Beyond that, though, there are many accounts of conservatives being discriminated against in Hollywood, the music industry etc. Also, the culture at events like Glastonbury and awards shows create a liberal bubble.

Whatever your political views, does this type of stuff really seem healthy?

Aww, did your celebrity crush call the conservatives a mean name?

 

[Redlambs]

Aww, did your celebrity crush call the conservatives a mean name?

His last line has a point though. I don't think it is healthy, pushing political views like that has never been great for me.

 

[RedSky]

His last line has a point though. I don't think it is healthy, pushing political views like that has never been great for me.

It's the same issue with the media as well. Not sure what you can do about it.

 

[Silva]

Oh no, why aren't people in the highest tax brackets begging for higher taxes? It's ridiculous that they don't have more varied opinions on the subject!

Honestly, what motivation do the arts have to support anything conservative? The arts thrive in forward thinking environments, in places where experimentation is encouraged. And many of the people who work in the arts come up through small regional centres that the tories fall over themselves to defund. What motivation do they have to support the political wing of the 19th century?

 

[Redlambs]

It's the same issue with the media as well. Not sure what you can do about it.

Definitely.

But if we are to start rejecting one, we should the other no? There's very much a push for Corbyn with the kids, and that's great in terms of what maybe you and I and it seems the majority of this forum wants, but it's still wrong to me. Just like the media push for the conservatives is.

 

[Silva]

Definitely.

But if we are to start rejecting one, we should the other no? There's very much a push for Corbyn with the kids, and that's great in terms of what maybe you and I and it seems the majority of this forum wants, but it's still wrong to me. Just like the media push for the conservatives is.

It's not really just the kids. I mean, I guess we can technically call 30somethings kids given how hard the older generations fecked us financially, but it's hardly just teenagers giving Jeremy a boost.

 

[Zarlak]

The way politics increasingly creeps into youth culture and the entertainment industry makes me puke a little in my mouth. My perception may be biased as a conservative (small c) but most of it seems very one sided towards liberal, left wing politics.

Corbyn at Glastonbury reminds me of all the celebrities 'bravely' speaking up at awards shows, espousing liberal beliefs as though they are the moral bastions despite often very chequered personal lives. It just seems so smug and echo chambery.

You never get celebrities at events saying things like 'we need austerity due to our national debt' or 'immigration needs to be more carefully controlled'. You only get left wing views followed by a huge amount of cheers and back patting.

The entertainment industry is absurdly leftist. Left leaning people can often be wonderfully creative and abstract. Also, conservative politics often prioritises business over arts. Beyond that, though, there are many accounts of conservatives being discriminated against in Hollywood, the music industry etc. Also, the culture at events like Glastonbury and awards shows create a liberal bubble.

Whatever your political views, does this type of stuff really seem healthy?

I'm not really sure what point you're driving at. If something is overwhelmingly leaning in one direction then so what? They all happen to agree on something. Just because you disagree, it means nothing. You're literally saying that it's absurd that a lot of people happen to agree on something that you don't agree with. The fact that celebrities don't agree with you on certain matters and therefore don't speak on it just really tends to show that those views are becoming unpopular and are being phased out with each generation and people just think differently these days. There's nothing bad about that. The only people who usually have a problem with it are those who hold the extreme views that are seeing them eroded as society evolves and doesn't like it.

 

[SparkedIntoLife]

Aww, did your celebrity crush call the conservatives a mean name?

Ok... personal mockery instead of intelligent discourse. Speaks volumes of your character, sir.

 

[Silva]

Ok... personal mockery instead of intelligent discourse. Speaks volumes of your character, sir.

My apologies, I should have understood that you calling other people smug is nothing but an academic description.

 

[SparkedIntoLife]

I'm not really sure what point you're driving at. If something is overwhelmingly leaning in one direction then so what? They all happen to agree on something. Just because you disagree, it means nothing. You're literally saying that it's absurd that a lot of people happen to agree on something that you don't agree with. The fact that celebrities don't agree with you on certain matters and therefore don't speak on it just really tends to show that those views are becoming unpopular and are being phased out with each generation and people just think differently these days. There's nothing bad about that. The only people who usually have a problem with it are those who hold the extreme views that are seeing them eroded as society evolves and doesn't like it.

Look, I watch awards shows and music festivals for entertainment, not to be preached at politically. Consensus within groups is all well and good but there's something very arrogant and band wagon jumping about the liberal entertainment bubble. It presents itself as brave and revolutionary but actually isn't because the pervasive internal (and arguably institutional) culture is so overwhelmingly liberal. It's the choir preaching to the choir. All the moral posturing renders dissenting voters as bad people rather than people who might have formed differing viewpoints based on complex and varied rationale.

I'm not saying that celebrities can't have a voice on issues outside of their product but it's just so one sided and self perpetuating. If it was the other way around and Theresa May was preaching to whooping masses at an entertainment event, would you not find it a little cringeworthy? I would if it was that way around also. Not that I'd have preferred Corbyn to be booed and things thrown at him etc. It's just the political climate within entertainment is very one sided and self serving. Where's the diversity of thought and expression that traditional liberals strive to protect?

 

[Silva]

Look, I watch awards shows and music festivals for entertainment, not to be preached at politically. Consensus within groups is all well and good but there's something very arrogant and band wagon jumping about the liberal entertainment bubble. It presents itself as brave and revolutionary but actually isn't because the pervasive internal (and arguably institutional) culture is so overwhelmingly liberal. It's the choir preaching to the choir. All the moral posturing renders dissenting voters as bad people rather than people who might have formed differing viewpoints based on complex and varied rationale.

I'm not saying that celebrities can't have a voice on issues outside of their product but it's just so one sided and self perpetuating. If it was the other way around and Theresa May was preaching to whooping masses at an entertainment event, would you not find it a little cringeworthy? I would if it was that way around also. Not that I'd have preferred Corbyn to be booed and things thrown at him etc. It's just the political climate within entertainment is very one sided and self serving. Where's the diversity of thought and expression that traditional liberals strive to protect?

Even a minor reading in art history will tell you that it has always been political. If you want apolitical entertainment then Glastonbury was never meant for you.

 

[RedSky]

Look, I watch awards shows and music festivals for entertainment, not to be preached at politically. Consensus within groups is all well and good but there's something very arrogant and band wagon jumping about the liberal entertainment bubble. It presents itself as brave and revolutionary but actually isn't because the pervasive internal (and arguably institutional) culture is so overwhelmingly liberal. It's the choir preaching to the choir. All the moral posturing renders dissenting voters as bad people rather than people who might have formed differing viewpoints based on complex and varied rationale.

I'm not saying that celebrities can't have a voice on issues outside of their product but it's just so one sided and self perpetuating. If it was the other way around and Theresa May was preaching to whooping masses at an entertainment event, would you not find it a little cringeworthy? I would if it was that way around also. Not that I'd have preferred Corbyn to be booed and things thrown at him etc. It's just the political climate within entertainment is very one sided and self serving. Where's the diversity of thought and expression that traditional liberals strive to protect?

You can't have it both ways though. You can't have a majority right wing media that spoon feeds us bullshit every day but then complain when a few celebs dare to speak against it.

 

[SparkedIntoLife]

My apologies, I should have understood that you calling other people smug is nothing but an academic description.

I didn't call you or any specific individuals smug. I evaluated an expression of mass culture. You leapt straight into mocking me on an individual basis in an immature fashion rather than any reasoned, gentlemanly (or gentlewomanly as might be the case; I'm not assuming your gender) debate.

 

[Zarlak]

Look, I watch awards shows and music festivals for entertainment, not to be preached at politically. Consensus within groups is all well and good but there's something very arrogant and band wagon jumping about the liberal entertainment bubble. It presents itself as brave and revolutionary but actually isn't because the pervasive internal (and arguably institutional) culture is so overwhelmingly liberal. It's the choir preaching to the choir. All the moral posturing renders dissenting voters as bad people rather than people who might have formed differing viewpoints based on complex and varied rationale.

I'm not saying that celebrities can't have a voice on issues outside of their product but it's just so one sided and self perpetuating. If it was the other way around and Theresa May was preaching to whooping masses at an entertainment event, would you not find it a little cringeworthy? I would if it was that way around also. Not that I'd have preferred Corbyn to be booed and things thrown at him etc. It's just the political climate within entertainment is very one sided and self serving. Where's the diversity of thought and expression that traditional liberals strive to protect?

The fact that it's one sided simply means that those people are in agreement. Nobody is banning those on the right doing the same, it's just that that target demographic don't share their views. That's the entire reason that it's so one sided. That's not a bad thing. What do you want, half of Glastonbury to become Tories just so you feel better represented? All it is is that your views differ from theirs, deal with it. I don't expect to walk into a Tory circle and tell them how ridiculous it is that they all lean to the right. It's not moral posturing or band wagoning, it's just many people in one place who hold the same ideals. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Redlambs]

It's not really just the kids. I mean, I guess we can technically call 30somethings kids given how hard the older generations fecked us financially, but it's hardly just teenagers giving Jeremy a boost.

That's totally not the point I was making. I meant 'kids' as the guys who went to Glastonbury or any festivals actually. In my little circle of friends, that's how we just refer to those of us who go to these things, it wasn't supposed to mean specific ages.

 

[SparkedIntoLife]

Even a minor reading in art history will tell you that it has always been political. If you want apolitical entertainment then Glastonbury was never meant for you.

That's not really my problem with it (though I would like to watch entertainment to be entertained not preached at once in a while). My issue is how one sided and self congratulatory it is. It also discourages and attacks the character of all those who see things differently. Not very 'liberal', indeed.

 

[Silva]

That's not really my problem with it (though I would like to watch entertainment to be entertained not preached at once in a while). My issue is how one sided and self congratulatory it is. It also discourages and attacks the character of all those who see things differently. Not very 'liberal', indeed.

Perhaps not even art history, lets start you off with just the history of Glastonbury, a festival based on hippie principles and the various artistic movements of the 1970s. Now, can you take a guess or two why a hippie festival might not have people arguing we should freeze nurses pay?

 

[Silva]

Asking why no one is talking about the benefits of austerity at Glastonbury is like asking where the kumquats are on a dairy farm.

 

[RedSky]

That's totally not the point I was making. I meant 'kids' as the guys who went to Glastonbury or any festivals actually. In my little circle of friends, that's how we just refer to those of us who go to these things, it wasn't supposed to mean specific ages.

I call em geezers. I can't see how you can stop people discussing politics anyway given free speech is one of the foundations of the Western world. SparkedIntoLife seems like he's wanting to discourage that which I feel is pretty dangerous.

 

[SparkedIntoLife]

Perhaps not even art history, lets start you off with just the history of Glastonbury, a festival based on hippie principles and the various artistic movements of the 1970s. Now, can you take a guess or two why a hippie festival might not have people arguing we should freeze nurses pay?

Of course I can. I don't expect much else. I just think Corbyn getting up there was a bit pathetic. I'm also making a wider point beyond Glastonbury of a dominant ideology within entertainment and the arts which is hypocritical and self serving.

The traditional Left held many admirable viewpoints of freedom of expression, diversity, creativity, open mindedness and progression. Conservativism is inherently more status quo orientated and typically more self serving in structure.

However, the new Left seems to be against what it formerly stood for. It promotes homogenisation and group think rather than the freedom it once prized. It holds governments and institutions as gods and diminishes the role of the people.

I have nothing inherently against Labour voters. Yet many of my Labour supporting friends quite recklessly blanket all right leaning people as evil. It seems to be getting increasingly worse. Respectful disagreement appears to be a dying art in 2017 Britain.

 

[SparkedIntoLife]

I call em geezers. I can't see how you can stop people discussing politics anyway given free speech is one of the foundations of the Western world. SparkedIntoLife seems like he's wanting to discourage that which I feel is pretty dangerous.

No, no. It's the opposite. I oppose the overwhelming and vitrolic group think with liberal rallying cries at an entertainment event (designed for music lovers not Labour lovers). THAT is against freedom of speech, not me.

 

[Silva]

Of course I can. I don't expect much else. I just think Corbyn getting up there was a bit pathetic. I'm also making a wider point beyond Glastonbury of a dominant ideology within entertainment and the arts which is hypocritical and self serving.

The traditional Left held many admirable viewpoints of freedom of expression, diversity, creativity, open mindedness and progression. Conservativism is inherently more status quo orientated and typically more self serving in structure.

However, the new Left seems to be against what it formerly stood for. It promotes homogenisation and group think rather than the freedom it once prized. It holds governments and institutions as gods and diminishes the role of the people.

I have nothing inherently against Labour voters. Yet many of my Labour supporting friends quite recklessly blanket all right leaning people as evil. It seems to be getting increasingly worse. Respectful disagreement appears to be a dying art in 2017 Britain.

This just doesn't make sense. The left can't simultaneously have been all nice and cuddle at one point, while at the same people those old school leftists like Corbyn and Eavis being part of some kind of problem. And if you're looking for respectful disagreement don't dive into the thread calling a group of people smug, arrogant, moral phonies.

 

[RedSky]

No, no. It's the opposite. I oppose the overwhelming and vitrolic group think with liberal rallying cries at an entertainment event (designed for music lovers not Labour lovers). THAT is against freedom of speech, not me.

Just so happens that the demographic of people who go to Glastonbury are young people and left leaning. That's not against Freedom of Speech, nobody is stopping a Tory from getting up on stage and talking to the crowd, nor are they stopping Tory Celebs from doing the same. If that was the case then yes it would be against freedom of speech. You're just coming across as desperate to attack the Left despite me bringing up the Media to you (which you completely ignored). So you want it your own way it seems. Fair enough, not a very good way to debate your point though.

I wouldn't give a damn if May wanted to address her demographic at say the Grand National. If she wants to do it, good for her, I think you'd find most Lefties agreeing with me too. I've watched all of her speeches fwiw.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

No, no. It's the opposite. I oppose the overwhelming and vitrolic group think with liberal rallying cries at an entertainment event (designed for music lovers not Labour lovers). THAT is against freedom of speech, not me.

Corbyn at Glastonbury is the equivalent of May at the gates of hell. It's both of their respective natural habitats.

 

[Redlambs]

I call em geezers. I can't see how you can stop people discussing politics anyway given free speech is one of the foundations of the Western world. SparkedIntoLife seems like he's wanting to discourage that which I feel is pretty dangerous.

I'm pretty sure my point isn't the same as his.

I just don't like it rammed down people's throats, via social media, the press or festivals.

The only part I agree with is that you can't have one or the other. You can't moan about the press being for one side than be happy about something like a festival being for the other. They are all playing a game and we either accept it or we don't.

 

[RedSky]

Corbyn at Glastonbury is the equivalent of May at the gates of hell. It's both of their respective natural habitats.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Hang on, are you criticising Labour for not reversing the cuts that the party you vote for brought in?

Must i agree every singe policy of that party, even some of those introduced when i didn't vote for them? Advocating for reasonable alternatives is the job of an opposition.

 

[Silva]

No, no. It's the opposite. I oppose the overwhelming and vitrolic group think with liberal rallying cries at an entertainment event (designed for music lovers not Labour lovers). THAT is against freedom of speech, not me.

Have you only heard of Glastonbury this year or something? It's not an apolitical music festival. It's always been a hippie festival. In the 80s when it started to really grow it was organised with help from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. If you're going to come in here and act like you know everything, make sure you're not wrong on the fundamental aspects.