Re: Who to vote for?
Posted by diable rouge
12 December, 2019 20:01
> Failing to address the rampant anti-Semitism
> within the party.
This has been an ongoing problem, and although important to address as a whole, it's not relevant to the specific point you were making about the campaigning of the last few weeks.
> The divisive anyone with wealth is evil rhetoric.
Have you got any actual specifics where this has been said during the campaign?
> The spin over the NHS and Trump.
In the summer Trump said himself that the NHS was on the table re. a post Brexit deal with the US, so why shouldn't Labour bring it up?
> The lies (even over something as straight-forward
> as whether Jeremy watches the Queen's speech)
He got caught out, but then again who's to say he didn't watch the speech on catch-up TV, there's so much on TV over Christmas it's hard to watch everything you want to at the time it's transmitted. I'm more concerned that by not watching the speech he's somehow painted as being a traitor, when 9 out of 10 people in the country do the same.
> The origins of the leaked documents.
I assume that you're referring to the NHS docs some people have said emanate from Russian sources? Has this been verified? If not then it's just heresay. Regardless of the source, what the docs highlighted is that drug patents are a US negotiating objective in trade talks, something that has been stated by the US previously. Johnson denied the NHS was on the table, so Labour had every right to bring it up.
> The costed yet un-costed manifesto.
'Creative accountancy' is hardly new when it comes to election manifestos, this is hardly a new low. Besides, all The manifesto are there to be costed by independent sources and called out, which they often are.
> The doctoring of videos to misrepresent the views
> of others (yes, Labour did it too)
I haven't seen any apart from the one the Tories did on Keir Starmer at the beginning of the campaign which the MSM picked up on. This is something that concerns me though and I feel it needs to be nipped in the bud as it won't be long before the technology is there to doctor live feeds. Very scary.
> The use of a 4 year old boy as a political
Hardly new, does 'Jennifer's ear' ring a bell?
> The blatant attempts to try and bribe elements of
> the electorate with "free stuff".
Again, hardly new, I don't see any difference between doing this and, say, a tax cut. I think most people know there is a large cake which is cut up and 'given away', who gets what depends on who they're trying to attract, and equally they know any Gov will claim it back somehow.
> The constant attacks on any media that they don't
> think is toeing the line or dares to question what
> or how they are trying to do it.
Have you read the Daily Mail, Express, telegraph, Times lately? I think under such a constant onslaught from a hostile right wing press they have every right to defend themselves.
> The holier than tho attitude when their own house
> is not in order
> The endless virtue-signalling
I think the use of 'virtue-signalling' has itself become a form of virtue-signalling.
> Need I go on?
No, I've already missed Eastenders. A lot of what you say reads as opinion dressed up as fact and isn't relevant to your original point. Also I don't think you can say one side has been as bad as the other, i.e. of equivalence, but that's just my opinion. Time to watch catch-up myself...