You know what Johnny, I used to think like yourself, that balanced argument is only possible if it doesn't descend in to hyperbole. And I think ideally it wouldn't, but at times I do think that it becomes necessary when the common argument seems unable to examine the massive consequences politics and policy will lead to.

One example is the Tory's pledge to stop funding the EU's Mare Nostrum initiative, which saves hundreds of refugees, asylum seekers and those seeking religious, political and economic persecution in Africa who are fleeing for Europe by boat. The Tories' Baroness Anelay said they were stopping funding because they didn't want to encourage others to attempt the move. Regardless of your opinion on it, what is so frequently ignored in the debate around it is if you do follow Anelay's mode of thinking, you are implicitly condemning thousands of human beings to death in the short term. Often the only way I have found effective in translating this point in discussing with those on the right who are anti-migration is to resort to hyperbole. I'd rather not, nut so often a more moderate analysis of something so bleak and hopeless as mortality goes overlooked, and for me it can't afford to.

Similarly in arguments of austerity, the death count of policy is again so often ignored. The official statistics of suicide in this country among men is at it's highest in 15 years, and that's ignoring the numerous unofficial deaths of ostracised groups, like illegal immigrants and homeless people. As with Mare Nostrum, the Tories are aware of these statistics, and only the most blinkered 'out of touch' human being would fail to see a correlation.

The Tories may well ideologically believe that austerity measures such as the one I alluded to in this thread are beneficial overall for this country, but there has to be an awareness that they are killing people, however subtly, and to my mind that is totally c*ntish and must be exposed fully to their advocates, and if hyperbole is the only thing that allows a thread like this to go past it's 5th page or whatever, than that is justified.

G

-------
So exactly where do you think RED Ed sits?

You know what Johnny, I used to think like yourself, that balanced argument is only possible if it doesn't descend in to hyperbole. And I think ideally it wouldn't, but at times I do think that it becomes necessary when the common argument seems unable to examine the massive consequences politics and policy will lead to.

One example is the Tory's pledge to stop funding the EU's Mare Nostrum initiative, which saves hundreds of refugees, asylum seekers and those seeking religious, political and economic persecution in Africa who are fleeing for Europe by boat. The Tories' Baroness Anelay said they were stopping funding because they didn't want to encourage others to attempt the move. Regardless of your opinion on it, what is so frequently ignored in the debate around it is if you do follow Anelay's mode of thinking, you are implicitly condemning thousands of human beings to death in the short term. Often the only way I have found effective in translating this point in discussing with those on the right who are anti-migration is to resort to hyperbole. I'd rather not, nut so often a more moderate analysis of something so bleak and hopeless as mortality goes overlooked, and for me it can't afford to.

Similarly in arguments of austerity, the death count of policy is again so often ignored. The official statistics of suicide in this country among men is at it's highest in 15 years, and that's ignoring the numerous unofficial deaths of ostracised groups, like illegal immigrants and homeless people. As with Mare Nostrum, the Tories are aware of these statistics, and only the most blinkered 'out of touch' human being would fail to see a correlation.

The Tories may well ideologically believe that austerity measures such as the one I alluded to in this thread are beneficial overall for this country, but there has to be an awareness that they are killing people, however subtly, and to my mind that is totally c*ntish and must be exposed fully to their advocates, and if hyperbole is the only thing that allows a thread like this to go past it's 5th page or whatever, than that is justified.

I'm sorry, what difference does it make if he just 'suggested' it? Surely it represents the same ideological basis on which he would enact it?

What the Tories have very cunningly done (after all, w@nkers do tend to be very cunning) is frame the whole thing around the popular image of the 'benefit scrounger'. Even though so much information has come out proving just how exaggerated an issue this is, even though benefits have been squeezed and squeezed and squeezed in recent years, and even though the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that there is no correlation between removing benefits and people looking for work, it's still so appealing: it's difficult to defend that sort of lifestyle, even if only a few thousand people live by it.

But of course we're not talking about a policy which will only affect the long-term unemployed; we're talking about something that will affect the hundreds of thousands of kids who will seek benefits for totally legitimate reasons. Maybe you work in construction and you break your leg, or maybe you try to set up a business and it goes tits up. Where previously the state intervened to provide you with financial support, if Cameron gets his wish it no longer will and you will instead be forced in to a joke job just to pay the bills. That's cunning, really f*cking cunning because it means not only do the Tories get to pander to the Daily Mail readers who genuinely believe the country is buckling under the millions of benefit scroungers, but it means the Tories enter the election with record employment figures, while their mates in big business find a new pool of workers willing to work for pennies on insecure contracts.

And so, to wrap up in typically dramatic fashion, they are all c*nts and are first against the wall come the revolution.

Only in the same way that we condemn Lemmings to death by not putting up cliff top fences.

Nobody compels these people to set themselves adrift in a leaky boat mate!

Do you actually believe all that bollicks you just posted ?