[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
politics
Subject   (new thread)
Message
File  []
close
whiteline
Pellizza_da_Volpedo_Il_Quarto_Stato.jpg
924249242492424
>> No. 92424 Anonymous
20th February 2021
Saturday 4:05 pm
92424 spacer
I dislike how populism has evolved as a term since 2016. What brought this feeling on was how the wikipedia page has changed in recent history having landed on it today:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism
Compared to 2015:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150220072244/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

The term seems to be increasingly used very much in the pejorative and as a diagnosis for people being misled rather than as a genuine label for social change without necessarily revolution. This might just be a reaction to recent history and intellectuals doing their usual business of tracing everything back to Rome but I do believe that the negativity of populism may be used to suppress grassroots or common societies based on delivering improvements or maintaining the common wellbeing. Left-wing populism has certainly failed to take proper root recently and the polarisation of the term may stop it ever being the case - in an American context that would certainly be welcomed by the Democratic establishment but a setback for the working class.

Under my own lens I'd label mutual organisations, unions and farmers markets as populist. Equally movements to redress imbalances of power or even just impose regulatory standards could be considered as populist - Occupy Wallstreet starting as a rage against the moral hazard of bail outs would certainly not be left-wing. It's a very dangerous and nebulous term but one that I think represents an unspoken enforcement of the social contract as people interpret it distinct from power relationships.

Anyway, I found it weird that they replaced 'Il Quarto Stato' with an Occupy Wall Street sign.
4 posts omitted. Expand all images.
>> No. 92574 Anonymous
21st March 2021
Sunday 1:56 pm
92574 spacer
>>92565
It actually doesn't need the democratic element. A populist movement can also mean anything serving the community in general, in the United States this used to also be a term dominant for farmers organisations circumventing rent-seeking by the wealthy that only later evolved into a loose political party.

>>92567
You see what you're doing here is submitting that words are malleable to those in power who very much hold an interest in controlling language. Populism in a pejorative sense is a term I've seen uniquely used by the mass media who have created their own distorted image in the consumers mind and thereby shaping the confines of any debate and what is possible. If all modes of social improvement outside of those sanctioned by the powerful are viewed as dangerous threats to democracy then they can close meaningful resistance in the minds of the common people and stop the emerges of any rival power structures that truly pose a threat.

Language is organic but that doesn't mean that a pedantic anorak wielder with a dictionary can't confound our current slide deeper into an aristocracy.
>> No. 92576 Anonymous
21st March 2021
Sunday 2:13 pm
92576 spacer
>>92574
>You see what you're doing here is submitting that ...
No, I was talking about slang. I am aware that various parties in the media have been doing some rather unpleasant things with terms like "do-gooder" and "violence". "Woke" arguably too but that one's a kettle of eels I can't be bothered with.
>> No. 92577 Anonymous
21st March 2021
Sunday 2:25 pm
92577 spacer
>>92576
>No, I was talking about slang.

We're not talking about slang and the inherent premise of my reply was that the current use is artificial and therefore illegitimate. If as otherlad suggest the term is used by losers then it is quite correct to say 'no actually you're talking bollocks' or to resist it falling into a common definition.
>> No. 92580 Anonymous
21st March 2021
Sunday 2:46 pm
92580 spacer
>>92577
>We're not talking about slang
I was. Slang is words. Go have a conversation with yourself if you want to be in complete control of where it goes.
>> No. 92583 Anonymous
21st March 2021
Sunday 4:25 pm
92583 spacer
>>92565
This is an inherent flaw of democracy, isn't it? Tyranny of the majority?

whiteline
Nostradamus.jpg
922399223992239
>> No. 92239 Anonymous
7th February 2021
Sunday 5:33 am
92239 spacer
What do you think will happen in the near future to our world, Britbroes? Say, 20-30 years from now?

I'm scared, Britbroes.

t. American
34 posts and 2 images omitted. Expand all images.
>> No. 92280 Anonymous
11th February 2021
Thursday 9:27 pm
92280 spacer
>>92279
A more likely scenario is kids bombing their school from orbit using a hacked satellite because their homework was late.
>> No. 92281 Anonymous
11th February 2021
Thursday 10:24 pm
92281 spacer
>>92274

Interestingly, someone hacked (a system on) the ISS using AX.25 and a fucking bash command injection bug and posted it on twitter so I'm fairly sure that properly weaponised autism is fully capable of hijacking a satellite or two.

>>92280
This is exactly why I should have got a commodore amiga instead of a SNES when I was nine.
>> No. 92570 Anonymous
21st March 2021
Sunday 1:03 pm
92570 spacer
>>92272
Life, in general, will get broadly nicer. Crime rates will go down, incomes will go up, diseases will be cured and life expectancy will increase. The only downside is the utter moral outrage against the excesses of the elites will also need to increase, because they're only going to wreck shit harder. And most people won't care, which will be infuriating, same as it is now.

Potentially, possibly, we might see the big technology FAANG companies take a bumming. I'd like to see that happen, and Joe Biden has said he wants to do it. The companies will also fight extremely hard to stop this from happening, so it could be seriously exciting, when Google starts telling you Joe Biden is a paedo and Amazon refuses to deliver to Democratic states. But that's a real best-case scenario; things that awesome tend not to happen.
>> No. 92571 Anonymous
21st March 2021
Sunday 1:06 pm
92571 spacer
>>92274
Do those satellites still have functioning engines? Anyone can grab the steering wheel on an old satellite whenever they want, and it won't do anything if they can't actually steer it. I would imagine those satellites are just drifting aimlessly.
>> No. 92572 Anonymous
21st March 2021
Sunday 1:18 pm
92572 spacer
>>92571
A lot of them will have small amounts of fuel left which is kept there for position changes and such and they're designed to stay on standby for a very long time. It wont do you much good though, if you were dead set on causing destruction you could probably steer a few old satellites to cross paths with others that'd give you maybe a 0.001% chance of a collision in the next decade if no one spotted it and moved the other satellites out of the way. Space is just that big.

whiteline
_102444527_hi036065413.jpg
848958489584895
>> No. 84895 Anonymous
9th February 2019
Saturday 8:13 am
84895 spacer
Jimmy Saville: My new Brexit party stands ready to defend democracy

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/08/new-brexit-party-stands-ready-defend-democracy/

'Thousands of Tory party members' to defect to Jimmy Saville's Brexit Party as it gets official approval

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/08/thousands-tory-party-members-defect-Jimmy-Savilles-brexit-party/

Rebel Labour MPs set to quit party and form centre group

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/02/rebel-labour-mps-set-to-quit-party-and-form-centre-group
863 posts and 113 images omitted. Expand all images.
>> No. 91876 Anonymous
26th December 2020
Saturday 11:35 am
91876 spacer
>>91875
Just had a mate piss off to Dubai for a couple weeks. Said no one seemed to give a shit at the airports.

Another mate is fucking off to Mexico tomorrow.
>> No. 91907 Anonymous
4th January 2021
Monday 7:41 pm
91907 spacer

rom4.gif
919079190791907
I've been thinking a lot about Sphere Starmer, so I present Mitt Rombus.
>> No. 91908 Anonymous
4th January 2021
Monday 7:43 pm
91908 spacer
>>91907
Meant to go in the American thread. Fuck's sake.
>> No. 91909 Anonymous
4th January 2021
Monday 7:57 pm
91909 spacer
>>91876

Don't blame them, there are some bargains about at the momeny. Got a cracking deal on New York for the end of the year.
>> No. 92524 Anonymous
7th March 2021
Sunday 7:38 pm
92524 spacer
Jimmy saville: I want my life back after three decades of Brexit campaigning - and this time I mean it

https://www.If I post a link to this website again I will be banned.co.uk/news/article-9335577/Jimmy-saville-want-life-three-decades-Brexit-battle.html

Have we really seen the last of Are Nige?

(A good day to you Sir!)

whiteline
vgaet[1].jpg
924299242992429
>> No. 92429 Anonymous
21st February 2021
Sunday 7:35 pm
92429 spacer
This woman is going to be the next president of the United States and it's going to be fucking awesome mediocre.
Expand all images.
>> No. 92430 Anonymous
21st February 2021
Sunday 7:39 pm
92430 spacer
>>92429

I appreciate that America is a bit of an easy target now with Biden in charge, but I wouldn't wish this much misery on them.
>> No. 92431 Anonymous
22nd February 2021
Monday 12:13 am
92431 spacer

image.jpg
924319243192431
The racism here seems a little less casual than our usual. Are you sure you two are here legally?
>> No. 92432 Anonymous
22nd February 2021
Monday 12:33 am
92432 spacer
>>92431

It's not racism, we hate her because ACAB.

whiteline
cufcu[1].jpg
923569235692356
>> No. 92356 Anonymous
18th February 2021
Thursday 5:50 pm
92356 Brexshit
If a referendum were called on Britain's membership of the EU, which way would you vote?

https://strawpoll.com/z7z1wfgpe
56 posts and 4 images omitted. Expand all images.
>> No. 92422 Anonymous
20th February 2021
Saturday 10:35 am
92422 spacer
>>92421

BREXIT MEANS BREXIT.
>> No. 92423 Anonymous
20th February 2021
Saturday 10:46 am
92423 spacer
>>92418
>What's your point?
A mixture of a desire to see if anyone agrees/disagrees with that version of events because I might learn something, suspicion it might be of interest to some, and perhaps a little bit of the view that Britain has been a barrier to a unified Europe more generally.

>>92419
>The point we are discussing is that there was no elucidation over what Brexit, to the Tories, actually meant
We do however know what it didn't mean: Stay in the EU or de-facto stay in the EU via the EEA. Labour screwed up massively by their pro-remain elements trying to fudge the issue in a way that would get them back into Europe, instead of keeping their 2017 position of negotiating the least bad Brexit possible with no second referendum. Labour's 2019 platform managed to be the opposite of all things to all men: Remainers saw a party prepared to negotiate Brexit, Leavers saw a party trying to claw it away with a second referendum, and the indifferent knew they were split like a fat lad's jeans.

Had pro-EU types been more subtle and competent they could just possibly have nudged us back into the EEA, but they blew it and once everything went up in the air the Tory Brexiteers got a blank cheque.
(Full disclosure: Voted Labour, Remain.)
>> No. 92427 Anonymous
21st February 2021
Sunday 1:55 am
92427 spacer
I voted for brexit when I was in a kind of aburdist-nihilistic phase, so I wanted my news to be more entertaining. Recently, my nan left me a sizeable inheritance and I think it'd be nice to live somewhere sunny and warm, so I would now vote remain.

I remember watching an interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg where he said that Britain would only start feeling the economic benefits from leaving the EU fifty years from now. As a member of the gentry, he's insulated from regular concerns and can obviously think along long-term lines (no shortage of willing suitors to carry forward that noble weak chin), but if I had voted leave for a legitimate reason, I would've been pretty pissed off at only being able to reap the benefits of brexit around the time when I can scarcely remember my own name and might need a diaper.
>> No. 92428 Anonymous
21st February 2021
Sunday 1:19 pm
92428 spacer
>>92427

You assert that poor people are too stupid to think long-term, while simultaneously proving that.
>> No. 92433 Anonymous
22nd February 2021
Monday 12:07 pm
92433 spacer
>>92427
Might need a what, definitely-not-a-yanklad?

whiteline
3500.jpg
922139221392213
>> No. 92213 Anonymous
6th February 2021
Saturday 11:45 am
92213 spacer
Boris Johnson planning NHS England overhaul, leaked paper shows

Boris Johnson is planning a radical overhaul of NHS England, as he reverses controversial privatisation policies introduced by David Cameron, a leaked document suggests. According to the draft white paper, the government is planning to reduce the role of the private sector in NHS England and give the health secretary greater control.

NHS commissioners would not be required to put contracts out to tender, which can draw competition from competing health groups. Instead, a new policy would leave the NHS and local authorities to run services and encourage them to work together more effectively. The health secretary would also take more direct control over NHS England, with the plans putting emphasis on reducing bureaucracy and improving integration between the different departments of the NHS.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/06/boris-johnson-planning-nhs-england-overhaul-leaked-paper-shows
25 posts and 2 images omitted. Expand all images.
>> No. 92240 Anonymous
7th February 2021
Sunday 7:05 am
92240 spacer
>>92234
There is a strong electoral case for this though: One recognised tendency in British politics has always been that when people are sick of the Tories, nice middle class Tory types will vote Liberal and help Labour get in that way. At every election where Labour has taken power except 1997 the Liberals have also gained votes. (Up 0.9% in 1923, 5.8% in 1929, 2.3% in 1945, 5.3% in 1964, 11.8% in 1974, and down 1% in 1997.)
1997 leaves the question: Did Labour win Liberals, or Tories? Was there a "Tories go Liberal, Liberals go Labour" effect, or did Labour win over Tories while Liberals stuck to Ashdown?

But then in 2001 and 2005 things go all weirdy wobbly with the Lib Dems running to the left of Labour on all sorts of issues and even the Conservatives having a pop at it on tuition fees (opportunism, but they still did it!). Then 2010 happened and we all know how that went.

Anyway, it's a shame our Labour party didn't follow the trajectory of New Zealand: Labour there did Thatcherism from 1984-90, got it all out of their system and caused untold social harm in the process, sold off the trains and the planes despite promising they wouldn't. People were sufficiently upset (about the social harm, not the vehicles) that Labour feared coming third in the 1990 election, so were overjoyed when they merely went down to the biggest defeat of a sitting government in their nation's history.
Then in they came back to power in 1999 and mixed the electorally useful parts of Blairism (mostly late-TV era campaign techniques) with policies like renationalising the trains and the planes, creating a state owned bank, abolishing workfare, creating tax credits but branding them properly so people actually know what on earth they are, calling the Iraq war illegal, and more.
In part as a result of delivering a government that most people can basically agree was alright within living memory, NZ Labour returned to govt in 2017. Unlike UK Labour, which is spiraling the plughole like a discount Lloyd George Liberal.
>> No. 92258 Anonymous
8th February 2021
Monday 1:36 am
92258 spacer
>>92226
>Why were Deloitte offered untendered contracts to provide services that the NHS could have easily provided?

Because the idea the NHS is set up to do any of thesr things is wrong in the first place.
>> No. 92265 Anonymous
8th February 2021
Monday 3:22 pm
92265 spacer
>>92258

>The NHS isn't set up to do medical testing or medical surveillance on the British Public but some rando consulting firm is.

u wot 8?
>> No. 92266 Anonymous
8th February 2021
Monday 3:45 pm
92266 spacer
>>92235
>at you fully think it is 100% okay to hate specific groups of people, as long as they're the groups you've been told deserve it because of their privilege rank according to identity politics. That is your brain on liberalism.


That sounds so completely bonkers to me, I hate to go full no true scotsman, but that violates the very core pricipals of liberalism.

I accept that the term liberal has probably been co-opted by a paticular type of arsehole, and that arsehole considers classical liberals to be closet racists and sexists but usually those people self identify as left first rather than liberal.
>> No. 92270 Anonymous
9th February 2021
Tuesday 9:12 am
92270 spacer
>>92266

Yeah, this one was all those things you usually associate with a radical twitter leftie, except socialism was the bit she objected to.

That's what was so vexing and why I found her so repulsive. I can tolerate and to some extent understand those sorts when they eanestly believe it's all part of one big package to make society fairer overall, but this one specifically and consciously wanted neo-liberal capitalism as it exists today to carry on as normal, just with more women and minorities in the 1%.

whiteline
35001.jpg
844568445684456
>> No. 84456 Anonymous
23rd September 2018
Sunday 8:38 pm
84456 Ban anonymous accounts, Angela Rayner tells social media firms
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/23/ban-anonymous-accounts-angela-rayner-tells-social-media-firms

>The shadow education secretary, speaking at a Labour party conference event, said social media firms should take greater responsibility for their users and noted in particular that Facebook seemed to have indicated that politicians should accept a higher level of abuse.

>Rayner, at a fringe event organised by the Guardian, conceded that insisting on real names wouldn’t stop abuse, but “it would certainly help a little bit. I think they should do more – they do have a responsibility for online.”

I... kind of like Angela Rayner, but this is a truly awful idea that seems to have had absolutely no thought put into its implementation or wider affects on freedom of expression. Technically almost every single account commenting on The Guardian is an "anonymous" social media account because why would you use a real name for such a thing.

I really hope this doesn't gain any kind of traction.
97 posts and 11 images omitted. Expand all images.
>> No. 92208 Anonymous
4th February 2021
Thursday 8:39 pm
92208 spacer

ADC895A4-8259-41B1-9BE7-6ADDCAA3F33C.jpg
922089220892208
>>92205

Get on your knees and grovel, you worthless maggot.
>> No. 92209 Anonymous
4th February 2021
Thursday 10:25 pm
92209 spacer

keir-starmer-knee.jpg
922099220992209
>>92206
Fuck me this is even more disappointing than the whole Keith Starmer premiership.

I saw her kneeling in her New Rock boots and tights though. Very sexy. I'm not saying I want her to literally stand on my testicles and smash them into oblivion, but I'm in the same postcode.
>> No. 92210 Anonymous
4th February 2021
Thursday 10:46 pm
92210 spacer
>>92209
You don't want to come between Rayner and her footwear.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/mps-star-wars-r2-d2-10409810
>> No. 92211 Anonymous
4th February 2021
Thursday 10:59 pm
92211 spacer
>>92209
This picture has brought up some not entirely unpleasant teenage memories. I wonder if she listens to Bad Religion.
>> No. 92212 Anonymous
5th February 2021
Friday 9:09 am
92212 spacer
>>92211

She's the council estate goth lass of our collective dreams, even if she doesn't have big jugs any more.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/22/angela-rayner-becomes-grandmother-37/

whiteline
Saggy Pissflaps.png
921489214892148
>> No. 92148 Anonymous
1st February 2021
Monday 6:00 pm
92148 Centralisation
This is a post by the founder of telegram, I thought this was a very interesting idea worth sharing and is a good way to contextualise the current fucked up state of the world.

>The "capitalism <-> socialism" opposition seems outdated. I prefer to think in terms of "centralization vs decentralization". Humans have evolved to perform best in small groups of less than 150 people. That's why wherever there's centralization and excessive hierarchy, there's inefficiency and underutilized human potential. Capitalist monopolies and socialist dictatorships are equally bad.

>In a natural environment, every small community is able to produce an outstanding leader and an independent thinker. In today's world of trillion-dollar monopolies and bloated governments, the potential of hundreds of millions of people is suppressed by the limitations imposed by our artificial societal structures.

>That is the reason why tens of thousands of people working at big corporations such as Facebook have failed to keep up with what our small team at Telegram has been implementing. That’s also the reason why countries like Russia fail to generate and retain global brands in their jurisdictions. Genuine creativity is rare in organizations and societies built on excessive hierarchies and lack of personal autonomy.
2 posts omitted. Expand all images.
>> No. 92151 Anonymous
1st February 2021
Monday 6:36 pm
92151 spacer
>>92148
At least Facebook would have posted this somewhere indexable by Google.
>> No. 92152 Anonymous
1st February 2021
Monday 6:43 pm
92152 spacer
>the current fucked up state of the world

Pandemic aside, there has never been a better time to be alive than now. The past - even the relatively recent past - was shit.

If you want to seriously address the question of where we're going wrong, you need to meaningfully engage with all the ways that we're getting things very right. We're living longer and healthier lives than any generation of humans in history. Global poverty and child mortality have never been lower. The world today is more democratic and has more respect for human rights than ever before.

There's nothing wrong with being idealistic, but it's incredibly dangerous to let that idealism turn into a nihilistic black-and-white view of social progress. There are many ways that the world could be made better, but there are many more ways that the world could be made much worse.
>> No. 92153 Anonymous
1st February 2021
Monday 6:53 pm
92153 spacer
>>92148
He's described as the "Russian Zuckerberg", and that diatribe makes it seem like an apt description. I'll bet he's into buttcoins as well.
>> No. 92154 Anonymous
1st February 2021
Monday 7:40 pm
92154 spacer
>>92153
>He's described as the "Russian Zuckerberg"
*was

He was forced out of his own company and into exile for refusing to hand over personal data on protestors and opposition politicians in Russia and Ukraine.
Say what you like about him, but at least he has good principals and is running his business to them as best as he can.
Meanwhile there seems to be a propaganda campaign against him and telegram, allegedly with money trails leading back to facebook and other companies.
>> No. 92155 Anonymous
2nd February 2021
Tuesday 2:29 am
92155 spacer
>>92152
>there has never been a better time to be alive than now
I would question this for the western world in recent decades. Depending on your criteria*, it's not very hard to see that a not-insignificant number of people in this country still haven't returned to the quality of life they had in 2007. Everyone calls to technology, to global poverty and to global democratisation as signs of progress because the data there is unambiguous. What winds lost in the wayside is that none of that is any consolation if your own life or your own town has gone to shit, especially if nothing and nobody is credibly going to improve it. We may live in a world with more democracies than ever, but most first world democracies have run into crises of legitimacy. It's worth asking why that is.

*And you can have some fun with this. I was assuming a mixture of actual financial position + perceived quality of life, but you can always factor in the hedonic treadmill for extra fun. I suspect that to the human brain, irrational as it is, it feels better to live in China and see your standard of living raise year on year from a low point to a middling one than it does to live in Britain and see it stagnate or moderately decline, despite staying better off in absolute terms.

whiteline
gaw.jpg
920219202192021
>> No. 92021 Anonymous
23rd January 2021
Saturday 11:19 am
92021 spacer
Is tackling inequality a pipe dream?

If you're financially secure enough to have capital to invest then you can sit back and watch your wealth increase which, over time, makes the gulf between the haves and the have-nots grow. Either you've got the money to be able to do this or you don't.

Is focusing on inequality a bit of a red herring? It seems like it would be more constructive to instead focus on raising the minimum standard of living for everyone, to ensure they can have a comfortable and secure life.
16 posts and 1 image omitted. Expand all images.
>> No. 92044 Anonymous
23rd January 2021
Saturday 8:28 pm
92044 spacer
>>92042
In the case of technology shares the increase in value is meant to be due to recognition of goods and services rendered in the past, present, or future and ultimately this will be the result of the capture of surplus value in the system of capitalism. (i.e. £100 of work has been done or will be done).

When some shares go up other related ones often go down. Look at comparative charts for Intel and AMD to see examples of this. The business ecosystem is complex and although causality is always there, it's not always apparent or easy to see.

In the specific case of the rise in share prices recently, QE has increased the volume of fiat in circulation and a lot of this has gone into buying shares. Ultimately this will have to be repaid by the taxpayer in the form of higher taxes or reduced public services.

The current bubble could be argued as a type of inflation given that everything is getting more expensive. When the bubble bursts a great number of people will find themselves worse off to the same economic magnitude as winners have won (2008 serves as a pretty striking case study in this respect).

In the case of the GME squeeze it's more direct and obviois, as much money as the winners have won last week the losers have lost.
>> No. 92045 Anonymous
23rd January 2021
Saturday 10:04 pm
92045 spacer
It's not a pipe dream, but I think we're going all the wrong ways about it. Or at least, the people who often talk about it have their priorities in all the wrong places.

If I were the king of England and its realms, I would focus on cracking down on parasitic bullshit like interest only mortgages and buy-to-let rent seeking, nationalise the bits of public utilities and infrastructure that it makes sense to do so, and probably create some kind of public work programme. My focus would be on reducing what I can only see as unfair financial pressures those on the lowest rungs of society have to bear, and eliminate the poverty trap.

At the end of the day I think that would probably do a lot more toward levelling the playing field than just keeping on raising the minimum wage or handing out free money (though frankly, if we got the economy sorted out I would still eventually implement some kind of UBI.) Ultimately, if you make it so the peasants have more money, the capital-owning class will just keep raising their rents, prices and tarriffs to gobble it all back up again. What we should do is restrict such opportunism in order that the poor have a lower cost of living, and therefore more disposable income with which they may be encouraged to invest in savings, pensions, other financially sensible options they are currently all too often just unable to do.

I will say, I absolutely hate it when people come out with that line about how you can always make savings or go on r/personalfinance and if you don't you're just stupid and it's your own fault for buying a big telly. I have only ever heard that rhetoric in real life from people who have grown up comfortably wealthy. I'm pretty well off by this stage in my life, but for many years I was dirt poor, and in no small part I attribute my current financial wellbeing to the plain, simple tight-arsed thrift I was forced to learn when I had to support myself on £500 per month. Poor people are often stupid, but more often than that they are trapped in a situation where there are very few winning moves.
>> No. 92046 Anonymous
23rd January 2021
Saturday 10:20 pm
92046 spacer
>>92045

I'd vote for you, but only if you can summarize that passage as a three word slogan and give me a scapegoat to hate on.
>> No. 92047 Anonymous
23rd January 2021
Saturday 10:32 pm
92047 spacer

king.jpg
920479204792047
>>92046

You don't vote for a King.

But if you must, it will be "Big, Hard, Britain" and the scapegoat will be pensioners who emigrated defected to the south of Europe.
>> No. 92048 Anonymous
24th January 2021
Sunday 10:34 am
92048 spacer
>>92021
>It seems like it would be more constructive to instead focus on raising the minimum standard of living for everyone, to ensure they can have a comfortable and secure life.
The problem is that the political economy for this will never exist. To have people care about the standards at the bottom, you need a relatively equal society. Otherwise the political power of those at the bottom approaches zero.

Also, we live in a society where people can always see how other people live. You can't neatly sequester the rich off in their own little bubble where their immense wealth isn't visible to the poor, so the poor are always going to feel like their lives are shit in comparison to what they see elsewhere. Deep down we're monkeys, and monkeys care about relative status, they're going to feel like they're falling behind if their lives get better by 5% a year while everyone (perceived, not actual) else's get better by 25% a year. Let alone the world we actually live in, where their lives have tended to get 5% worse a year while the other side are going to the moon.

whiteline
donald.jpg
904809048090480
>> No. 90480 Anonymous
6th September 2020
Sunday 1:59 am
90480 This man is going to be the next President and it's going to be awesome
TRUMP 2020
292 posts and 57 images omitted. Expand all images.
>> No. 91911 Anonymous
8th January 2021
Friday 12:39 am
91911 spacer
He has just posted a video, conceding.
>> No. 91912 Anonymous
8th January 2021
Friday 12:45 am
91912 spacer
>>91911
The mentalists are claiming it is a deepfake, and that the deep state has won.
>> No. 91913 Anonymous
8th January 2021
Friday 12:48 am
91913 spacer
>>91911>>91912
His lawyer, not the mad mayor one, a proper one, just told him he could get nicked if he leans in on an attempted coup.
>> No. 91914 Anonymous
8th January 2021
Friday 10:13 am
91914 spacer
Alright, now it's over can we get a /yank/ meta-board alongside /*/ and /sfw/ so I never have to think about Seppos again.
>> No. 91915 Anonymous
8th January 2021
Friday 2:29 pm
91915 spacer
>>91914

I think it's called /zoo/, if that still exists. I'd vote that all Yank business go in there anyhow.

whiteline
nigel.jpg
918859188591885
>> No. 91885 Anonymous
28th December 2020
Monday 12:18 am
91885 THIS MAN HAS SAVED THE UK AND 2021 IS GOING TO BE AWESOME
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55460948
1 post omitted. Expand all images.
>> No. 91897 Anonymous
28th December 2020
Monday 11:49 am
91897 spacer
>>91889

I can't wait until Chuka Umunna joins!
>> No. 91900 Anonymous
28th December 2020
Monday 1:20 pm
91900 spacer
>>91889
It's almost like he's creating more problems than he's ever solved.
>> No. 91903 Anonymous
29th December 2020
Tuesday 12:34 pm
91903 spacer
>>91885
>THIS MAN HAS SAVED THE UK
From...?
>> No. 91904 Anonymous
29th December 2020
Tuesday 1:22 pm
91904 spacer
>>91903

Himself, by fucking off to America to lick Trump's arse.
>> No. 91905 Anonymous
29th December 2020
Tuesday 9:22 pm
91905 spacer
>>91885

"Brexit impact on food prices 'very modest'" is a fun way of saying that food is going to become more expensive due to Brexit.

whiteline
biden.jpg
900759007590075
>> No. 90075 Anonymous
26th July 2020
Sunday 5:10 pm
90075 in 100 days time
This man is going to become the President of the United States, and it's going to be fucking awesome.
552 posts and 68 images omitted. Expand all images.
>> No. 91868 Anonymous
10th December 2020
Thursday 10:08 pm
91868 spacer
>>91867
Corbynites aren't completely lacking in pragmatism (they are after all the ones in the Labour party rather than the ones hawking socialist worker at every protest going.) Their big problems are being mediocre at media management and occasionally preferring a new and gimmicky policy idea over a fine one from the 1970s that got orphaned in past Labour factional struggles, rather than fundamentally believing in some kind of utopian nonsense.

I'm not getting at you specifically, it's just that there's an idea floating out there that Corbynites becoming more pragmatic would mean "selling out" (to be glib about it) and accepting that they can't except the government to achieve very much, which is an awful way of looking at it. The Corbynite who decides to try and slip free broadband into the back of Starmer's 2024 manifesto in ambiguous language and takes a few public speaking lessons will be ten times the pragmatist politician that the mumbly former-Corbynite who moved dramatically to the right on policy in the hopes of nabbing a cabinet job will.

Full disclosure: I didn't care for the 2019 Labour manifesto, nor did I vote Labour. I just couldn't be bothered trying to pick a historical analogy for the progressive lowering of political expectations, which is what I really dislike. I could make similar points for the right, though (especially in the US) they tend to be more successful at incrementally working towards a long-term goal where the left usually just abandon hope after a few losses.
>> No. 91869 Anonymous
10th December 2020
Thursday 11:20 pm
91869 spacer
>>91868

All the Labour infighting makes me sad, but I have recently realised that this has been standard for as long as there has been a Left. Look at the schism between Marx and Proudhon.

Marx was a wealthy lad that adopted the cause of the working class, whereas Proudhon was a pleb who adopted the rhetoric of bourgeois intellectuals.

The people on the left who best understand the correct long term strategy are the least socially connected to the masses, whereas the people who are most apt at rallying the populace are not generally so prone to this kind of holistic thinking or long term strategy.

IMO University educated middle class Labour idealists would do better to be campaigning in Tory heartlands instead of alienating Northerners, but I am also a cynic and everything is terrible.
>> No. 91870 Anonymous
11th December 2020
Friday 4:43 pm
91870 spacer
>>91866
He also had literally everyone else in the paddy fields though. Howver, if Britain goes that way we'd easily be able to replicate his army of teenage boys on drugs.
>> No. 91871 Anonymous
11th December 2020
Friday 6:53 pm
91871 spacer
>>91868
>>91869

There is a lot of "well fuck this I'm taking my ball and going home" on the left, in general, to be very vague and abstract about it all. That's why there are so many shit little splinter parties that will only ever see a couple of thousand votes.

Too many of these people fail to realise the merits of the "big umbrella" or whatever the fuck they call it of the Labour Party. Fair enough it might be run by people you'd spit on as little more than common garden market liberals, but you're not going to pull them left from the outside of the party.

Funnily enough most of these people were pro-EU and always made the argument "but we're better off trying to change it from within!" when challenged by the fundamentally neo-liberal nature of that institution; but when it comes to the Labour party they're all about cancelling their membership and fucking off to vote Socialist Workers Democratic Worker's Democratic Socialist Party Party because Keith is a big evil racist.
>> No. 91872 Anonymous
11th December 2020
Friday 7:02 pm
91872 spacer
>>91871
I know people came up with names like Dear Leader for Corbyn, but calling Starmer Keith/Kieth is a really bollocks moniker and I'm kind of surprised it's taken off.

whiteline
jezza.jpg
869358693586935
>> No. 86935 Anonymous
29th October 2019
Tuesday 8:41 pm
86935 UK election 2019
This man is not going to be the next Prime Minister of the UK, and it's going to be fucking awesome.
1551 posts and 217 images omitted. Expand all images.
>> No. 91599 Anonymous
18th November 2020
Wednesday 1:50 am
91599 spacer
>>91584

Sounds like everyone's happy really. Centrists get to play to their crowd, lefties get to play to theirs, everyone thinks their side won in some way.

It's like WWE really isn't it, they're all mates behind the scenes.
>> No. 91609 Anonymous
18th November 2020
Wednesday 12:09 pm
91609 spacer
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-councils-warned-lessons-croydon-bankrupt-b71864.html

So what's going to happen with this Croydon council then? Surely the Govt wont bail them out, I mean it's not like they're a bank or anything.
>> No. 91610 Anonymous
18th November 2020
Wednesday 12:27 pm
91610 spacer
>>91609
Here you go, lad. >>/news/28775
>> No. 91611 Anonymous
18th November 2020
Wednesday 12:50 pm
91611 spacer
>>91584
>>91599
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/18/jeremy-corbyn-refused-labour-whip-despite-having-suspension-lifted
Only as a Labour member apparently, Starmer's not giving him the whip back.
>> No. 91622 Anonymous
19th November 2020
Thursday 12:03 am
91622 spacer
>>91611
If the argument for this was "we expect more of MPs" I could understand, but it's not. This just seems like the most akward fudge possible that looks bad to everyone. Hang on! It's Starmer's Brexit Ref 2.0 all over again! Christ almighty.

whiteline
_115485414_yuimokpawire.jpg
914589145891458
>> No. 91458 Anonymous
13th November 2020
Friday 5:44 pm
91458 In 169 days time
this man is going to be the President of the Republic of England and it's going to be fucking marvellous.
2 posts omitted. Expand all images.
>> No. 91533 Anonymous
15th November 2020
Sunday 9:05 pm
91533 spacer
I keep seeing people say this was staged because nobody actually finishes their last day of work holding a big full of shit from their desk, and plus number 10 has a back entrance for discreet comings and goings. And Cummings going, as well, I dare say.

I don't know why anyone would put on this but of theatre. What's the point?
>> No. 91534 Anonymous
15th November 2020
Sunday 9:07 pm
91534 spacer
>>91533
My theory is that it is vanity - Cummings likes being the centre of attention.
>> No. 91537 Anonymous
15th November 2020
Sunday 9:36 pm
91537 spacer
>Cumming's the name, going's the game

>>91533
What I'd like to know is what does he have in such a large box.
>> No. 91540 Anonymous
15th November 2020
Sunday 10:09 pm
91540 spacer
>>91537
I don't think it's his dignity in there.
>> No. 91543 Anonymous
15th November 2020
Sunday 10:31 pm
91543 spacer
>>91537

A pig's head.

whiteline
Delete Post []
Password  
[0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]