My email to a Tory... any opinions?
Page 1 of 1 [ 4 posts ]
23 Jul 2015, 2:13 pm
So, I finally decide to get to writing as soon as parliament ended, with a delightfully sardonic analysis:
Quote:
I've actually listened to at least every Today in Parliament since the election, and regularly for about three years (besides hearing most political/economic analyses on radio 4, I listen to the majority of their programmes), before then studying politics at college, so I might have some insight into both historical and current politics, and I'd like to offer you my opinion, if you'd possibly hear me out...
Well, not like I assume you can personally vote against any of your party's policies, even if you wanted, since there's always disadvantages to rebels with whips all around them... nor, shall I assume, does the cabinet do anything by necessity outside of what is politically necessary (like May recently banning water cannons... all great for a usually authoritarian Home Secretary, but in all likelihood it was so Johnson wouldn't have a chance in the coming rat race for leadership... how shallow, then, are decisions on policy made of?)
This is not to mention none of the ministers usually hold qualifications. I had a laugh once out of someone pointing out that the minister for environment never before went on a farm. Is it a surprise, though, when they all seem to have been in the same class, if not in Eton in Oxford? Is it a surprise when there's sheer nepotism with Johnson being appointed to the cabinet for no apparent reason, simply because he's an MP? Would you have any opinion on this?
In addition, even if Tories ever voted on bills based on actual principle and not pure politics dictated by the cabinet, I'm assuming many could learn from Tulip Siddiq, who I've listened to in yesterday's last episode before everyone's summer break. For some bizarre reason Labour is in conflict over whether to oppose Osborne's purely opportunistic bill, but she voted based on her actual constituents' needs. Would you ever do such a thing? How many people formerly on tax credits in Swindon would need to use food banks? And all for what, so he could get his precious leadership? Osborne as PM? Despite somehow everyone forgetting about 'yachtgate'? How much more corrupt could the cabinet get? Cameron himself is associated with formerly imprisoned people, but somehow he gets a majority. They make it more difficult for students to vote, and then they wonder why they vote in such low quantities... what a surprise then, that it's only pensioners and millionaires who benefit from their policies. What a surprise that all of them are millionaires themselves. It's like no one even cares about this overt corruption.
Oh, and since you seem to be the one spearheading the holy crusade against so-called legal highs, tell me exactly why someone today tragically died from 2,4-Dinitrophenol, while loads of others, some from which no one ever died (oh, but lethal mushrooms aren't banned, just the perfectly safe) ones), if taken sensibly and by themselves, are banned? That is, if you truly are doing this for the supposed reason of health. Rationally, anything banned without a discussion is equivalent to the Nazis burning books (anything banned is deemed to have no healthy usage)... how many potentially life-saving drugs are you attempting to ban? Even MDMA, long-banned and rarely causing death (you seriously can't talk about outliers when both alcohol and tobacco kills far more people... it's sheer hypocrisy, for anyone to truly use this as an excuse when mere statistics point to another different reality - listen to Simon Evans Goes to Market if you'd like a comedic, but factual take on this) - even MDMA is found to be almost certainly the most effective in PTSD sufferers... oh, but it's not like parliament wants to do anything but send them to their death (without anyone's consent but the ministers... see a problematic pattern?) - and actually help them afterwards. Do you know the statistics of the amount of ex-military who go on to kill others out of frustration? Not to mention their subjective hell. But, hey, the government is taking care of citizens' health. Oh, yes, about as much as it's obsessed about its next leader.
Could you even do anything about any of this, though, even if you wanted, considering parties tend to act just as lemmings seem to do and vote on bills not mostly based on principles? Why is it that even when other lawyers (I understand you're one) criticize this upcoming bill on legal highs as potentially banning flower-smelling the government either ignores them (and further cuts legal aid... why not, as long as MPs get a 10% pay rise) or, as in David Nutt's case, merely throws a tantrum and refuses to listen to anything exactly like toddlers tend to do? Can we actually have a rational discussion about all this? Because lives *are* being lost, and banning flower-smelling along with potentially the whole progress of medicine will have entirely negative consequences.
Could you have prevented this death from 2,4-Dinitrophenol with this bill? Unlikely, as people can get everything online... but guess what? If people get them from a pharmacy they could be told about their dangers, and, as in this case, clearly not begin with eight tablets, Rationality is all. If you're *truly* trying to save lives I ask you to re-think this holy war against drugs that was after all began in the US merely due to racist reasons (and they're becoming far more rational in their approach lately - only the federal government needs to adjust, while the UK is becoming further more insular in terms of rationality).
I mean, this isn't a surprise, to honest, when I observe that even during the coalition they've generally becoming fascistic ('go home' vans, remember? What does our lovely Etonian cabinet want, another Kristallnacht? That's what xenophobia leads to). There's already been attacks on random Muslims... and even Sikhs by idiots who thought they were Muslims. Yes, because even more division is exactly what everyone needs at this time of global uncertainty, both economically and international affairs-wise. Oh, but could you do anything about this, even if you were against xenophobia? I suspect you'll simply be 'whipped', right? I mean, does a single person actually get to decide on issues as horrible as sending such vans out there? And Theresa is doing this for what, to deflect attention from her failure to supposedly limit immigration? They're sending foreign university students back to their countries because somehow they're afraid of foreigners... what's the point of their studying here then?
This government has already been incredibly devious, even in coalition (leading to the LibDems' defeat, which I'm sure they absolutely relished)... I dread to think what they'll be up to for the next five years at this rate. Oh, sure, sell all public housing when there's a shortage, that's genius. Who cares about green energy too, just as fossil fuels will soon be gone. Or, abolish the Freedom of Information Act, because, oh, we can't possibly be overtly corrupt anymore, can we? Do you honestly agree with these radical, corrupt antics? I mean, in their ideal world those with mansions get another one while the homeless are left to charities... because that's the Big Society, right? More like the Big Corrupt Cabinet who somehow manages to convince every single other Tory that they're not even in it for themselves.
If you've missed it I suggest you listen to radio 4's Angie Hobbs on Plato's Philosopher Kings in the History of Ideas. Tories are doing everything that is so absolutely antithetical to what a perceived 'ideal' can ever be (despite supposedly studying PPE at Oxford... it's not like they can't ignore being philosophical).
I'm just frustrated with the way politics is currently progressing and wanted to write my thoughts down, at the very least. Thanks for reading.
Well, not like I assume you can personally vote against any of your party's policies, even if you wanted, since there's always disadvantages to rebels with whips all around them... nor, shall I assume, does the cabinet do anything by necessity outside of what is politically necessary (like May recently banning water cannons... all great for a usually authoritarian Home Secretary, but in all likelihood it was so Johnson wouldn't have a chance in the coming rat race for leadership... how shallow, then, are decisions on policy made of?)
This is not to mention none of the ministers usually hold qualifications. I had a laugh once out of someone pointing out that the minister for environment never before went on a farm. Is it a surprise, though, when they all seem to have been in the same class, if not in Eton in Oxford? Is it a surprise when there's sheer nepotism with Johnson being appointed to the cabinet for no apparent reason, simply because he's an MP? Would you have any opinion on this?
In addition, even if Tories ever voted on bills based on actual principle and not pure politics dictated by the cabinet, I'm assuming many could learn from Tulip Siddiq, who I've listened to in yesterday's last episode before everyone's summer break. For some bizarre reason Labour is in conflict over whether to oppose Osborne's purely opportunistic bill, but she voted based on her actual constituents' needs. Would you ever do such a thing? How many people formerly on tax credits in Swindon would need to use food banks? And all for what, so he could get his precious leadership? Osborne as PM? Despite somehow everyone forgetting about 'yachtgate'? How much more corrupt could the cabinet get? Cameron himself is associated with formerly imprisoned people, but somehow he gets a majority. They make it more difficult for students to vote, and then they wonder why they vote in such low quantities... what a surprise then, that it's only pensioners and millionaires who benefit from their policies. What a surprise that all of them are millionaires themselves. It's like no one even cares about this overt corruption.
Oh, and since you seem to be the one spearheading the holy crusade against so-called legal highs, tell me exactly why someone today tragically died from 2,4-Dinitrophenol, while loads of others, some from which no one ever died (oh, but lethal mushrooms aren't banned, just the perfectly safe) ones), if taken sensibly and by themselves, are banned? That is, if you truly are doing this for the supposed reason of health. Rationally, anything banned without a discussion is equivalent to the Nazis burning books (anything banned is deemed to have no healthy usage)... how many potentially life-saving drugs are you attempting to ban? Even MDMA, long-banned and rarely causing death (you seriously can't talk about outliers when both alcohol and tobacco kills far more people... it's sheer hypocrisy, for anyone to truly use this as an excuse when mere statistics point to another different reality - listen to Simon Evans Goes to Market if you'd like a comedic, but factual take on this) - even MDMA is found to be almost certainly the most effective in PTSD sufferers... oh, but it's not like parliament wants to do anything but send them to their death (without anyone's consent but the ministers... see a problematic pattern?) - and actually help them afterwards. Do you know the statistics of the amount of ex-military who go on to kill others out of frustration? Not to mention their subjective hell. But, hey, the government is taking care of citizens' health. Oh, yes, about as much as it's obsessed about its next leader.
Could you even do anything about any of this, though, even if you wanted, considering parties tend to act just as lemmings seem to do and vote on bills not mostly based on principles? Why is it that even when other lawyers (I understand you're one) criticize this upcoming bill on legal highs as potentially banning flower-smelling the government either ignores them (and further cuts legal aid... why not, as long as MPs get a 10% pay rise) or, as in David Nutt's case, merely throws a tantrum and refuses to listen to anything exactly like toddlers tend to do? Can we actually have a rational discussion about all this? Because lives *are* being lost, and banning flower-smelling along with potentially the whole progress of medicine will have entirely negative consequences.
Could you have prevented this death from 2,4-Dinitrophenol with this bill? Unlikely, as people can get everything online... but guess what? If people get them from a pharmacy they could be told about their dangers, and, as in this case, clearly not begin with eight tablets, Rationality is all. If you're *truly* trying to save lives I ask you to re-think this holy war against drugs that was after all began in the US merely due to racist reasons (and they're becoming far more rational in their approach lately - only the federal government needs to adjust, while the UK is becoming further more insular in terms of rationality).
I mean, this isn't a surprise, to honest, when I observe that even during the coalition they've generally becoming fascistic ('go home' vans, remember? What does our lovely Etonian cabinet want, another Kristallnacht? That's what xenophobia leads to). There's already been attacks on random Muslims... and even Sikhs by idiots who thought they were Muslims. Yes, because even more division is exactly what everyone needs at this time of global uncertainty, both economically and international affairs-wise. Oh, but could you do anything about this, even if you were against xenophobia? I suspect you'll simply be 'whipped', right? I mean, does a single person actually get to decide on issues as horrible as sending such vans out there? And Theresa is doing this for what, to deflect attention from her failure to supposedly limit immigration? They're sending foreign university students back to their countries because somehow they're afraid of foreigners... what's the point of their studying here then?
This government has already been incredibly devious, even in coalition (leading to the LibDems' defeat, which I'm sure they absolutely relished)... I dread to think what they'll be up to for the next five years at this rate. Oh, sure, sell all public housing when there's a shortage, that's genius. Who cares about green energy too, just as fossil fuels will soon be gone. Or, abolish the Freedom of Information Act, because, oh, we can't possibly be overtly corrupt anymore, can we? Do you honestly agree with these radical, corrupt antics? I mean, in their ideal world those with mansions get another one while the homeless are left to charities... because that's the Big Society, right? More like the Big Corrupt Cabinet who somehow manages to convince every single other Tory that they're not even in it for themselves.
If you've missed it I suggest you listen to radio 4's Angie Hobbs on Plato's Philosopher Kings in the History of Ideas. Tories are doing everything that is so absolutely antithetical to what a perceived 'ideal' can ever be (despite supposedly studying PPE at Oxford... it's not like they can't ignore being philosophical).
I'm just frustrated with the way politics is currently progressing and wanted to write my thoughts down, at the very least. Thanks for reading.
23 Jul 2015, 4:39 pm
Ah I really like it. You write so well.
I don't think it will be read due to its length though. The torys literally don't give a damn about anything except their own status and money.
Even so it glad your contacting them because, us the people need to stand up and take back our power. We do not live in a true democracy.
_________________
We become what we think about; since everything in the beginning is just an idea.
Destruction and creation are 2 sides of the same coin.
23 Jul 2015, 4:54 pm
I find generally you get better results when you try to focus on a single issue in each letter. The legal highs thing should be all you talk about.
Another thing that generally seems to help is not comparing them to the Nazis. I like comparing them to Labour, particularly comparing policies to Labour policies that they've criticised.
23 Jul 2015, 11:06 pm
Walrus, I tried tackling that one issue before but it's honestly like talking to a religious zealot - this is the Tory who I think proposed the very bill that would blanket ban everything. He has such deeply held beliefs that somehow suddenly no on will ever die again that it's just too frustrating to engage in a conversation with him... so I decided to tackle all the topics that have been irking me.
I didn't *directly* compare them to the Nazis, but if blanket banning all future drugs isn't equivalent to book burning what is? There haven't been many others who did the latter... so I can't compare them to many others. And, in my opinion Tories are becoming almost far-right, so whether or not they'll ever turn out to be as brutal as the Nazis remains to be seen, but the least I could do is point out any current parallels...
