[ 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

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 64990)
Message
File  []
close
o1.jpg
649906499064990
>> No. 64990 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 9:16 am
64990 spacer
Locked
Prime Minister Corbyn... and the 1,000 days that destroyed Britain: As this brilliant imagining of a Corbyn premiership reveals, Tories who gloat over Labour's woe should be careful what they wish for...

The night sky over London was thick with choking black smoke, but in the hellish glow of the flames rising from a myriad burning buildings, the rioters, looters and demonstrators fighting on the city streets could just make out the United Nations helicopter taking Jeremy Corbyn away from 10 Downing Street to his retirement cottage in Ireland.

Not for him the Prime Minister’s Jaguar in which his hated Mrs Thatcher had departed on the night she, too, was deposed. All Government cars had long since been sold in a desperate bid to pay off the £3 trillion National Debt, after the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the European Central Bank had refused to hand a bankrupt, basket-case Britain any more emergency loans.

In any case, the streets weren’t safe enough for a Prime Minister to drive along. Not since the police, furious at being unpaid for months, had gone on an indefinite strike.

People who saw Mr Corbyn as he said goodbye to his staff were shocked by his frailty. The strain of his thousand days in power had all but broken this 73-year-old man, the oldest Prime Minister since Churchill. His hands were trembling, his back bent. The look on his face was not one of anger or bitterness, instead he seemed baffled, bewildered and bemused. ‘I almost pity the old Commie,’ one American member of the UN peacekeeping force said. ‘He just can’t work out what went wrong.’

It had all seemed so different on that glorious day in May 2020 when Corbyn had stood on the doorstep of No 10 – by himself because his hatred of ‘all that personal stuff’ was so intense that he refused to be photographed with his third wife Laura Alvarez – and told the wildly cheering crowd: ‘This is a new dawn for the people of Britain.’

Corbyn’s chief of staff Owen Jones – a princeling of the Far Left elite as the son of two members of Militant Tendency and the grandson of a Communist – declared that the people had taken back their country. The Red Flag was hung from the windows of No 10. Russell Brand kept his garbled verbosity in check for once and simply tweeted: ‘YEEESSSSSS!!!!’

But perhaps the revellers should have paid more attention to the reason for Corbyn’s success. For it was the failure of even the mighty Chinese Communist Party to buck the laws of economics that had led to the China Crisis of 2016. The world’s second largest economy imploded, taking the rest of the world with it.

By the time the 2020 General Election came, the worst of the depression was over. But after four years of austerity and unemployment the electorate didn’t see it that way.
Expand all images.
>> No. 64991 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 9:17 am
64991 spacer
Voters believed Corbyn when he told them that their troubles were the fault of the super-rich, who grew ever wealthier while ordinary people were trapped in poverty.

The young in particular, galvanised by a brilliant social media campaign, had responded to this silver-bearded revolutionary who promised them free university education, no student debt and guaranteed jobs.

An astonishing 83 per cent of 18 to 25-year-olds turned out and gave him their vote. They, and the support of the 52 MPs from the Scottish National Party, were enough to get Corbyn into power.

And even if their elders were shocked when this passionate, lifelong republican point-blank refused to go to Buckingham Palace to meet the Queen, his young supporters were thrilled by such a visible symbol that things had changed. Here, at last, was a politician who was going to keep his promises.

And what promises they had been. Corbyn pledged to clamp down on once-legal tax avoidance as well as illegal tax evasion, claiming that a staggering £120 billion a year could be raised just by forcing the rich to pay their due.

He would renationalise the railways, scrap Britain’s nuclear deterrent and do away with independent schools and the state system’s academies in favour of a centrally controlled National Education Service.

Even more eye-catching was Corbyn’s scheme for a National Investment Bank to back a massive programme of public works and house building, funded by the simple expedient of ordering the Bank of England to print more money.

‘This is quantitative easing for the people, not the bankers!’ he had declaimed to cheering fans, waving ‘Jez we can!’ banners.

A plan to impose rent controls on private landlords had proved hugely popular, as was a total ban on fracking. And the same women who had once thronged Mumsnet to say how sexy they found Corbyn’s passionate commitment to his beliefs were delighted by his promise of a ‘gender-balanced Cabinet’. But as with all revolutions, there were casualties. The Labour establishment had persuaded themselves that somehow Corbyn could be controlled.

They hoped that wise heads such as the veteran party fixer Tom Watson or Corbyn’s rival for the leadership, Andy Burnham, would be the stabilising forces in the new Labour Cabinet and rein in some of the Corbynistas’ wilder fantasies. But that was to reckon without the Hard Left’s ruthlessness at eliminating opponents.

The tide of extremist party members who had joined Labour to make Corbyn leader swept away anyone and everyone who had any link with the hated Blairite past.
>> No. 64992 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 9:20 am
64992 spacer
One moderate, centre-left MP after another was deselected by constituency activists. Night after the night the TV news showed them making the slow walk from their front doors to the cameras at their gates, waiting for their confessions of failure.

In the run-up to the 2020 Election, Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, had issued warnings that no Government, of any party, could buck the markets. Printing money to fund otherwise unaffordable policies ‘had the same effects in every country that’s tried it, from Argentina to Zimbabwe’.

‘If you drastically increase the amount of money in the system, you drastically reduce its value. So you need more money to buy the same goods. That causes hyper-inflation. And with that comes disaster’.

Within days of becoming Prime Minister, Corbyn took his revenge. He stripped the Bank of its political independence, renamed it The People’s Bank and sacked Carney.

As he strode through Heathrow’s Terminal Five on the way to the plane returning him to his native Canada, Carney was confronted by a BBC reporter who asked: ‘How do respond to the Prime Minister’s comments that it’s the people, not the financial markets who control the UK economy?’

Carney gave a wry smile and said: ‘Well, I guess we’ll just have to see what the markets have to say about that.’

They soon spoke, loud and clear. The seizure of the Bank told Britain’s creditors that their money was no longer safe. The pound plummeted in value. There was a global sell-off of Treasury ‘gilts’, the Government bonds that finance the UK’s National Debt. The Government found that, instead of paying interest rates of less than two per cent, it was suddenly contending with Greek-style borrowing costs of ten per cent or more. Pundits spoke of a ‘Wonga economy’ as debt repayments alone became the Government’s single biggest expenditure.

Within weeks of the Election money was flooding out of Britain as the billionaires who had seen London as a safe haven realised that it had suddenly become a much more dangerous place.

The capital’s property prices started tumbling as the lavish mansions of Russian oligarchs, and the overpriced apartments bought off-plan by Far Eastern investors, deluged the market.

‘We will use these empty, unwanted homes for social housing,’ Corbyn said. That earned him plaudits with the public, who had yet to appreciate how the collapse of the London luxury property market would have an impact on the value of ordinary homes across the country. But the rest of the world was less impressed.

The IMF called for drastic cuts in Government spending. The Germans made it plain that Britain could not escape the medicine taken by other EU nations that had found themselves in crisis. London would have to take its orders from Berlin, just as Athens had done. Corbyn simply refused. In an emergency Budget, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Diane Abbott, revoked the tax exemptions given to foreign residents in the UK, announced a Capital Levy and Land Tax and raised the top rate of Income Tax to 95 per cent on incomes over a million pounds.

‘For too long,’ Corbyn said, ‘the poor have borne the brunt of the cuts. Now let’s have some austerity for the rich.’

Corbyn also attempted to reintroduce exchange controls, limiting the amount of money anyone could take out of the country. But in a world of instant electronic transfers, money was simply too mobile to be kept in any one place.

And now it really began to move. In a throwback to the 1970s – the last time the Labour Left tried to defy economic reality – the rich proved why sky-high tax rates raise rock-bottom revenues.

Faced with giving 95 per cent of their money to Chancellor Abbott, they simply left the country and paid nothing at all.

British Airways reported record ticket sales on first-class flights out of London. And none at all coming back. One Direction went off on a US tour and never returned. Multi-millionaire comedians who had once cheered Labour couldn’t see the joke when confronted with a Labour Prime Minister who actually meant what he said about soaking the rich. The summer transfer window saw the Premier League’s biggest stars departing en masse. One club after another came up for sale as its Nanook or American owners ran for the exit. A multi-billion pound league became a two-bob back-water with second-rate players, poverty-stricken clubs and half-empty stadiums.

The windows of Bond Street’s designer fashion stores were boarded up. The office-blocks of the City and Canary Wharf emptied as the banks that Corbyn hated so much left London, taking their high-spending, tax-paying employees with them.

It became a bitter joke that Corbyn, who loved immigrants and asylum seekers so much, had solved the immigration crisis at a stroke. He’d made Britain a country no sane immigrant would ever go near.

The Government’s debt payments were rocketing as the economy was contracting. Tax revenues were way down, unemployment and the cost of welfare way up.

Inflation approached 25 per cent. It was a perfect storm of financial catastrophe. But that wasn’t Corbyn’s only problem.
>> No. 64993 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 9:20 am
64993 spacer
Ever since the darkest days of the Second World War, Britain and America had been bound by the Special Relationship. But to Corbyn, the US was not our closest friend but our most wicked enemy. And the feeling soon became mutual.

With Corbyn abandoning the nuclear deterrent and slashing defence spending, US President Donald Trump announced that America could no longer regard Britain as a reliable ally.

Corbyn did not have time to leave Nato of his own will. When he sold our nuclear submarines to President Putin at a cut-price rate, Trump called for the UK’s expulsion from Nato and imposed an embargo on the import of British goods.

Corbyn was entirely unrepentant, and his defiance delighted his supporters. He made a grovelling apology for the ‘illegal’ Iraq War, promised that British soldiers would never again go to war in support of American imperialism and called for the prosecution of the ‘war criminal’ Tony Blair.

His fans loved the contrast between the billionaire Trump and Comrade Corbyn, happily digging the vegetable beds at his allotment.But Corbyn’s foreign policy did not sit so well with the public. Protesting that he had never been guilty of anti-Semitism, the Prime Minister declared that Israel was the chief obstacle to peace in the Middle East, and described Islamic State as a partner in the peace process. He was photographed shaking hands at No 10 with the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Islamic terrorist organisations.

‘Let’s be thankful for small mercies, at least Her Majesty won’t have to dine with these ghastly people,’ sighed one Palace official. Corbyn had, of course, abolished all state banquets.

As the third year of the Corbyn administration dawned, public unease was rapidly turning to outright opposition. His allies in the public sector unions were disgusted when their members’ salaries were cut by a quarter, then half, then two-thirds as the Treasury ran out of money to pay them.

A loaf of bread passed the £5 barrier. Blackouts became increasingly common. The nation’s few remaining factories fell idle. Hospitals could no longer afford to pay for basic medicines.

Declaring a ‘siege economy’, and ‘socialism in one country’, an increasingly exhausted Corbyn made desperate pleas for the people to rally against the forces of capitalism. But the introduction of food rationing was the final straw.

The disorder that had played out on the streets of Athens a decade earlier were now replayed on a vastly bigger scale. As riots became commonplace, families lived under self-imposed curfew.

Meanwhile, the media reporting the growing opposition to the Government, and the whispers of a ‘no confidence’ vote in the House of Commons, were accused of treachery. The Far Left had always believed that their inability to win elections was due to the machinations of Right-wing press barons who poisoned the people’s minds against them.

They needed little excuse to censor the press and broadcasters in the interest of ‘fair, honest and truthful reporting’. A blogger who wrote that Britain was descending to the level of Zimbabwe was prosecuted for libelling the memory of President Robert Mugabe.

Ironically, it was Corbyn’s better nature that finally defeated him. He lacked the Stalinist zeal to force the people into submission. Like his hero Tony Benn, he still believed in Parliament and refused to give in to radical Ministers who called for its abolition, or, at least, the banning of the Conservative Party.

And thus, on the day it was announced that international peacekeepers would have to be brought in to help bring order back to Britain, the Leader of the Opposition, Boris Johnson, was able to call a vote of no confidence, secure the necessary two-thirds majority and force a General Election.

‘Give him enough rope and he will hang himself,’ a Blairite had said when Corbyn was elected Labour leader. That was true enough. The only problem was that he had hung the country too.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3207363/Prime-Minister-Corbyn-1-000-days-destroyed-Britain-brilliant-imagining-Corbyn-premiership-reveals-Tories-gloat-Labour-s-woe-careful-wish-for.html
>> No. 64994 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 9:23 am
64994 spacer
I was about to make a comment as if this was UKIP fan-fiction -- then I saw the Mail link.
>> No. 64995 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 9:42 am
64995 spacer
>>64994

I... I have no words.
>> No. 64996 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 9:44 am
64996 spacer
>>64994
It's something they seem to specialise in. They did the same thing about the Scottish referendum and probably Miliband too.
>> No. 64998 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 11:32 am
64998 spacer
>>64996
I think they did a very similar bit about Savile as PM too.
>> No. 64999 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 1:11 pm
64999 spacer
>>64998
They said how it wouldn't be such a bad idea, after the thing Channel 4 did. It's worth noting that Channel 4 actually did bother reading the UKIP manifesto and working out the impact, instead of what I assume to be the Mail dreaming up what they imagine Corbyn's platform to be, assuming the party would adopt it all and deciding what they would like the consequences to be.
>> No. 65000 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 1:16 pm
65000 spacer
>>64999
Seeing as Cameron is too left wing for The Mail, unless they've changed their stance on him since May, anything along the lines of the SNP or Corbyn means we'll turn into a bigger basket case than Greece.
>> No. 65015 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 7:39 am
65015 spacer
Apparently Corbyn is considering renationalisation without compensation to the current shareholders. Maybe this isn't too far off.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-contest-jeremy-corbyn-warned-over-threat-to-seize-back-assets-10468514.html
>> No. 65016 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 8:24 am
65016 spacer
>>65015
If you buy something from someone that wasn't theirs to sell, you aren't normally compensated when it's taken off you. Even our corporate law recognises undervaluation as a possible fraud.
>> No. 65017 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 12:49 pm
65017 spacer
This is an old Mail tradition. They've been writing foreboding accounts of what would happen if certain politicians won power since Hitler. At least I think that's what their editorial stance on the Nazis was, someone might want to double check that.
>> No. 65020 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 1:39 pm
65020 spacer
>Corbyn’s chief of staff Owen Jones
I burst out laughing at this point, I couldn't read anymore.
>> No. 65024 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 2:53 pm
65024 spacer
>>65017

Didn't the Mail think Hitler was an alright bloke up until the war, hence people calling them the "Daily Heil"?

Or if that just a smug lefty urban legend?
>> No. 65025 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 3:08 pm
65025 spacer
>>65024
Dunno about Hitler but they definitely supported his ideas. As Private Eye loves to point out, their most infamous headline from that period was "Hurrah for the Blackshirts", that being another name for the British Union of Fascists.
>> No. 65026 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 3:26 pm
65026 spacer
>>65025

Lord Rothermere, founder and owner of the Daily Mail, sent a series of supportive letters and telegrams to Adolf Hitler and other senior Nazis. There is absolutely no doubt that he was a Nazi sympathiser.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/apr/01/pressandpublishing.secondworldwar
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1484647/When-Rothermere-urged-Hitler-to-invade-Romania.html
>> No. 65027 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 3:53 pm
65027 spacer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGGVbxDzyQw
>> No. 65028 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 4:02 pm
65028 spacer
>>65027
I've told you before. I'm sick to death of hearing this angry cunt's voice. Stop posting him for god's sake. Where are the mods? This place is a fucking joke.
>> No. 65029 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 4:11 pm
65029 spacer
>>65028
You don't have to click play on the video.
>> No. 65030 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 4:20 pm
65030 spacer
>>65028
This ranting hectoring guy is indeed an example of how to make dissent and protest completely unattractive, the medium is so ugly it kind of invalidates whatever message he might have, please please stop posting it whatever fool it is who likes him.
>> No. 65031 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 4:20 pm
65031 spacer
>>65029
Oh sure. Side with the person spreading discredited economics. Side with the person wanting to throw away centuries of successful monarchy. Side with the person who wishes to dismantle our nuclear deterrent on the eve of the second cold war. Bloody hell.

I'm so done with this place.
>> No. 65032 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 4:22 pm
65032 spacer
>>65027
Why would you ruin my day? I hate this cunt.
>> No. 65033 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 4:23 pm
65033 spacer
>>65031
The DM is that way, lad.
>> No. 65034 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 6:03 pm
65034 spacer
>>65031

>Side with the person who wishes to dismantle our nuclear deterrent on the eve of the second cold war.

Frankly I can't think of a single more fucking sensible thing to do. Have you seen Threads? I don't fancy the idea of post-nuclear assault Britain. Maybe once he's sold Trident to Comrade Putin, we can even work on kicking the Yanks off our soil.
>> No. 65035 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 6:09 pm
65035 spacer
>>65034
Let's not dig this up again. We had a thread of several hundred posts, I think in /b/, about our nuclear 'deterrent'. For me it's an open and shut case that we should get rid of it as soon as possible, but some posters went to mind-bending leaps of logic to explain why we shouldn't. Something about 'we'd never use them and that's why we need them'.
>> No. 65036 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 6:14 pm
65036 spacer
>>65035
Let's not dig this up again, but first let's all just hold on while you set our your position? The only bender here is you.
>> No. 65037 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 6:16 pm
65037 spacer
>>65031
>Side with the person spreading discredited economics
If you have any firmly held economic beliefs, you're doing that no matter who you place your lot with, lad. It's hard to think of a single school of economics which some other school hasn't claimed to be discredited.
>> No. 65040 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 7:09 pm
65040 spacer
>>65037
Why are so many economists still at school?
>> No. 65041 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 7:15 pm
65041 spacer
>>65040

We need more economists to teach the next generation of economics teachers.
>> No. 65042 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 7:21 pm
65042 spacer
What do economists actually do all day?
>> No. 65043 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 7:28 pm
65043 spacer
>>65042
Economics, obviously.
>> No. 65044 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 7:38 pm
65044 spacer
>>65042
The sorts of things they imagine "other" scientists do.
>> No. 65045 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 7:42 pm
65045 spacer
>>65044
To be fair, I'm still waiting for theoretical physicists to start selling new universes.
>> No. 65046 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 7:47 pm
65046 spacer
>>65045
Thanks to theoretical physics, my house now has several more dimensions than it used to.
>> No. 65047 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 7:54 pm
65047 spacer
>>65045
After a few jars in the past, my supervisor came up with the idea that rather than turn people's loved ones' ashes or remains into pretty diamonds as a memento, we should start turning them into graphite instead since diamond is only a meta-stable form of carbon which will eventually turn into graphite anyway (the lifetime of which is compNanookle to the age of the universe, but people don't need to know that). It started out as a joke, but the more we gassed about it, the more we realised that people would actually give us several hundred quid to essentially burn their loved ones' remains again and send it back to them with a Raman spectrum and a certificate saying "Congratulations, your loved ones' remains will now remain in perfect crystalline graphite form for all eternity!" and that a few hundred quid here and there wasn't to be sniffed at if we could sink it back into lab supplies.
>> No. 65049 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 8:30 pm
65049 spacer
>>65043
Is that actually a 'thing' though? Is the whole point of learning economics so you can become an economics teacher or journalist and teach other people all you have learned about economics? I've never seen or heard anything by Robert Peston I'd call other than "stating the bleeding obvious" and he's Head of Economics. Is it like modern art?
>> No. 65051 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 8:34 pm
65051 spacer
>>65049
You could infer every science is bunk if you went by what supposedly expert journalists have to say.
>> No. 65052 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 8:43 pm
65052 spacer
>>65049
>Is the whole point of learning economics so you can become an economics teacher or journalist and teach other people all you have learned about economics?
Or advise businesses and government, conduct research etc.
>> No. 65062 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 9:33 pm
65062 spacer
>>65052
Don't be silly.
Economists "advise" business and government, and conduct "research".
>> No. 65071 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 11:08 pm
65071 spacer
>>65062
Just like other scientists then?
>> No. 65072 Anonymous
25th August 2015
Tuesday 6:55 am
65072 spacer
>>65071
If they're scientists how come students end up with a BA rather than BSc?
>> No. 65073 Anonymous
25th August 2015
Tuesday 7:40 am
65073 spacer
How serious do you think allegations are that other party members have infiltrated the Labour party, to elect Corbyn as leader to make Labour lose in the long run? Is this scaremongering from Corbyn's opponents?

Was Milliband's decision to relax joining rules to the party a bad idea?
>> No. 65074 Anonymous
25th August 2015
Tuesday 8:05 am
65074 spacer
>>65073
How many have joined, is it around 400k?
>> No. 65075 Anonymous
25th August 2015
Tuesday 8:16 am
65075 spacer
>>65073
I would be surprised if the number of Tories voting was anything close to the number of genuine Corbyn sympathisers crossing over from the Greens, Left Unity, TUSC etc., and old Labour disaffectees coming out of the woodwork. All the polling I've seen shows Corbyn ahead amongst even members who've been there for over 5 years, making the whole thing moot. Seems like scaremongering intended to undermine the inevitable Corbyn leadership.

If this contest results in Labour having the conversations they've been avoiding for 20 years, and forces them to finally address the fact that they've become a party of fundamentally opposed factions, I don't see the loosening of the rules as a bad thing.
>> No. 65076 Anonymous
25th August 2015
Tuesday 8:19 am
65076 spacer
>>65072
https://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/study-here/undergraduates/the-courses/3-year-ba-physics
>> No. 65077 Anonymous
25th August 2015
Tuesday 4:37 pm
65077 spacer
>>65073
>How serious do you think allegations are that other party members have infiltrated the Labour party, to elect Corbyn as leader to make Labour lose in the long run?
Very, but I also think it doesn't matter. Harman stated that the purpose of opening up the leadership elections through the £3 vote was to engage and invite the entire electorate. That is what has happened.
>> No. 65082 Anonymous
26th August 2015
Wednesday 7:39 am
65082 spacer
Why don't other papers ruthlessly mock this kind of thing? Even by Mail standards this is embarrassing.
>> No. 65083 Anonymous
26th August 2015
Wednesday 9:26 am
65083 spacer
>>65082
Because none of them want Corbyn to win. Evidently the Grauniad only like a surge in popularity for left wing candidates/policies/parties when they happen in other countries.
>> No. 65084 Anonymous
26th August 2015
Wednesday 11:09 am
65084 spacer
>>65082
Too cheap and too easy. As our resident Mail apologist will tell you, it becomes tedious after a while.
>> No. 65085 Anonymous
26th August 2015
Wednesday 12:04 pm
65085 spacer
>>65083
At least the Guardian has the capacity for introspection, right?


Right?
http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2015/798-the-guardian-readers-editor-responds-on-jeremy-corbyn.html
>> No. 65086 Anonymous
26th August 2015
Wednesday 12:10 pm
65086 spacer
>>65085
Resident Mail apologist here. The Mail and the Guardian are opposite sides of the same coin. The trendsetting liberal media elite (who by the way I more closely align with) are not quick to acknowledge this as you say.
>> No. 65087 Anonymous
26th August 2015
Wednesday 1:04 pm
65087 spacer

tmp_3915-quote-mining-369990423.jpg
650876508765087
>>65085
>> No. 65088 Anonymous
26th August 2015
Wednesday 1:22 pm
65088 spacer
>>65085
http://www.medialens.org/index.php/about-us/what-is-media-lens.html

I'm sorry I can't take this seriously.

Also a lot of your article amounted to nothing more than the propaganda he so claims to despise.
>> No. 65089 Anonymous
26th August 2015
Wednesday 1:23 pm
65089 spacer
>>65082
Because it's catty and pathetic to do so.
>> No. 65090 Anonymous
26th August 2015
Wednesday 5:07 pm
65090 spacer
>>65088
Media Lens certainly ain't perfect, but why can't you 'take this seriously'?
>> No. 65091 Anonymous
26th August 2015
Wednesday 6:26 pm
65091 spacer
>>65082

I suppose that would be giving it too much credit. I've seen a couple of the lefty commentators mention it but it seems to be more of a tut and roll your eyes kind of response.
>> No. 65092 Anonymous
26th August 2015
Wednesday 6:54 pm
65092 spacer
>>65089

Seems right up the print media's alley.

>>65091

Yeah, I suppose that's enough. It's just so silly.
>> No. 65183 Anonymous
10th September 2015
Thursday 5:59 pm
65183 spacer
Saturday morning, 11am, BBC2. Set your alarm clocks, lads.
>> No. 65193 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 10:45 am
65193 spacer
>>65183
Any idea when they'll declare the winner? Fucked if I can be arsed to watch all the bumf beforehand.
>> No. 65194 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 10:48 am
65194 spacer
>>65193

>It begins at 11:00 BST, with the result of Labour's deputy leadership election announced first. At 11:30, the winner of the leadership contest will be unveiled and he or she will then make a short acceptance speech. In both cases, round-by-round details of voting will be made available to show how each winner emerged
>> No. 65195 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 10:51 am
65195 spacer
>>65194
Cheers me dear.
>> No. 65196 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 11:01 am
65196 spacer
>>64990

Any minute now...
>> No. 65197 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 11:02 am
65197 spacer
>>65196

Well, looks like deputy leader at 11:15 and leader at 11:30
>> No. 65198 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 11:11 am
65198 spacer
BBC pundits are certain the £3 voters will bring in a Corbyn landslide. Looks like we'll have an upper middle class socialist in opposition. One who spent much of his career ignoring a massive paedophile ring in his constituency.
>> No. 65199 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 11:13 am
65199 spacer
How hard is it to keep a camera steady? All this wobbling is giving me a headache.
>> No. 65200 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 11:30 am
65200 spacer
Deputy leader is Tom Watson.
>> No. 65201 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 11:31 am
65201 spacer
>>65199
Very fucking hard, as it happens. They're not in a studio, where you have studio cameras which can be pre-programmed with shot positions and a floor surface designed to keep them stable. They're on an OB in a very busy room with lots of movement, probably on wooden staging at the back.
>> No. 65202 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 11:35 am
65202 spacer
>>65200

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYgXedpeMuc

Also, apparently there's a bakers' union.
>> No. 65203 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 11:43 am
65203 spacer
It's Corbyn with almost 60% in the first round.
>> No. 65204 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 11:44 am
65204 spacer
Labour leader is Stormin' bloody Corbyn. 59.5% in the first round. Looks like another decade of Conservative rule. Lucky us.
>> No. 65205 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 11:44 am
65205 spacer
Here we go, lads.
>> No. 65206 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 11:45 am
65206 spacer
That first-round result in full:
Corbyn 60%
Burnham 19%
Cooper 17%
That other one 4%
>> No. 65207 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 11:45 am
65207 spacer
Burnham looks like he don't no wots hit 'im.
>> No. 65208 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 11:45 am
65208 spacer
Fucking landslide.

I loved Burnham's expression when they read out his pitiful number of votes. He genuinely thought he had a chance, the daft prick.
>> No. 65209 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 11:48 am
65209 spacer
The "Jez we can!" chanting was cringe worthy. It didn't even sound like they were pronouncing it correctly.
>> No. 65210 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 11:55 am
65210 spacer
>>65208
They all found out the numbers before the event started. They all had to keep their looks up until Corbyn's win was officially announced.
>> No. 65211 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 12:04 pm
65211 spacer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgMl9qBTBq0
>> No. 65212 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 12:06 pm
65212 spacer
Pleasing result. Any wild speculation informed and well-reasoned forecasts as to what this may mean for quality of life for those living in Britain?
>> No. 65213 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 12:07 pm
65213 spacer
>>65212
Refer to post above yours.
>> No. 65214 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 12:15 pm
65214 spacer

areseth.png
652146521465214
>>65210

U wot?

When will the lies end.
>> No. 65215 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 12:22 pm
65215 spacer
Interesting what this might mean for the next election, although it's obviously wild speculation at this point, with labour as a potentially genuine leftist movement that cares for social welfare but also embraces immigration.

UKIP voters who voted on an anti-immigration agenda but have seen social welfare gutted by the Tories - what will they do?

I guess the death of New Labour might cement shy Tories as confirmed Tories, and mop up any remaining libdems.
>> No. 65216 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 12:22 pm
65216 spacer
>>65212
Read the OP.
>> No. 65217 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 12:23 pm
65217 spacer
>>65215

Boris vs Corbyn. Banter Meltdown. Can't fucking wait.
>> No. 65218 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 12:37 pm
65218 spacer
>>65216
He said "informed and well-reasoned", lad.
>> No. 65219 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 12:46 pm
65219 spacer
>>65215
>UKIP voters who voted on an anti-immigration agenda but have seen social welfare gutted by the Tories - what will they do?

I think you're overestimating how much empathy a factory labourer on £18k a year has for someone living the life of Riley on bennies.

A lot will come down to the EU referendum, in my opinion.
>> No. 65220 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 12:48 pm
65220 spacer
>>65215

It won't affect things much at all.

I think it's nice that the party has taken an unexpectedly democratic turn, but there are two issues Labour need to address if they wish to be electable again, and even under Corbyn, I doubt they will.

Scotland is the first. This is the most hopeful of the two- JC might be able to build alliance with the SNP or otherwise win the Scottish voters around with his liberal credibility. The opportunity is there if they do things right, and Scotland is one place they can guarantee it's not the Tories they are losing votes to.

Immigration is the second. It's the biggest factor in eroding their traditional working class support. It's the one aspect of ideology Labour appears completely unwilling to compromise on, to the point of apparent fetishisation, despite willingness to swing between left and right on nearly all other issues. They don't need to go full UKIP, but they need to try and regain some sort of credibility with working class voters.
>> No. 65221 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 12:57 pm
65221 spacer
>>65220
>It's the one aspect of ideology Labour appears completely unwilling to compromise on
That's because there's no need for them to compromise on the idea that people are people. We've been through this before. We don't have an immigration problem. We have a lying politicians problem.
>> No. 65222 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 1:01 pm
65222 spacer
>>65221

You'll notice I never said we do have an immigration problem. I said it's the biggest issue in reducing Labours working class support.
>> No. 65223 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 1:03 pm
65223 spacer
>>65222
>You'll notice I never said we do have an immigration problem.
No, but you did say they needed to compromise on it, which rather implies that one exists. They don't need to compromise on it at all. We need to properly educate people in this country, instead of allowing populist ideologues to lie to us unchallenged.
>> No. 65224 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 1:08 pm
65224 spacer
>>65223

If you say so ladm8. If the electorate want to vote for something else, we just have to educate them into wanting what we want. Democracy in action!

Good luck with that. That's why I said I doubt anything much will change. Labour will remain unelectable. I would like to be proven wrong in 2020, but I won't be.
>> No. 65225 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 1:12 pm
65225 spacer
>>65224
>If you say so ladm8. If the electorate want to vote for something else, we just have to educate them into wanting what we want.
Yes, that's pretty much how the current government won the election. Awfully undemocratic, isn't it?
>> No. 65226 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 1:23 pm
65226 spacer
>>65221
I thought the predominant reasons Labour did it is because immigrants are more likely to vote for them and as they also wanted to "rub the Right's nose in diversity" rather than for any noble cause?
>> No. 65227 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 1:24 pm
65227 spacer
We have an immigration problem.
>> No. 65228 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 1:26 pm
65228 spacer
>>65225

Well, yes. It is.
>> No. 65229 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 1:28 pm
65229 spacer
>>65226
I don't think you can really run with "they're not likely to vote Labour". For a start, there are nowhere near enough of them for this to make a difference.
>> No. 65230 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 1:32 pm
65230 spacer
>>65228
So how do we fix the problem of governments winning by undemocratic means?
>> No. 65231 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 1:33 pm
65231 spacer

10033257-large.jpg
652316523165231
>>65206
Poor Liz Kendall. She may have lost the election but she certainly won my heart.

>>65212
Conservatives no longer have a credible opposition so many commentators have suggested the party could soon implode without a common enemy. I'm not so sure about this given the right is less prone to those levels of factionalism but certainly the loss of a genuine choice in elections is going to mess with political accountability unless the Conservatives fuck up horribly.

Its okay though, once Labour completely alienates ordinary people they can flock to the Lib Dems with the EU referendum leading to other parties MPs cosying up with the kind of soft-left Burnham was supposed to bring. The bird of liberty shall rise!

>>65223
You've got more chance of 'correcting' peoples opinion of the Star Wars prequels m8 and that was before all this migrant bullshit kicked off.
>> No. 65232 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 1:34 pm
65232 spacer
>>65227
Yes. We keep spending taxpayers' money on trying to keep them out like Cnut trying to order back the tide.
>> No. 65233 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 1:38 pm
65233 spacer
>>65231
>Conservatives no longer have a credible opposition so many commentators have suggested the party could soon implode without a common enemy. I'm not so sure about this given the right is less prone to those levels of factionalism but certainly the loss of a genuine choice in elections is going to mess with political accountability unless the Conservatives fuck up horribly.

My dad agrees with the first bit and I agree with you. Whilst there are several parties within Labour, there are also a few within the Tories, but they tend to be more pragmatic and use their influence internally rather than lashing out seriously.
>> No. 65234 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 1:38 pm
65234 spacer
>>65232
What an odd thing to say.
>> No. 65235 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 1:40 pm
65235 spacer
>>65229
About a decade ago a Labour MP, Chris Mullin I think, wrote that there were at least 20 Labour seats, including Jack Straw's, which were dependent on Asians in order to win.
>> No. 65236 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 1:41 pm
65236 spacer
>>65234
It's odd to say that wasteful spending is a problem?
>> No. 65237 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 2:00 pm
65237 spacer
>>65232
>We keep spending taxpayers' money on trying to keep them out like Cnut trying to order back the tide.

Well you can hardly argue it doesn't work, current crisis alone shows that migrants travel along the path of least resistance. It pays too given how expensive it is to be an immigrant in Britain.

What annoys me about your analogy though is you are pretending that resisting an ever present pressure somehow invalidates the task. We might as well sack all the doctors under that logic as we're all going to die anyway.
>> No. 65238 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 2:11 pm
65238 spacer
>>65236
What's the wasteful spending?
>> No. 65239 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 2:15 pm
65239 spacer
>>65237
>Well you can hardly argue it doesn't work
The 50000 target, and continued failure to even make pressure towards it, says otherwise.
>> No. 65240 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 2:18 pm
65240 spacer
>>65238
Employing a substantial border force to enforce "paper offenders" that do no harm to anyone.
>> No. 65241 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 2:19 pm
65241 spacer
>>65240
Oh you're one of those.

Never mind.
>> No. 65242 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 2:21 pm
65242 spacer
Tristram Hunt's name sounds like cistern.

Sounds like.
>> No. 65243 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 2:22 pm
65243 spacer
>>65239
I'm painting with a broader brush here. We get less asylum seekers than we would otherwise because the walls are high and the whole process of integration is more difficult. See: Difference between Danish and Swedish immigration.

Yes we never hit the targets but that is the government being a shithouse for you.
>> No. 65244 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 2:46 pm
65244 spacer
>>65243
To deny the existence of the British population problem (yes, let's call it that, because it includes old baby boomers as well as the darkies) is silly. More people means more pressure on resources and jobs and NHS and the Shengen free movement policy is only good for men looking for 30 quid shags from Eastern Euro prostitutes. Do you want to continue the forced sexual slavery of women by supporting the current immigration policy? I think not.
>> No. 65245 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 2:48 pm
65245 spacer
>>65241
Oh, you're one of those. Best stay in bed in case the visa overstayers, parking offenders, home tapers and personal weed growers get you.
>> No. 65246 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 2:58 pm
65246 spacer
>>65244
If that's your argument then you clearly don't understand the " British population problem". See >>61357.
>> No. 65247 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 3:09 pm
65247 spacer
How's our resident betlad? I bet he's off downing bottles of fizz with all the cash he's won on this one.
>> No. 65248 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 3:47 pm
65248 spacer
>>65224

>If the electorate want to vote for something else, we just have to educate them into wanting what we want. Democracy in action!

So fine examples of representational democracy such as Americans voting that their schools teach creationist science and ban evolution from the classroom is right. We certainly shouldn't try to educate people out of their valid positions.
>> No. 65249 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 3:55 pm
65249 spacer
>>65248

Yes.

Whilst it's lamentable that sometimes the electorate are idiots, there is a fine line between what you'd call education, and what others might call propaganda.

I would rather the government invested in neither. It's there to do the people's will.
>> No. 65250 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 4:05 pm
65250 spacer
>>65249
On what basis would you call correcting the electorate's mistaken understanding (for that it is mistaken cannot possibly be in doubt) "propaganda"? That most people are wrong about immigration and welfare is beyond dispute - the facts on this matter speak for themselves.
>> No. 65251 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 4:15 pm
65251 spacer
>>65250

There are no facts involved you bloody twerp. If people are prejudiced against coloured people and don't like the idea of a welfare state, that's their opinion, and no amount of facts will fix it.

Do you honestly think the majority of public support for spending cuts is there because people were misinformed about the figures? They are mistaken because they haven't seen the pie chart? They don't even know there are figures, and if they did they still wouldn't change their minds. They just have a blind contempt for people who wear tracksuits, and justify it with rubbish about taxes. There is substantial statistical evidence that blacks commit more crime than whites, but I bet you don't believe it do you? That's facts for you.

Fuck off to China, your ideas will be much more suited there. Even if half the people in it are morons, this here is a free country.
>> No. 65252 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 4:20 pm
65252 spacer
>>65247

I don't know who betlad is, but I had a tenner on Corbyn at 50/1. I'm still gutted. The money stinks of failure.
>> No. 65253 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 4:26 pm
65253 spacer
>>65250
What are these indisputable facts about immigration? Is net migration of ~300,000 a year the optimum amount or should we be aiming for more or less?

The only there is a group of drugs called benzodiazepines and a drug called diazepam, but no benzodiazepam I've seen mentioned are economical, which are quite flimsy really.
>> No. 65254 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 4:32 pm
65254 spacer
>>65251
>Do you honestly think the majority of public support for spending cuts is there because people were misinformed about the figures?
Erm, yes. What other reason could there be? Do you honestly think people wake up one day and think "You know what? I fancy cutting public spending today."? Of course not. People see things around them and make assumptions, and then politicians feed them a pack of lies confirming their assumptions. If you ask people how many immigrants there are, they overestimate by a factor of around 3-5 and when told the correct answer say "the statistics must be wrong".

Have a word with yourself, lad.
>> No. 65255 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 4:32 pm
65255 spacer
>>65251
Why do racists always have to muddy the waters? You can't talk about immigration because of cunts like you.
>> No. 65256 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 4:33 pm
65256 spacer
>>65253
Yeah, I mean who cares about the economy, right?
>> No. 65257 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 4:41 pm
65257 spacer
Four Labour front benchers have resigned, with rumours of at least eight further resignations to come. Several Labour MPs have announced that they will not accept a position in Corbyn's cabinet. The rot has started.

http://www.cityam.com/224165/labour-leadership-corbyn-victory-triggers-shadow-cabinet-resignation-senior-frontbench-mps
>> No. 65258 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 4:43 pm
65258 spacer
>>65256
It's not the be all and end all, but the economic arguments are flimsy. I'm certain I read it has a negligible effect on barometers like GDP per capita and productivity.

Anyway, my issue is that reports on the economic there is a group of drugs called benzodiazepines and a drug called diazepam, but no benzodiazepam of immigration are prone to cherry picking. The last study I saw said that they boosted our economy as a whole but that a lot of it, such as unskilled labour and people from the likes of Somalia and laplanderstan, were actually a drain. We need nurses and scientists and others with specialist skills, but I'm yet to see anything indisputable from an economic perspective that we really need so many of the others over a relatively short timeframe.
>> No. 65259 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 4:45 pm
65259 spacer
>>65253
>What are these indisputable facts about immigration?
That they contribute more value to the economy than they abstract, that they have negligible effect on wages and unemployment, that their presence stimulates economic demand, and that without large volumes of immigrants in the short term our demographics are fucked.

Really, there have been more than enough studies now to close the book on this. You can still argue with it, but you'll be joining the ranks of "climate change isn't real", "vaping is no safer than smoking", and "9/11 was controlled demolition".
>> No. 65260 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 4:56 pm
65260 spacer
>>65257
Why are they being cunts?
>> No. 65261 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 4:57 pm
65261 spacer
>>65258
People from Somalia are refugees. People from laplanderstan are migrants. Please learn the difference. Thank you.
>> No. 65262 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 4:58 pm
65262 spacer
>>65258
>It's not the be all and end all
It is, however, possibly the single most important factor affecting our lives.

>but the economic arguments are flimsy.
If you say so, lad.
>> No. 65263 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 5:02 pm
65263 spacer
>>65262
>We need nurses and scientists and others with specialist skills, but I'm yet to see anything indisputable from an economic perspective that we really need so many of the others over a relatively short timeframe.

If you can prove me wrong with indisputable evidently then I'll stand corrected.
>> No. 65264 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 5:03 pm
65264 spacer
I think the economic argument is pretty sound in favour of immigration. What I don't understand is why it's so easily understood in a labour market sense but not a physical or fiscal sense amongst the left.

I see and respect the idea of freedom of movement of labour as being fundamentally positive to economic development, however the side effects of that I do not agree with. For example, whilst it may benefit the WHOLE nation economically it may not benefit anyone per capita, and may be detrimental socially. To be against free marketist policies and in favour of mass immigration is fundamentally hypocritical.
>> No. 65265 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 5:08 pm
65265 spacer
>>65264
Actually no I'll reword that - I think of myself as a national liberal - I look out for my countrymen and shared heritage with that cunt wearing trackies down the street. Cunt he may be but I feel some (perhaps misplaed) connection with him. Likewise, I want people within that nation to have absolute freedom of will, and I find mass immigration inherently opposed to both of those points. Even the 'skill gap' side - economics suggests those skill gaps will be realised in time and it's essentially a time lag between one development and another. Immigration suppresses that and skews the future market whilst being socially detrimental. Even today in places like central London we have issues with there not being enough unskilled workers which would naturally lead to a better economic equilibrium, instead peoplea re being imported to fill it and pushing the unskilled outside of London and those imported unskilled into worse lives.
>> No. 65266 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 5:13 pm
65266 spacer
>>65263
Look at any recent population pyramid for the UK and you'll find the evidence you need staring you in the face.
>> No. 65267 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 5:17 pm
65267 spacer
>>65265
Oh dear. Night on the tiles, was it Nige?
>> No. 65268 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 5:19 pm
65268 spacer
>>65261
People from either country are people.
>> No. 65269 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 5:19 pm
65269 spacer
what the flying fuck is this benzodiazepam bollocks?
>> No. 65270 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 5:27 pm
65270 spacer
>>65269

A beautiful, magnificent wordfilter.
>> No. 65271 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 5:27 pm
65271 spacer
>>65268
What are you trying to say? Be more clear please.
>> No. 65272 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 5:30 pm
65272 spacer
>>65266
That doesn't mean:

a) We need so many over such a short time frame when it's such a long-term issue.

b) It isn't the indisputable economic evidence I asked for. Keep the goalposts where they are.

Also, I think we need to establish what this evidence is meant to prove. I think just over 75% of people want immigration reduced, with only Britain First twats wanting none whatsoever. Is every single form and type of immigration beneficial? Does it mean we should have more immigration? Are we at the optimum level? Are we seeing diminishing returns? Would we be noticeably worse off if it was cut by a third? There are economic there is a group of drugs called benzodiazepines and a drug called diazepam, but no benzodiazepam to immigration as a whole, but that doesn't mean all of it is good and it needs looking at in depth rather than just general blanket terms.
>> No. 65273 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 5:33 pm
65273 spacer
>>65271
Whether one is a refugee or migrant is an insignificant detail on a bit of paper somewhere.
>> No. 65274 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 5:35 pm
65274 spacer
>>65273
How is one person trying to escape war and famine compared to an IT consultant trying to come here from a stable country, an insignificant detail?
>> No. 65275 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 5:38 pm
65275 spacer
>>65266
Why can't we follow the Saudi immigration policy? Workers/Immigrants get a visa through the companies that employ them, and can stay for as long as they work. Once the work finishes, and they can't secure anything else, they have to leave within a reasonable time frame. That sounds very fair to me.
>> No. 65276 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 6:01 pm
65276 spacer
>>65272
>a) We need so many over such a short time frame when it's such a long-term issue.
It's not a long term issue. It's an immediate problem, for which a short term solution is needed. We don't really have the 20-30 years we need for boosting the birth rate to take effect. Getting the dependency ratio down requires adding lots of people to the workforce, or culling the dependents. The nature of the specific problem we have, namely the baby boomers being unusually numerous and unusually unreproductive, is such that the problem is worse now than it is in future generations, so a big healthy dose of new people will get us over the immediate bump and make things easier to deal with in future.

>b) It isn't the indisputable economic evidence I asked for.
It is. Unless you have some evidence that those producing the pyramids have got their sums wrong with which to dispute them, obviously.

>I think just over 75% of people want immigration reduced, with only Britain First twats wanting none whatsoever.
The demographic time bomb won't magically go away with the power of people's desire for less immigration. There's also a degree of xenophobia in the debate. Many people talk about the number of people coming, but neglect the substantial number of people from places like the US, Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. As pointed out earlier in the thread, people don't think of them as migrants, but label them "expats" instead. If we put people through Five Whys in examining their ideas on immigration you'd struggle to get anything coherent out of them. The social effects are massively overstated, and the public services argument is a red herring. Saying services are stretched therefore we should cut immigration is like saying your brakes don't work so you should drive less, as opposed to, say, fixing your brakes.
>> No. 65277 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 6:06 pm
65277 spacer
>>65274
Let me turn that question around. Why does it make a difference? Do you basically not want to put up with their ugly brown faces unless you have to, or some other nonsense like that?
>> No. 65278 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 6:10 pm
65278 spacer
>>65277
I don't understand your question. You are not being very clear, so all I have are implications and assumptions about whatever you are trying to say.

Are you trying to say it doesn't matter who wants to come here, let them all come? Or that it doesn't matter if one is educated and from a stable country or trying to escape war and famine, we want none in?

As for refugees and asylum seekers, it is covered by the 1951 Refugee Convention. Migrants are totally a different thing. So please be clear and concise next time. Thank you.
>> No. 65279 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 6:36 pm
65279 spacer
>>65214
In case you're serious, I stood in an election this year, and it's true, you are told the results before you mount the platform. This is so the returning officer can acknowledge your acceptance of the result.
>> No. 65280 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 6:56 pm
65280 spacer
>>65278
>As for refugees and asylum seekers, it is covered by the 1951 Refugee Convention. Migrants are totally a different thing.
As I said, an insignificant detail on a bit of paper, which doesn't help us evaluate people at all. Unless you're trying to say that only one group is entitled to any dignity.
>> No. 65281 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 6:59 pm
65281 spacer
>>65278
Also, the question is crystal clear. Why should it make a difference what their status is? Rules are rarely a good justification for anything. The circumstances justify the rules, not the other way round.
>> No. 65282 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 7:05 pm
65282 spacer
>>65254

It appears you are the one who needs to have a word with yourself. You just made a post pretty much entirely agreeing with me- It's the public's own ignorance, regardless of facts, and then refuse to listen to the reality. You daft bugger.
>> No. 65283 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 7:15 pm
65283 spacer
>>65282
But I'm not agreeing with you at all. There are facts, and people are ignoring them. You seem to be suggesting that there are no facts, and we should do nothing about the ignorance. I'm suggesting that actually we do need to do something about it.
>> No. 65284 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 7:18 pm
65284 spacer
>>65280
>>65281
So we shouldn't accept a refugee in place of a migrant?
>> No. 65285 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 7:25 pm
65285 spacer
>>65276
>Unless you have some evidence that those producing the pyramids have got their sums wrong with which to dispute them, obviously.

It is evidence there is an issue. It is not, however, evidence that the current method is the best solution to the issue.

Aside from the demographic time bomb do we have this indisputable evidence mentioned in >>65263 as I'm still waiting?
>> No. 65286 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 7:27 pm
65286 spacer
>>65284
Why "in place of"? Why do we need to choose? It's not like we're short of space or anything.
>> No. 65287 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 7:30 pm
65287 spacer
>>65285
So, where else do we get a couple of million new adults from to make up the shortfall between children growing up and old people retiring?
>> No. 65288 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 7:41 pm
65288 spacer
>>65287
Oh, we're talking in silly terms of polar opposites between net migration per year of about 330,000 or absolutely nothing with no middle ground?

Is there indisputable evidence that reducing net migration to 100,000 would not also be able to address this issue?
>> No. 65289 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 7:43 pm
65289 spacer
>>65288
>Oh, we're talking in silly terms of polar opposites between net migration per year of about 330,000 or absolutely nothing with no middle ground?
Depends. Would you accept some middle ground between killing a all old people and not killing them? Didn't think so.
>> No. 65290 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 7:46 pm
65290 spacer
>>65289
Irrefutable evidence, n1 ladm8.
>> No. 65291 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 7:51 pm
65291 spacer
>>65287

We don't, we just wait for the old people to fucking die, which then balances it out.

In the meantime we could think about encouraging much greater private pension participation to offset the tax burden, or at very least making the state pension a benefit you only get if you don't have any other means to live on.

Japan are doing alright. They have largely the same (worse, even) problems we do with debt and ageing population, but they are also incredibly xenophobic, and the economy hasn't imploded yet. You could argue that conditions for youngsters growing up aren't great, but then they are not in Britain either; we have a generation already who will only ever rent. The horse has fucking bolted.
>> No. 65292 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 7:57 pm
65292 spacer
>>65286
Oh my bad. I didn't know you were trolling me.
>> No. 65293 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 8:04 pm
65293 spacer
>>65291
>We don't, we just wait for the old people to fucking die, which then balances it out.
But they're not dying quickly enough. That's the problem.
>> No. 65294 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 8:13 pm
65294 spacer

icam.png
652946529465294
>>65293
>> No. 65295 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 8:19 pm
65295 spacer
>>65293

It's only a temporary state of affairs- No matter how long they live, they'll croak eventually. If we just keep adding more people, we'll find ourselves just making the problem worse in the long term. We can pretend like perpetual economic growth is viable because at the end of the day it's all just made up numbers, but the population is a very real thing, we can't just keep inflating that forever. It has to level out at some point.
>> No. 65296 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 8:40 pm
65296 spacer
>>65291
>Japan are doing alright
Sure, if you ignore the lost decade (which never really stopped, and is shaping up to be a lost 20+ years).
>> No. 65297 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 8:40 pm
65297 spacer
>>65295
This. It's just a ponzi scheme. There's no guarantee we wouldn't take too many people in.
>> No. 65298 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 8:51 pm
65298 spacer
>>65295
I'm confused as to why you'd call perpetual economic growth non viable. Perpetual (at least in the limited, human definition of the word, not counting the heat death of the universe or whatever) economic growth in the broad sense in which you take growth to be an expression of an increase in productivity has certainly been the overall trend worldwide for the past few millennia.
>> No. 65299 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 8:53 pm
65299 spacer
>>65296

But again, you could already say the same happening here, but in this country we just say things like "Pff, kids these days, expect everything on a fucking plate, back in my day..." when the reality is that anyone born post '85 or so has had a pretty big struggle on their hands in terms of employment and housing, with no indication that it's going to get better. All we've been doing is buffering the problem by making more people stay in education for longer, in turn resulting in most of the younger generation of workers having degrees that are barely worth the paper they are printed on.
>> No. 65300 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 8:58 pm
65300 spacer
>>65299
>But again, you could already say the same happening here
Well yeah, you could, if you're some sort of chimp who looks at both economies, makes a sad face and shrugs without any attempt to look at the specific problems that gave rise to Japan's lost decade.
>> No. 65301 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 9:02 pm
65301 spacer
>>65298
>why you'd call perpetual economic growth non viable

Didn't this kind of thinking lead to the crash? Let's base our economy on perpetual growth of the housing market.
>> No. 65302 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 9:09 pm
65302 spacer
>>65231
>Poor Liz Kendall. She may have lost the election but she certainly won my heart.

I'm glad I'm not the only one. I really liked her and I'm a Tory. Instead of the clever MILF they've gone for the boring comrade.

I've spent most of the day chuckling. I'm glad that 2020 is in the bag and we've at least another five to ten years of watching Labour implode.
>> No. 65303 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 9:13 pm
65303 spacer
>>65302
You like her because you are a Tory. She is a Tory in disguise.
>> No. 65306 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 9:23 pm
65306 spacer
>>65303

But she was one of those vagina ladies, so she should have won on principle. The results of this election were just confirmation we're still living in middle aged white men's vision of the world.
>> No. 65307 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 9:26 pm
65307 spacer
>>65301
>Didn't this kind of thinking lead to the crash?
No. It was an entirely different kind of thinking that led to the crash.
>> No. 65312 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 10:46 pm
65312 spacer
>>65306
>vagina ladies
As opposed to dick-girls? No need to be anti-trans, lad.

In before predictable Yvette Cooper joke.
>> No. 65314 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 11:30 pm
65314 spacer
Corbyn will suck in votes like Sturgeon did with the SNP.

Rekonize innit blud
>> No. 65315 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 11:54 pm
65315 spacer
>>65301
No. I'm not repeating the old canard of "the era of boom and bust is over", or saying that it's definitively applicable to any particular market. I'm merely saying that if you think about it globally rather than nationally, and generationally rather than yearly, there's every reason to believe that the booms should be bigger than the busts. That has, after all been the case for the entirety of human history.

If the economy contracts by a tiny fraction of a percent today, but is 3% bigger a year from now, it would be silly to say we were ever in real, terminal decline, despite a definite lack of growth at one slice in time. Likewise, a Great Depression or Great Recession may have devastating effects on us personally, but once you take a step back it should be fairly clear that it's unlikely to ruin us as a civilisation or a species. Not that that diminishes the anxieties of the unemployed or the bankrupt or the eases the hunger pangs of starving children, of course.

Sorry, I'm a bit drunk and morose now and think I might be trying to convince myself that we'll be alright one day.
>> No. 65318 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 12:46 am
65318 spacer

Liz-Kendall.jpg
653186531865318
>>65306
How can you possibly hate the Stacey Dooley of British politics?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlADe9yrrWA
>> No. 65319 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 12:57 am
65319 spacer
>>65318
Because she stands for... Nothing.
>> No. 65323 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 3:44 am
65323 spacer
>>65315

The notion that economic growth is inevitably finite hinges on the belief that we will eventually run out of ideas. That's what fuels the modern economy - we're not making more tonnes of steel, we're not weaving more yards of cloth, we're inventing completely new industries. The vast majority of our economic growth has been driven by innovation rather than increased productivity, by making better stuff rather than more stuff. That innovation is increasingly intangible, where the only product being delivered is information.

I'm willing to entertain the outside possibility that eventually we'll look around and say "yep, everything in the world is as good as it could conceivably be", but I'm not prepared to design my political philosophy around it.
>> No. 65324 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 4:18 am
65324 spacer
>>65318
What use do you imagine said innovations are put to that enables growth if not production?
>> No. 65325 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 4:56 am
65325 spacer
>>65324

Firstly, apologies for my slightly clumsy use of language in that remark. What I mean to say is that a lot of our economic growth comes from subtle improvements in the quality of the human environment rather than sheer industrial output.

I think that the smartphone is an excellent example. Through advancements in technology, we managed to replace dozens of different devices with one that is smaller and more economical to manufacture than any one of them. A walkman, a camera and camcorder, a gaming device, a telephone and a million other things all combined into a four ounce lump that you can buy for less than a day's wages. The iPhone doesn't take more resources to make than a cheapo knock-off, it's just better designed. From the smartphone we got companies like Uber and Tinder who don't really make anything in the traditional sense, but who have demonstrably created immense benefit to the world simply by organising something in a more useful way.

There's a wonderful quote by Ludvig von Mises that summarises my position - "There is no sensible distinction to be made between the value a restaurant creates in cooking the food, and the value the restaurateur creates by sweeping the floor”. By that, he suggests that a plate of food does not have an innate and fundamental value that can be separated from other less tangible factors like the ambience in which it is served. For their many faults, the Austrian School formalised the profound insight that all economic value is subjective.

Poems are economic output, memes are economic output, recipes are economic output. We tend to think about the economy in a terribly reductivist way, without thinking about the things in life that we actually value. When we talk about economic growth, we naturally think about production lines, oil reserves, bricks and mortar. We dismiss the economic significance of Peri Peri sauce, of hazelnut syrup in your coffee, of waiting in the warm for your Uber to arrive rather than standing in the rain for a taxi, of getting a book beamed straight to your Kindle. All that stuff has real economic value that can go on a balance sheet; there is no end to the number of ways in which we can make the world better just by being clever.
>> No. 65326 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 6:19 am
65326 spacer
>>65325
Oh, I didn't mean production in such a narrow sense. A smartphone makes information far more abundant and efficient, which makes useful production more efficient. Uber is a fantastic example of a company whose production (or provision of a service, if we want to avoid images of factories and conveyor belts) relies on that information.
>> No. 65327 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 9:06 am
65327 spacer

FB_IMG_1442131562881.jpg
653276532765327
Remember, lads, if you support Corbyn you support the terrorists.
>> No. 65328 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 9:17 am
65328 spacer
>>65327
Selective quoting at its best/worst. Support ARE JERREMY or not, he said it was a 'tragedy' he didn't stand trial, and for anyone to cut off that last bit is just absolutely dishonest. That being said, this is politics; what more could I expect?
>> No. 65329 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 9:33 am
65329 spacer
>>65328
If Bin Laden was captured alive then he could have said things at a trial which would have threatened national security.

At least the Tories haven't done anything to harm national security, like taking out Gadaffi, joining the EU in destabilising Ukraine or wanting to bomb Assad's forces so the freedom fighters, who turned out to be ISIS, had more of chance of toppling him.
>> No. 65330 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 9:37 am
65330 spacer
>>65329
Yeah, I'm sure that if the Yanks got their hands on him alive he would surely have received an open trial before a jury of his peers.
>> No. 65331 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 10:00 am
65331 spacer
>>65329
The Free Syrian Army isn't ISIS you dullard.
>> No. 65332 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 10:11 am
65332 spacer
>>65331
They're brown, they're angry. You say potato, I say potato.
>> No. 65333 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 11:04 am
65333 spacer

Capture.png
653336533365333
I tried to save it lads, I tried.
>> No. 65334 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 11:05 am
65334 spacer
>>65332

Yes, but you're indicating towards a harrier hawk whilst you do so.
>> No. 65335 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 11:29 am
65335 spacer
>>65325
If anything I would say modern technology is killing a lot of industry, because people can get anything downloaded for free most never bother buying anything more than the device itself, the music industry is collapsing, newspaper circulation is a half of what it was a decade ago with many papers and people are more likely to just download some movie than bother with Netflix's shitty selection or going to a DVD store (if those even still exist).

Older people keep the status quo to some degree, but they're dying off or coming around to doing things the new way, it's a definite trend, and something that is killing economy.
>> No. 65336 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 11:37 am
65336 spacer
>>65335
DVD stores still exist. Usually of the 3 for £5 variety. Last time I went I got Starship Troopers, Idiocracy and Apocalypto. They specialise in good shit.
>> No. 65337 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 11:43 am
65337 spacer
>>65335
More music is being produced and consumed than ever before by more people than ever before. The music industry is bigger than ever. The dynamics have radically changed and the price "per song" is approaching zero, but the industry is changing not "dying".

Look up what "industry" actually means. It's production. At the risk of sound a bit of a futurist knob, modern technology has made tools of production more democratised than previously conceivable.
>> No. 65340 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 11:53 am
65340 spacer

chart_music.top.gif
653406534065340
>>65337
Sales are down in a big way, you can't even try to weasel your way out of that fact, Couldn't find a chart for more recent years but if you'll just read some articles online you'll see it's in freefall still, the only minor success story is vinyl from hipster appeal.
>> No. 65342 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 12:05 pm
65342 spacer
>>65335
>the music industry is collapsing
Big Music is collapsing, mostly because they're a bunch of petulent fucking children who are stuck in the past and crying that their antiquated business models are being undermined rather than evolving their business models. The industry outside of Big Music has moved with the times and is coping just nicely.

>newspaper circulation is a half of what it was a decade ago with many papers
Mostly because they're shit. The FT is doing just fine, and remains profitable on the cover price alone. People are still willing to pay for quality journalism, and outlets that provide it are managing well. It's the people publishing sensationalised crap that are suffering most.
>> No. 65343 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 12:06 pm
65343 spacer
>>65340
>Sales are down in a big way, you can't even try to weasel your way out of that fact,
No, but you could try actually reading the post you're responding to instead of dismissing it with half an answer.
>> No. 65344 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 12:10 pm
65344 spacer
>>65342

FT is like 220.000 now, it was 390.000 in 2010, maybe they get some profit from online subscriptions, but I don't think it can be much.

I just google the headline myself, works every time, same with the WSJ.
>> No. 65345 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 12:13 pm
65345 spacer
>>65344
>maybe they get some profit from online subscriptions, but I don't think it can be much.
Fuck's sake, do you think you could maybe bring yourself to read the fucking post you're replying to?
>The FT [...] remains profitable on the cover price alone
>> No. 65346 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 12:18 pm
65346 spacer
>>65345
But it's in decline, it's not doing well, you can be facing doom and still be profitable right now.

Incidentally, the papers suffering the steepest decline appear to be the lefty ones, the Guardian and the Independent, wouldn't be surprised in the Indy just croaks in a year tbh.
>> No. 65347 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 12:28 pm
65347 spacer
>>65342
>Big X
Stop this please.
>> No. 65348 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 12:28 pm
65348 spacer
>>65346
>it's not doing well
So is this going to be the bit where you kick off a cunt-off by just ignoring what everyone else tells you?
>> No. 65349 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 12:32 pm
65349 spacer
>>65348
I suppose it was just doing so extraordinarily well that it had to be sold off to the Japanese.
>> No. 65350 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 12:37 pm
65350 spacer
>>65349
They wouldn't have bought it if it wasn't.
>> No. 65351 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 12:38 pm
65351 spacer
>>65346
When they're paying the likes of Polly Toynbee around £150k a year to spout pure drivel it's no surprise they're in trouble.
>> No. 65352 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 12:49 pm
65352 spacer
>>65349
To put it into context, a big proportion of the FT Group was owned by Pearson. Pearson's board wanted to focus on their education businesses, where tl;dr they make massive amounts of money through being utter cunts. When they heard that the Pearson were selling the FT Group, the Nikkei Group made an approach late in the game, effectively gazumping the prospective buyers (Springer), and put in a considerably better offer. FWIW, the Nikkei Group publishes the Nikkei, whose full name could roughly be read as "the Japanese FT", so the purchase was a good fit for their existing business, and the purchase price was rather good - who else is selling newspapers for not far off a billion quid?

There are a lot of ways you could characterise the sale of the FT, but a desperate sell-off isn't one of them.
>> No. 65353 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 1:09 pm
65353 spacer
>>65323

I thought it's more based on the idea that we'll inevitably run out of stuff.

I mean, people going on about how we will run out of oil within our lifetimes is daft- But you have to confront the fact that this planet and it's resources are finite. If there's seven billion of us here now, and there are fourteen billion of us here in another hundred years... The rate of resource depletion is going to keep increasing until running out is a real possibility.

We already have water and food shortages across the world. You can pretend economic growth is inevitable if you like, but like the population of any animal, we will eventually run up against the natural equilibrium point where our environment can't support any more expansion; and then being human beings, we'll punch through it anyway and damn the consequences.
>> No. 65354 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 1:29 pm
65354 spacer
>>65353
>But you have to confront the fact that this planet and it's resources are finite.
How much of those resources are depleted by information? I'm going to assume you're not the other lad above who seems to be intentionally ignoring everything everyone else says, but I'll repeat what was said above - our growth is increasingly based on innovation and information instead of resources. We're generating more value from existing inputs. Much of the value generated in financial services comes from literally no real underlying resource whatsoever. An interest-bearing loan doesn't cost the planet anything.
>> No. 65355 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 1:40 pm
65355 spacer
>>65354
So it's just shuffling bits of paper around and "making up" stuff that has no genuine use. Snake oil, essentially.
>> No. 65356 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 1:47 pm
65356 spacer
>>65353
People talking about finite resources fundamentally don't understand market forces.
>> No. 65357 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 1:48 pm
65357 spacer
>>65355
What a load of rubbish. Things aren't everything by any means. Or even the majority necessarily.
>> No. 65358 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 2:06 pm
65358 spacer
>>65355
It's a good example of how you can create value without consuming stuff. If there's a house involved, assuming no disasters, the house isn't consumed by the mortgage upon it. Uber's model of price gouging surge pricing at busy times which they pass off as "market forces" literally generates money for nothing. You were taking your minicab and yes, it's a fucking minicab, not a "ride-share" out there anyway, but now you're getting anything up to seven times the usual rate for it, without using any more resources than you would have used anyway, and Uber's cut is worth seven times what it usually is. There are many more cases where economic growth can occur with minimal marginal consumption of resources, and there's no physical limit on how far that can go.
>> No. 65359 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 2:25 pm
65359 spacer
>>65358
>There are many more cases where economic growth can occur with minimal marginal consumption of resources, and there's no physical limit on how far that can go.

But there's always a limit.

There's no such thing as money for nothing. Uber's surge pricing generates more money for the same amount of physical work. They're improving the efficiency with which they're creating value, they're not creating value without consuming anything. They get no money at all without that minicab moving a person from one place to another.

Even in the stock markets, where traders are making profits on moving money from one place to another, there is no "real" work being done, but their profits still have a fundamental reliance on the success of industry and business.
>> No. 65360 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 2:26 pm
65360 spacer
>>65358

Surge pricing is one of the great innovations in the Public Hire Vehicle industry.

Research shows that most traditional taxi drivers work for however many hours it takes to reach their target daily income. This creates a completely perverse demand-supply response - when few people are looking for rides, there are more taxis on the road and vice-versa. This psychology reduces the average hourly wage of taxi drivers while increasing wait times for cabs.

Surge pricing subverts this psychology, by alerting drivers to times of peak demand and encouraging them to work during those hours. The intention of surge pricing isn't to profit from the surge, but to get more drivers on the road when demand is high. Surge pricing affects less than 10% of all trips, because it does what it is supposed to do - bring more drivers on the road to balance supply and demand.

http://people.hss.caltech.edu/~camerer/web_material/cabscvfbook.pdf
http://abovethecrowd.com/2014/03/11/a-deeper-look-at-ubers-dynamic-pricing-model/
>> No. 65361 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 2:30 pm
65361 spacer

Figure1-580x356.png
653616536165361
>>65340

Total revenue for the music industry is stable - the loss in CD sales has been compensated by a big increase in live revenues. Musicians get a much larger proportion of ticket sales compared to CD sales (~60% vs ~ 15%) so it's a net win for performers.

The entertainment industry overall is booming, because of new kinds of content - games, video on demand and so on.
>> No. 65362 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 2:30 pm
65362 spacer
>>65360
>Surge pricing is one of the great innovations in the Public Hire Vehicle industry.

Is being able to charge more in a city centre at 1am on a Saturday night really a revelation?
>> No. 65363 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 2:34 pm
65363 spacer

sep12_fuglie_fig01.png
653636536365363
>>65353

>We already have water and food shortages across the world.

Fewer than at any point in our history. Food prices continue to fall in real terms despite increasing population, due to improvements in agricultural and distribution technology.
>> No. 65364 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 2:39 pm
65364 spacer
>>65353

>If there's seven billion of us here now, and there are fourteen billion of us here in another hundred years... The rate of resource depletion is going to keep increasing until running out is a real possibility.

Fortunately, the global population is regulating itself to match available resources. Fertility rates are declining across the developed and developing world, with particularly striking decreases in India and south-east Asia. The UN predicts that global population is likely to reach an absolute maximum of around 11bn by 2050; 14bn would represent an absolute maximum. We have the land and water resources to support at least twice that population if they are used efficiently and sustainably.

http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/
>> No. 65365 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 2:44 pm
65365 spacer
>>65360
Do we have independent confirmation of that? Empirical evidence (albeit entirely self-reported) suggests that there isn't any particular correlation between the supply and demand, and that the surge pricing just kicks in at times when it's likely to be busy, at predetermined levels, for mostly predetermined lengths of time. More tellingly, the rates don't reduce at times of especially low demand - they just charge the standard fares. It would also be disingenuous to refer to it as a marketplace when Uber does all the fare-setting, since neither buyer nor seller has any influence on the price - all they can decide is to participate or not.

But all of this is getting away from the ultimate point that the value generated here comes from nothing and costs almost nothing in real, exhaustible resources.
>> No. 65366 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 2:47 pm
65366 spacer
>>65364
This. Many of the more serious population projections now think we're on the upward swing of an S-curve, with growth likely to slow down at some point in future as birth rates reduce.
>> No. 65369 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 8:59 pm
65369 spacer
So how about that Corbyn eh?

Looks like he's done a stellar job of cleansing out the neo-con filth. How many front benchers have resigned so far?
>> No. 65370 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 9:05 pm
65370 spacer
>>65369
He's done perfectly. Scotland will be independent by 2020 and we'll have permanent Tory majorities for half a century.
>> No. 65371 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 9:12 pm
65371 spacer
If the party, pointedly those who find him the most disagreeable, get behind Corbyn, utilise all these new members and don't make the party look like the post-Lenin Bolsheviks (by way of infighting) then I do think there's good shot at a 2020 election win.

Bearing in mind of course that these assumptions are very premature and contain a million ways to go horribly wrong.
>> No. 65372 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 9:18 pm
65372 spacer

Corbyns Beard.png
653726537265372
>>65369
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm boycotting beards.
>> No. 65373 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 9:23 pm
65373 spacer
>>65371
Half of Labour MPs will have to stand down or split then.
>> No. 65374 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 9:34 pm
65374 spacer
>>65370
Not to mention a united Ireland,Isla de malvinas handed on a platter, and Hamas & friends carrying on with daily beheading on London Streets.

Just joking, come on chaps, it's going to be alright
>> No. 65375 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 10:21 pm
65375 spacer
Did you see the Laura Kuenssberg report on the BBC news at 10? She must have been blinking 20 times per second, I'm sure she was sending a message in Morse code.
>> No. 65376 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 10:37 pm
65376 spacer
>[Andy Burnham] has indicated a willingness to serve in the shadow cabinet, but has since been caught saying privately that this is “a disaster for the Labour party... the public will think Labour has given up on ever being a government again”.

I swear to god, who do they think it was that voted for Corbyn? Fucking space aliens?

An opposition that actually stands for something is worth ten times the pathetic subservient centrist party we would've had in the shadow cabinet otherwise, regardless of if they get in. The only reason these cunts care about electability so much is for the sake of their own tepid careers.
>> No. 65377 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 10:39 pm
65377 spacer
>>65374
I for one would like to see both sides get around the table and agree to restore the Falklands to their rightful owners.

LAS MALVINAS SON FRANCESAS
>> No. 65378 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 10:40 pm
65378 spacer
>>65376
>who do they think it was that voted for Corbyn? Fucking space aliens?
Well it certainly wasn't 13 odd million that you need to win elections (more if you're Labour now).
>> No. 65379 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 10:48 pm
65379 spacer
>>65376
This is what pisses me off. Close to 60% of the Labour Party members voted for Corbyn. Cunts like Burnham right them off as what? Loonies? I don't get it.
>> No. 65380 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 11:16 pm
65380 spacer
>>65379
Corbyn is like Savile, different viewpoints, but they have that something that draws people to them.
>> No. 65381 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 11:16 pm
65381 spacer
Not John McDonnell...
>> No. 65382 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 11:25 pm
65382 spacer
>>65379
Why not? Maybe that's what he's doing. I don't see what the issue is.

Anyway, some shadow cabinet names:

John McDonnell - Shadow Chancellor

Andy Burnham - Shadow Home Secretary

Hillary Benn - Shadow Foreign Secretary

Heidi Alexander - Shadow Health Secretary

Lord Falconer - Shadow Justice Secretary

Angela Eagle - Shadow Business Secretary

Seema Malhotra - Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury

Ian Murray (only Scottish MP) - Shadow Scottish Secretary

Rosie Winterton - Chief Whip

If I remember rightly Ken Livingstone didn't like McDonnell and claimed he exaggerated to make a point, both internally and publicly. He's a member of a number of trade unions, has openly praised the IRA. That's all I know about him.
>> No. 65383 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 11:27 pm
65383 spacer
Students are sitting in Parliament. Fucking hell.
>> No. 65385 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 11:39 pm
65385 spacer
>>65382

John McDonnell's got to be the easiest target in Westminster. Even if his ideas are sound, they will lose credibility through him being kryptonite to 'middle England'. Corbyn needs an agreeable Shadow Chancellor by his side who reeks of competency. I don't think McDonnell could do that, and I fear he could turn off people who we need to vote for us.

The other obvious issue is that him being Shadow Chancellor means all of the top jobs have gone to women. This is already alienating his female supporters and it will be an open goal for even the Tories to attack Corbyn on. I think it has been a incredibly short-sighted not to appoint Angela Eagle for the job, though I understand she isn't a strong proponent of the anti-austerity movement, which is the platform Corbyn got his mandate from.

I was a big Corbyn supporter during his campaign but now even I'm not sure that he's a competent leader. Appointing McDonnell is a big gamble and I really do hope it pays off.
>> No. 65386 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 11:52 pm
65386 spacer
>>65379
50% of the members. 60% of the affiliates, which would be the trade unions, etc. If you think of the other three as near-identical, then effectively the membership was evenly split between Corbyn and convention, which does not bode well. There was talk of a possible schism, and those numbers would suggest that it's still a real possibility. The difficulty any splitters would have is that the normals have spoken in near-unison. They want Corbyn, and there's nothing to suggest that there was any great degree of malicious entryism. It really does look like over 80k expressed their support and genuinely voted for him.

We live in interesting times.
>> No. 65387 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 12:07 am
65387 spacer
>>65385
>The other obvious issue is that him being Shadow Chancellor means [none] of the top jobs have gone to women.
Oh, just fuck off with this already. There were two on the leader ballot and three on the deputy ballot. The party had a free choice but didn't pick them. Is there any particular reason you're levelling this criticism at John McDonnell specifically?
>> No. 65388 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 12:30 am
65388 spacer
>>65387

Just because they didn't pick a female leader or deputy doesn't mean the party doesn't want women represented in the other top jobs.

I mentioned this issue when talking about McD not only because Shadow Chancellor was the last of the big four to be announced, but also because the others were obvious choices, and there weren't any female alternatives for those jobs as credible as Angela Eagle.
>> No. 65389 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 1:07 am
65389 spacer
>>65387
We should have at least one female, gay, black, Jewish, disabled MP in one of the top jobs.
>> No. 65390 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 1:23 am
65390 spacer
I, for one, am welcoming this positive change in British politics.

Perhaps now we can destroy this cozy 'centrist' consensus in the major parties. We can finally overthrow the free-market dogma that was implemented by Thatcher the Evil and supported by every leader of every major party since, to the detriment of workers and the most vulnerable in society. It is time to make industry work for us, it is time for the energy and rail sectors to come back under public control. It is only through this that we can make it work for ordinary people, stop the spiraling costs of failed capitalist policies which is making heating and transport the domain of the rich. It is time that we start having fair taxes where the mega wealthy support those who are the weakest in society. It is time that we start taxing business profits to fund projects for the people - a National Education Service, proper funding for the NHS which is at constant threat under a Tory government of privatisation, and a National Infrastructure Fund which will not only stimulate the economy, but it will make our lives much easier with better roads, houses, buildings and creating jobs at the same time - thus putting money back into the economy.

It is time we attack the bankers who destroyed our country in 2007/08. It is time that we prevent them from ever putting our country in that position again, to prevent them from having mega bonuses when people are losing their jobs. It is time that we destroy inherited wealth with a 100 per cent Inheritance Tax on millionaires. We must put in place a Mansion Tax in order to make the richest pay their fair share in our modern world. We must protect the environment with Green Taxes on businesses in order to save our planet.

But most importantly, we need to END austerity. It isn't working. People are dying. People are suffering. We need MORE state spending, only by spending more will we have a higher standard of living and stimulate our economy into more growth. We need to get rid of our destructive nuclear weapons. It is no longer the cold war. We do not need these weapons, it is only making the world a worse and more dangerous place. Our Armed Forces take up too much of our national spending, this should be cut back. Our neo-imperialist policies across the world must also end.

The only way we can achieve all of this is through a Corbyn government in 2020. Lets rise up and destroy the establishment. Vote Labour. Vote Corbyn.
>> No. 65391 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 1:27 am
65391 spacer
>>65390
1. Poor bait
2. Go back to Krautchan with me.
>> No. 65392 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 2:21 am
65392 spacer
>>65391
It isn't bait though and I posted it here because I was ignored there and it was a good post.
>> No. 65393 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 2:34 am
65393 spacer
>>65386

Corbyn is undoubtedly hugely popular amongst Labour supporters, and he is undoubtedly a disaster for the party.

You only get one vote. It doesn't matter whether you vote tepidly for someone you can barely tolerate, or vote emphatically for someone you absolutely love. Playing to your loyal supporters is electoral suicide; you gain political capital from people who were going to vote for your party anyway, at the expense of people who haven't made up their minds.

The Corbynite argument that the party can gain seats by mobilising non-voters is a pure fiction, because the seats with the lowest turnout are already safe Labour seats.

http://www.bluelabour.org/2015/08/06/why-jeremy-corbyn-and-the-hard-left-will-never-win-a-general-election-for-labour/
>> No. 65394 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 3:14 am
65394 spacer
>>65393

I think the people love socialism more than modern politicians give them credit for. I think the time is right for socialism in the UK and that they can initiate a landslide. I think that fence-sitters can be stimulated and excited into voting for you without changing your core tenets and eliminating all your principles. I think that by doing so, you set your party up for failure, because you no longer stand for something. I think that voters can see when some leader doesn't stand for anything except gaining power for themselves and - subconsciously or consciously - factor that in as one of the most important things to consider when wondering who to vote for. I think that's why Labour lost so miserably in 2015. I think that's why Labour will win in 2020. I think that's why the Tories are going to turn their PR machines against Labour, because they see a real threat. Expect the 2020 Conservative campaign to be full of extreme anti-Labour propaganda and not much else.
>> No. 65395 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 5:00 am
65395 spacer
>>65394
Why do you say "I think" so much?
>> No. 65396 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:02 am
65396 spacer
>>65382
There's a satisfying lack of Diane Abbott on that list.
>> No. 65397 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:36 am
65397 spacer
>>65396
You will perhaps be less than satisfied to find out that she is shadow minister for international development, then.
>> No. 65398 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 9:12 am
65398 spacer
>>65397
Great, put the black woman in charge of the Africa portfolio. I can't see how anyone could criticise that.
>> No. 65399 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 10:34 am
65399 spacer
>>65398

I am not sure what this post means.

Personally I think keeping Dianne Abbot far, far away from domestic affairs is a smart idea. Or at least as far away as you can get in a shadow cabinet.
>> No. 65401 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 10:46 am
65401 spacer
>>65393
I think he'll claw back a lot of former Labour supporters who went to Lib Dems, Greens and maybe even the SNP. In the last 20 years or so, the three major parties have moved towards the centre and have become much of a muchness. It's probably why in the last general election, Greens and UKIP got a much greater vote share than expected, because they represent an actual left and an actual right. The main issue is that neither of them have much experience with power stopping them being credible forces. With Corbyn's Labour now being an actual left wing party, but with the credibility and experience the Greens lack, the lefties who left the party before will come back. Anecdotal evidence, but a lot of people I know who were indifferent to all the major parties in the last elections due to them being a grey centrist mass are flocking back to the Labout party. And not just Citizen Smith student types, but actual real middle aged people.

I don't know how good their chances of winning the election are, as a lot can change in 20 years, but I reckon this won't necessarily be disaster for Labour.
>> No. 65402 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 10:50 am
65402 spacer
And it's already going tits up, people bitching that there aren't enough women even though it's >50% women.

McDonnell as CotE? Really?
>> No. 65403 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 11:00 am
65403 spacer
Pretend I've only been alive long enough to remember Blairite Labour, and tell me, what's so bad about this McDonnell chap?
>> No. 65405 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 11:13 am
65405 spacer
>>65403
He was part of the GLC and didn't get along with Maggot Red Ken Livingstone, because he was even more of a socialist.

Honestly, there isn't really anyone Corbyn could have as Chancellor without either causing outrage amongst the people who think socialism is a dirty word or undermining himself by going with a centrist.
>> No. 65406 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 12:00 pm
65406 spacer
>>65399
You don't think it's a bit tokenistic? I can understand giving the Wales and Scotland positions to MPs representing those areas, because those jobs relate directly to the people they represent.
>> No. 65411 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 12:34 pm
65411 spacer
>>65405
So thats why he walks with a limp.
>> No. 65421 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 12:49 pm
65421 spacer
>>65394
>I think that's why Labour will win in 2020.
You're deluded beyond belief. I don't think you quite get how deep the hole Labour is in is.
>> No. 65423 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 12:50 pm
65423 spacer
>>65411
I did wonder why he limps like a leper when he goes down the shop.
>> No. 65430 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 1:12 pm
65430 spacer
>>65393
> As has been noted elsewhere, if Labour were to win support from every Lib Dem and Green supporter we would claim less than 30 seats from the Tories.
As a right winger I don't know whether this is encouraging or not. No government can rule without a credible opposition.
>> No. 65440 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 1:29 pm
65440 spacer
>>65430
>No government can rule without a credible opposition.
Oh, they most certainly can.

But as the Conservatives aptly demonstrate, they can't do it well.
>> No. 65441 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 1:31 pm
65441 spacer
>>65440
I don't know, the SNP are pretty credible.
>> No. 65444 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 1:44 pm
65444 spacer
>>65441
I don't know. I mean, aren't all Sturgeons supposed to belong to the Queen?
>> No. 65446 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 3:50 pm
65446 spacer
>>65444
Sky News yet again remind everyone they're boring annoying gnats:

http://news.sky.com/story/1552307/corbyns-cabinet-chaos-the-inside-story
>> No. 65451 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 4:38 pm
65451 spacer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hgJokgNJHo

Bloody hell its like I'm living in America. Its stuff like this that will push me some of the way towards supporting labour.

I said some of the way. Not all. Some. Don't you dare quote me on one of your crude little ambulance leaflets.
>> No. 65453 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 5:00 pm
65453 spacer
>>65451
It should push you away from the Tories, not toward Labour.
>> No. 65456 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 6:00 pm
65456 spacer
>>65401

>Anecdotal evidence, but a lot of people I know who were indifferent to all the major parties in the last elections due to them being a grey centrist mass are flocking back to the Labout party. And not just Citizen Smith student types, but actual real middle aged people.

This. This is the crux of the issue.

All this talk of how "Hurr but he's never going to win back swing voters!" nonsense only shows just how fucking out of touch the political establishment is.

They think the people who don't vote are some kind of dead mass who will never participate in the political process, and the only way forward is to try claw voters from one another tit for tat. They underestimate how revitalising a "conviction politician", as he's being called, could be in terms of actual turnout.

The scale of his victory in the leadership election is evidence towards this. If you don't think the numbers of people who went out and paid their £3 were significant, you need your head looking at. Those weren't all die hard socialists, in fact I'd be willing to bet a good number of them didn't even vote in this year's general election. They certainly will be next time.

... But again, even despite all this, why are people ignoring the fact that an opposition who actually oppose the government in power is healthy for our country regardless of electability? If Corbyn never gets in, who cares, but I bet he will at least be able to throw a spanner in the works of the worst Tory plans.
>> No. 65457 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 6:12 pm
65457 spacer
>>65456
>But again, even despite all this, why are people ignoring the fact that an opposition who actually oppose the government in power is healthy for our country regardless of electability?
Because the status quo (all parties being more or less the same) is beneficial for the ones who are opposing Corbyn.
>> No. 65459 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 6:22 pm
65459 spacer
My hope for Corbynmania is that media establishment will self-implode as they try to ineptly smear him to be some terrorist-loving hippy.
It's one of the best things to happen, when your average DM reader will fire all 3 of his braincells and realise this campaign against him is bullshit.
>> No. 65464 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 6:48 pm
65464 spacer
>>65456

See the analysis linked to in >>65393. 91 of the 100 seats with the lowest turnout were taken by Labour at the last election. The seats Labour need to win already have relatively high turnouts across the spectrum.

Turnout in Corbyn's seat was only slightly above the national average; In seats held by other leftist Labour MPs (Dennis Skinner, Michael Meacher, John McDonnell etc), turnout was significantly below average. This contradicts the argument that 'conviction politicians' can motivate exceptionally high turnouts.

The facts simply don't support the Corbynite strategy. It is nothing but wishful thinking.
>> No. 65465 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 6:49 pm
65465 spacer

New_Labour_New_Danger.gif
654656546565465
>>65451
>> No. 65466 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 6:49 pm
65466 spacer
The backslapping in here is tremendous. Militant trade unionists, students and anarchists combining to form a perfect trio of completely unelectable politics, ripening it for suicide.

It's going to be a fucking mess for both parties. Tories, complacent in the wake of Corbyn's election will tear themselves apart over the EU referendum. Corbyn will purge centrists and kill Labour for at least the next decade.
>> No. 65467 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 6:53 pm
65467 spacer
>>65464
I don't get who it's supposed to revitalise either. For every dolie who votes there'll be another person scared shitless who'll vote someone else.

Furthermore, the votes Labour need to win are from the Tories. Labour could've gained every single Lib Dem and Green voter and still have less seats by quite a margin. Nobody seems to get how deep the hole they're in is.
>> No. 65468 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 6:54 pm
65468 spacer
>>65464

No, the thing is that the logic you are using is that 1+1= 2, therefore also 3. It doesn't necessarily work that way.

Just because a seat has high turnout comparatively doesn't mean it can't also have thousands of apathetic voters, considering how low turnout is getting overall. Particularly amongst younger voters, there is potential.
>> No. 65470 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 6:55 pm
65470 spacer
>>65456
>They think the people who don't vote are some kind of dead mass who will never participate in the political process, and the only way forward is to try claw voters from one another tit for tat. They underestimate how revitalising a "conviction politician", as he's being called, could be in terms of actual turnout.

Oh fucking hell not this again. Voter turnout has been rising from its low in 2001 and in that time it turns out the voters have been steadily increasing in their votes for this new soft conservative that Cameron presents himself as (having previously elected soft labour).

By all means Corbyn might get a greater turnout but I suspect it will be from people voting Tory. I also suspect that the majority of non-voters are not the kind of demographic Corbyn appeals to and certainly the numbers who voted for him in the leadership election are not a significant enough number to actually win a labour government.

>>65459
Given the election is 5 years off I think the press (if they do have a strategy) are more focused upon encouraging Labour factionalism which runs strong at the best of times. If not a coup then there is another leadership election scheduled before 2020 where Corbyn will be arguing as a man of the establishment rather than a fresh face for the public.
>> No. 65472 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 6:57 pm
65472 spacer
>>65467
Then there is no point. What is the point of choosing between Tories and Tories Lite? What you are saying is that a majority in this country are right wing, and that a socialist party in a country filled with right-wingers should also be right wing.

Is this why we can't have real socialist politicians like they do in continental Europe? Are we just too Americanised?
>> No. 65473 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 6:58 pm
65473 spacer
I can almost guarantee you that the posters in this thread who postulate that Corbyn has even a remote chance at being PM are the same ones that decried the possibility of Trump being the Republican nominee.
>> No. 65474 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:00 pm
65474 spacer
>>65470

>I also suspect that the majority of non-voters are not the kind of demographic Corbyn appeals to and certainly the numbers who voted for him in the leadership election are not a significant enough number to actually win a labour government.

Absolutely. Mostly due to his more liberal views I think. He's basically given the finger to anyone who voted UKIP in 2015.

As for turnout there are lots of people who simply don't care one way or another. There are disillusioned people (not as many as most think I believe) but they will not constitute some vast source of votes, and even if they did they will not all be in one direction. Labour needs Tory votes and it's not going to get them.
>> No. 65475 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:03 pm
65475 spacer
>>65473
Stop it lad.
>> No. 65476 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:04 pm
65476 spacer
>>65472
It's partly to do with the nature of the Left I think, inherently more fractious than the Right. Perhaps something to do with idealism. Also at work is our system, whereby an individual must win the most votes. The merits of this can be debated.

>What is the point of choosing between Tories and Tories Lite?
You don't do that though, do you.
>> No. 65477 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:05 pm
65477 spacer
>>65475
Corbyn will certainly never rule a majority government, I don't believe Labour will ever hold one again actually.
>> No. 65479 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:11 pm
65479 spacer

unilad.png
654796547965479
Here's Unilad's followers take.


Sage for obvious reasons.
>> No. 65481 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:15 pm
65481 spacer
>>65479
>...Cameron is a cunt as well tho
I'm creased. Brilliant, that.
>> No. 65485 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:30 pm
65485 spacer
>>65451
I love that they've contrasted his comments on the army with images of ISIS, when Cameron himself has repeatedly ruled out "wellies in the mud" in Syria.
>> No. 65487 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:32 pm
65487 spacer
>>65479
Well at least people are talking about it. How many people would give a shit about politics if, say, Liz won?

Nada. It would be business as usual.
>> No. 65489 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:34 pm
65489 spacer
>>65468

Look at the numbers. They don't add up, however you slice it.

Appealing to younger voters is of very little help, because a) they are disproportionately likely to live in Labour seats and b) they are vastly outnumbered by older voters. Of the 35 seats with the youngest demographics, only four are held by the Conservatives. 13.6% of people eligible to vote are aged under 30, versus 22.6% aged over 60.

Speaking of simple arithmetic, winning a swing vote from the Tories is worth twice as much as motivating a non-voter to turn out - you gain a vote, but your opponent also loses one. Targeting non-voters means you need to win twice as many votes, which makes a large number of semi-marginal seats practically unwinnable.

Look at the the seats that Labour needs to win. The easy pickings are seats like Gower (27 majority) and Derby North (41 majority), but you don't have to go far down the list to find much bigger Tory majorities. By seat 50 of the battleground list you're looking at a Tory majority of 3,700, and by seat 100 the Tory majority is over 6,000. Remember that Labour need to win at least 99 Tory seats to have a chance of forming a government.

In one of these later seats like Great Yarmouth, Labour would need to increase the turnout of their supporters by nearly 50%, even assuming that they don't lose a single centrist voter to the Tories. To do that in one seat would be near-miraculous, but Labour would need to mobilise unprecedented levels of support in dozens of seats. Labour would struggle to win the next election even with a perfect electoral strategy, let alone the absurd hail-mary that the Corbynites are banking on.

As I said, it's nothing but wishful thinking.
>> No. 65490 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:34 pm
65490 spacer
The debate on strangling the unions is going on right now. The Treasury benches are reasonably empty while the opposition benches are reasonably full. What are the odds on 200 Tory MPs hanging around, on a three-line whip, paying no fucking attention to the debate and simply voting for the bill because they've been ordered to?
>> No. 65492 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:37 pm
65492 spacer
>>65489
>they are vastly outnumbered by older voters
>13.6% of people eligible to vote are aged under 30, versus 22.6% aged over 60.
You've got your numbers wrong there, lad. >>61359
>> No. 65493 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:37 pm
65493 spacer
>>65479

Oh, I'm not a Labour voter, I'm not a Corbyn supporter at all. I'm a hardline a Bolshevik, an out-and-out Stalinist, determined to witness the blood letting of all those I deem dissenter, traitor or simply miscreant.

Excuse me a moment, I need to mount a Maxim machine gun to the back of my bicycle.
>> No. 65494 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:38 pm
65494 spacer
>>65472

>Is this why we can't have real socialist politicians like they do in continental Europe? Are we just too Americanised?

No, it's because we have a first-past-the-post system. By design, our electoral system creates two centrist parties competing over the middle ground. That's how our democratic system works - the policies of our parties are tuned to represent the views of the average swing voter.

If you want political diversity, you need proportional representation; the price of that diversity is a reliance on rainbow coalitions, which tend to be less stable and more prone to infighting and deadlock.
>> No. 65497 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:42 pm
65497 spacer
>>65494
>rainbow coalitions, which tend to be less stable and more prone to infighting and deadlock.
And your evidence for this is ... ? Anecdotal, I'm sure.
>> No. 65498 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:43 pm
65498 spacer
>>65470

It all hinges on the EU referendum I think.

On the outside chance the UK actually fucks off from the EU, then the immigration panic (and the associated TAKIN ARE BENNIES etc) the media constantly projects is effectively silenced. Without that as an obstacle, I think you'd be surprised just how favourable the prospects start to look for a left wing party.

A lot of voters aren't particularly informed on economics, believe it or not. All they have is the bellyfeels that one party has you arrested and thrown in jail if you say you're English, whereas the other party is the one that won that war with them bloody Argies.
>> No. 65500 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:46 pm
65500 spacer
>>65492

I don't know where that chart comes from, but I'm getting my numbers from the 2011 census. We refer to slightly different age bands (6% of the population are aged 60-65 which narrows the gap between our numbers), but the census definitely states that 16.6% of the population are over 65, a total of 10.3m. Whoever drew that chart seems to have lost a million-odd pensioners.
>> No. 65501 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:48 pm
65501 spacer
>>65500
How many of them do you reckon aren't eligible to vote?
>> No. 65502 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:53 pm
65502 spacer
>>65501

Given the age demographics of migration, I think it's a safe assumption that a larger proportion of pensioners than young people are UK nationals.
>> No. 65506 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:02 pm
65506 spacer
>>65500
>Whoever drew that chart seems to have lost a million-odd pensioners.
No they don't. You seem to have picked them up, and if you think about it carefully you'll see exactly where they came from.
>> No. 65518 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:14 pm
65518 spacer
This discussion about how many old people there are is irrelevant, as is the youth vote, which is why nobody goes for it.
>> No. 65521 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:17 pm
65521 spacer
>>65518
Why is it irrelevant?

To be honest, I'm starting to resent old people with their nice pensions, nice home, another house rented out to some cunt. Cutting your grass, voting Tories, and complaining about the weather.

I hope we get a ridiculously cold winter this year, followed by the hottest summer ever, next year.
>> No. 65525 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:22 pm
65525 spacer
>>65494
I think you are both wrong on the 'why aren't we European' issue. While PR does encourage smaller parties there still exists two large parties who run the show, with Germany it is SDP v CDU for instance.

What really changes in PR is that smaller parties get a voice in terms of the demands they can set for running a coalition (via back room dealing of course) which isn't exactly desirable when you look at how such elections have panned out for the likes of Israeli settler parties getting power.

>>65498
>On the outside chance the UK actually fucks off from the EU, then the immigration panic (and the associated TAKIN ARE BENNIES etc) the media constantly projects is effectively silenced.

Not really. We will still have the ECHR and will remain in connected to the EU until at least after the next election given how messy a withdrawal will be and how we will need to renegotiate (again) what our association with the EU is going to be in terms of free trade.

Pulling out is always a messy proposal so the journos will have plenty of work for a good few years yet.

>A lot of voters aren't particularly informed on economics, believe it or not.

And its opinions like that which utterly turn off the public from the cosmopolitan left.
>> No. 65530 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:24 pm
65530 spacer
>>65525
>which isn't exactly desirable when you look at how such elections have panned out for the likes of Israeli settler parties getting power.
How is this not desirable for Israeli settlers?
>> No. 65532 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:26 pm
65532 spacer
>>65521
Because they're electorally unimportant.
>> No. 65533 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:28 pm
65533 spacer
>>65525

>the cosmopolitan left.

Which is honestly the last thing you could call me. I know how the average working class monkey feels politically because I am one of them, and so consequently is everyone I speak to by any other medium than the internet.

In politics, being educated is both a gift and a curse, in that it utterly blinds you to how "normal" people see things.
>> No. 65534 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:35 pm
65534 spacer

margaret-thatcher_2066853c[1].jpg
655346553465534
St. Margaret has sent us a blessing.
>> No. 65538 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:47 pm
65538 spacer
>>65532
Their status as possible kingmakers suggests otherwise.
>> No. 65539 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:53 pm
65539 spacer
>>65538
When was this?
>> No. 65541 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 9:06 pm
65541 spacer

pixel art.gif
655416554165541
Modern leftists hate the working class, they're the same as those liberals in America that pour scorn on hillbillies in the "flyover" states now, you can see it well enough from the snobbery and disdain dripping from the mouths of the resident lefties here, the whole class issue is dead in their minds, replaced by a fixation on race and gender, even Corbyn is dead set on displacing the white working class with immigrants and getting caught up in PC nonsense like quotas and female carriages on trains.

So what becomes of a party that turns it's back on the very reason for it's existence? It implodes.
>> No. 65543 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 9:08 pm
65543 spacer
>>65541
Fuck off, you odd cunt.
>> No. 65547 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 9:17 pm
65547 spacer
>>65539
March this year.
>> No. 65548 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 9:19 pm
65548 spacer
>>65543
Struck a nerve, evidently.

>Labour sent out ‘search parties’ for immigrants to get them to come to the UK, Lord Mandelson has admitted.
>In a stunning confirmation that the Blair and Brown governments deliberately engineered mass immigration, the former Cabinet Minister and spin doctor said New Labour sought out foreign workers.
>He also conceded that the influx of arrivals meant the party’s traditional supporters are now unable to find work.

It's not a conspiracy, it's out in the open, everyone knows what Labour is all about, they belong in the 9th circle of hell.
>> No. 65550 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 9:28 pm
65550 spacer
>>65548
Do you have a source that doesn't have the word "Daily" in its title?
>> No. 65551 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 9:28 pm
65551 spacer
>>65541
Absolutely. The same is true of other races though, they think they're the enlightened white people who can help the stupid blacks get solve their problems.
>> No. 65552 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 9:28 pm
65552 spacer
>>65548
Everyone knows what someone posting barely relevant diatribes about "leftists", political correctness, and the white working class is about, you belong on another, more tedious, site.
>> No. 65553 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 9:52 pm
65553 spacer
>>65550
Oh yeah, who can trust a paper the plebs would read, way to fucking prove the point.

Google it, reported in the Telegraph and Express too, of course they're all lying about this quote I suppose, yes, that's must be it.
>> No. 65554 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 9:55 pm
65554 spacer
>>65552
if you deride them you know you belong here. This place is full of cunts like you who look down on the scum but show off to your friends how you're making life better for some other shithead.
>> No. 65555 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 9:56 pm
65555 spacer
>>65530
>How is this not desirable for Israeli settlers?

I think I made quite clear that I was referring to such groups getting political power and how that was a bad thing.

>>65533
i.e. you feel everyone around you is stupid.

Ballot spoiled because every time I vote for something I always end up losing.
>> No. 65558 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 10:02 pm
65558 spacer
>>65555
>I think I made quite clear that I was referring to such groups getting political power and how that was a bad thing.
You haven't really explained how spreading power across more of the population was a bad thing. Pretty much every bit of sensible literature on the subject not by cunts maintains the exact opposite - that checks and limits on the power of the majority are overwhelmingly a good thing.
>> No. 65559 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 10:16 pm
65559 spacer
Trade Union Bill passed at second reading 317-284, which suggests around 50 not voting.
>> No. 65560 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 10:17 pm
65560 spacer
>>65553
>of course they're all lying about this quote I suppose
Wouldn't put it past them. After all, even the Guardian reprints Wikipedia vandalism.
>> No. 65561 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 10:28 pm
65561 spacer
>>65555
>I think I made quite clear that I was referring to such groups getting political power and how that was a bad thing.
I am asking you why is that a bad thing? You might not agree with their abhorrent views, but at least let them have a say. Fucking hell.
>> No. 65568 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 11:08 pm
65568 spacer
>>65555

>i.e. you feel everyone around you is stupid.

Quite a jump to make there fella. It's politicians and arseholes like Mr. We Simply Need To Educate The Electorate further up who think they are stupid.
>> No. 65571 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 11:12 pm
65571 spacer
>>65568
Well, it might be that we just think they're stupid based on some smug sense of superiority. Or alternatively it could be based on things such as the regular surveys that repeatedly demonstrate that they're stupid. Such as MORI's survey which found that not only were most people wrong about most things, when they were faced with the truth they literally couldn't handle it.
>> No. 65572 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 11:14 pm
65572 spacer
>>65571
>when they were faced with the truth they literally couldn't handle it.
This is what pissed me off a bit. They would go out of their way and say that the survey is wrong, or that there is a conspiracy.
>> No. 65576 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 11:50 pm
65576 spacer
>>65571
>>65572

The point I've been trying to make for a while, though, is that it doesn't actually matter if people are objectively right or wrong on these things. Politics isn't science. We live in a democracy, not a peer-review research led technocracy. Politics is about beliefs at the end of the day.

The majority of people are ignorant in one way or another. It applies to lefties as well as right wingers. Everyone has a bias, everyone clamps their hands over their ears and goes LALALALALA when something that fundamentally opposes their values comes along. That's how we work.
>> No. 65577 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 12:01 am
65577 spacer
>>65576
You shouldn't throw your hands up and just give up. This is how we sleepwalk into oblivion.
>> No. 65578 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 1:13 am
65578 spacer
>>65558
>>65561
If a small group find themselves in a kingmaker position then they can through backroom coalition deals allow themselves to wield a disproportionate amount of power over a public that may have voted against them. In my mind that is not more democratic than having a majority go on to rule and certainly rewards small groups of extremists who can effectively capture sections of state policy for their own interests.

The reason I pointed out the position Israel finds itself in is a small group of voters have entrenched themselves in such a way as to disrupt the wider peace process regardless of the wishes of the majority.
>> No. 65579 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 1:19 am
65579 spacer
>>65577

Perhaps we already have?
>> No. 65580 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 1:46 am
65580 spacer
I don't agree that everyone who voted Tory is necessarily a conservative, and I don't agree that we need to adopt Tory policy to get them back.

I think a lot of people go where the conviction and credibility is. At least Cameron seems to believe in what he was doing and didn't seem like an idiot. Miliband came across as a right mong.
>> No. 65581 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 2:22 am
65581 spacer
>>65578
>a disproportionate amount of power
This sounds like privilege talking. You might think it a disproportionate amount of power, but the otherwise disenfranchised groups would disagree strenuously. Democracy is in part about protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
>> No. 65583 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 6:47 am
65583 spacer
>>65580
>At least Cameron seems to believe in what he was doing

Lolwat.

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 65584 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 10:19 am
65584 spacer
>>65580

If they were, New Labour would never have been able to overturn John Major's majority, which was larger than Thatcher's.

Swing voters are fucking braindead and they will vote for the party with the most charismatic leader. It's why the SNP are doing so well since Nicola Sturgeon took over and why Corbyn will shock us all at the next election by winning a landslide majority.

He has 5 years to paint the Tories as privileged monsters and will, at every opportunity, whereas Ed Miliband was reluctant to do this because he wanted to hold onto the centre ground rather than try and swing the centre of politics to the left. Corbyn will try this and I think he might succeed.

As has been pointed out previously by a few senior Labour minsters, the Labour Govt which succeeded Winston Churchill's Govt won what was seen at the time to be an impossible majority to win.

People need to start looking back to get an idea of what could be in our future. There was a collective conciousness after the second world war that socialism was the only way to fix the inequality in our society and prevent conflicts like what they had all just been through from occurring again. If the NHS falls any further into private hands and the erosion of the right to negotiate collectively is allowed to continue then you'll see it happen again.
>> No. 65585 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 10:44 am
65585 spacer
>>65584
>the SNP are doing so well since Nicola Sturgeon took over
They've been doing well for good while longer than that, mate.
>> No. 65586 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 11:13 am
65586 spacer
>>65585

I don't dispute that, however it was in the Scottish Elections they did well but they always did well there from the start despite the system being designed to stop them gaining power. They are another party who won what seemed to be an impossible majority, which was my point.

Their Westminster election landslide in Scotland was entirely to do with how good a politician and leader Nicola Sturgeon is, though. She galvanised the support they had in the run up to the referendum despite the defeat they suffered and used it to clean sweep the opposition. I doubt anyone else would have been able to do that. Alex Salmond is too divisive and John Swinney is a bellend.
>> No. 65587 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 11:25 am
65587 spacer
Corbyn has just under 5 years to sort shit out.
He can do it though I think, if he starts now and does not relent. A man with principles will always find it hard in a house of lies, but should he persevere things will be interesting.
>> No. 65589 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 12:04 pm
65589 spacer
>>65578

>wield a disproportionate amount of power over a public that may have voted against them

Just like how the Tories are wielding complete power over a public that, for the most part, did not vote for them?
>> No. 65590 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 1:06 pm
65590 spacer
>>65589
Just like how any ruling party does?
>> No. 65591 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 1:08 pm
65591 spacer
>>65587
What is 'it'?

If you think 'it' is 'majority government' then you need your head looked at. Not necessarily even because people may not like his platform, it's just electorally near impossible.


There will never be a majority Labour government again.
>> No. 65592 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 1:12 pm
65592 spacer
Further, any chance of Corbyn's success has nothing to do with Corbyn. It's all about how well the Tories do or don't do. They could sit in their office playing Scalectrix for the next four years and and still win even if Corbyn is really popular. The swing needed is enormous. Assuming he doesn't win back Scotland, he needs Tory seats and Tory votes. Lib Dem and Green votes won't do anything for him. Don't expect UKIP to suddenly turn to him either given his stance on immigration.

The Tories aren't doing nothing though - they're capitalising on the centre by introducing the living wage and such.

The only chance Corbyn has of ever being PM is if there's some national movement akin to popular revolution. I'm talking millions on the streets, well beyond the best election campaign ever, it has to be far better than even that.
>> No. 65593 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 1:16 pm
65593 spacer
>>65591

>There will never be a majority Labour government again.

Stop talking out of your arse lad. People were saying the same thing about the Tories fifteen years ago. You're not Mystic fucking Meg.
>> No. 65594 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 1:19 pm
65594 spacer
>>65593
The £3ers aren't going away mate. They've had a taste of victory and they'll be back again. And a third time, and that time there won't be a Scotland to help them out.
>> No. 65595 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 1:50 pm
65595 spacer
>>65590

Precisely. Which is why I'm confused why this complaint is being leveled at PR in particular.
>> No. 65596 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 1:50 pm
65596 spacer
>>65592

>The swing needed is enormous

After the swings we seen in Scotland in May, stop pretending this is impossible to achieve.

SNP did it with a budget of 2 fried Mars bars and a box of lion rampant mini flags and the Labour Party has a lot more money and a lot more resources and a new, Charismatic leader who speaks his mind and a new Televised debate format with which to tackle the Tories record in Govt in the run up to the next election.
>> No. 65597 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 1:53 pm
65597 spacer
>>65596
Assuming the PM doesn't run away scared again.
>> No. 65598 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 1:55 pm
65598 spacer
>>65596

>Charismatic leader

I'm a fan of Corbyn, but let me be the first to say that 'charismatic' isn't the best way to describe him. He may be popular and persuasive, but that isn't down to charisma.
>> No. 65600 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 2:05 pm
65600 spacer
>>65596
He's not particularly charismatic mate, you should watch his speeches. If it's a charisma battle then Sturgeon has it in the bag.

But really, stop it. Swingometers, though unreliable, show where support needs to come from and until there's a second (and failed) referendum Labour won't gain anything noteworthy there.

On these conditions:

1% green, 1% lib dem, 1% ukip, snp down 5% and every single one of all those votes going to Corbyn (not gonna happen) the SNP still have 46 seats.

Realistically Labour need 50% of the vote in England (Blair got 43.5%), and the vast majority of those votes have to come from the Tories. If they don't come from the Tories then they're not worth a whole lot in the current situation. That means Labour's vote in England has to increase by 66% on 2015. And even if he could pull that off they'd have a majority compNanookle to the current Tory government in size (smallest sinze 1974) and full of centrists!

That's before taking into account the boundary changes of course, which will only harm Labour.

The maths simply doesn't work. New voters won't change it, other left/centre-left voters won't change it, only Tory voters will.
>> No. 65601 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 2:08 pm
65601 spacer
>>65600
> show where support needs to come from and until there's a second (and failed) referendum Labour won't gain anything noteworthy there.

'There' being Scotland.
>> No. 65609 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 5:47 pm
65609 spacer
>>65600
So you're saying that labour would never win in 2020, even if Liz or the lad with the lashes had became leader?
If that's so, you can hardly blame Corbyn if he fails. Just on how badly he fails.
>> No. 65610 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 6:51 pm
65610 spacer

2C569E4400000578-3235116-image-m-54_1442318053464.jpg
656106561065610
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3235116/WHAT-AN-ABSOLUTE-BASTARD-STANDING-THERE-TOP-BUTTON-UNDONE-DAYDREAMING-ABOUT-ISIS-FROTTAGE-INSTEAD-SINGING-NATIONAL-ANTHEM-TO-HONOUR-ARE-BRAVE-BOYS
>> No. 65611 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 7:04 pm
65611 spacer
>>65610
>Mr Corbyn, who was dressed in non-matching jacket and trousers and had failed to properly button his shirt
THE UTTER BASTARD.
>> No. 65612 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 7:06 pm
65612 spacer
>>65610

It's petty shit like this that will doom Corbyn at the polls. A drip-feed of little incidents and quotes that remind the average voter that Corbyn is very much unlike them and does not share their core values.

>>65609

A centrist Labour candidate absolutely could win, although they would face a difficult battle. The problem is not with Labour's chances overall, but of the monumental difficulty of winning an election without taking a good number of votes from the Tories, which Corbyn is unlikely to do. See >>65489.
>> No. 65613 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 7:14 pm
65613 spacer
>>65611
To be fair to Jez, when he went to Oxfam they only had shirts with a 15" neck when he's a 15½" so you can't blame him for wanting to be able to, you know, breathe.
>> No. 65614 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 7:45 pm
65614 spacer
>>65609
No, because Kendall could entice Tory voters. Corbyn can't.
>> No. 65615 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 7:49 pm
65615 spacer
>>65614
Also let's consider those Tory voters for a minute. Why did they vote Tory in 2015? Evidently they're not as averse to voting Tory as a lot of Labourites are. Some people voted Tory because they believed the economic platform of Labour was unstable - they're not going to win those ones. Some because they'd always voted Tory - they're not going to win those ones. Some because they believed Miliband was too weak - could they win those ones? Maybe, but how many does it constitute, and does Corbyn replace or reiterate the reasons they voted Tory last time?
>> No. 65616 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 8:55 pm
65616 spacer
>>65612

>A centrist Labour candidate absolutely could win

No, no they couldn't. Labour has to move a mile to the right to achieve the same as the Tories nudging an inch to the left.

Blair was a lightning strike that's not going to happen again, because any attempt to make it is doomed from the start to be a second rate impersonator. Even then his success was down to a vast array of unique political and historical circumstances.
>> No. 65617 Anonymous
17th September 2015
Thursday 9:37 am
65617 spacer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6kLHiRBKWE
>> No. 65618 Anonymous
17th September 2015
Thursday 2:11 pm
65618 spacer
The more I read this thread, the more I'm convinced that non of you know what the fuck you're talking about. Everyone's just having a guess, and will look all smug when there guess is right and everyone else's was wrong.

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 65619 Anonymous
17th September 2015
Thursday 2:15 pm
65619 spacer
>>65618
>there

Lad.
>> No. 65620 Anonymous
17th September 2015
Thursday 2:16 pm
65620 spacer
>>65618

Dear Dairy, I learned what opinions were today. I've decided I don't like them.
>> No. 65621 Anonymous
17th September 2015
Thursday 3:22 pm
65621 spacer
>>65617
Posting this odious cunt should be a bannable offence.
>> No. 65622 Anonymous
17th September 2015
Thursday 3:32 pm
65622 spacer
>>65621

"When fascism comes to .gs, it will be wrapped in the British flag and carrying a bag of Revels."

- Huey P[urple]. Long
>> No. 65623 Anonymous
17th September 2015
Thursday 3:34 pm
65623 spacer
>>65621

I'm hoping that if we all use Uber he'll just go away of his own accord.
>> No. 65624 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 6:55 am
65624 spacer

2C65E9F200000578-3237591-Lovers_Jeremy_Corbyn_and_.jpg
656246562465624
>Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn had a fling with fellow MP Diane Abbott in the 1970s, it has emerged, as sources told the Telegraph of a second relationship with another Labour politician.

>Mr Corbyn and Ms Abbott are said to have had a sexual relationship and even went on a motorbike tour of East Germany following the break-up of his first marriage to Jane Chapman.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11873371/Jeremy-Corbyn-had-fling-with-Diane-Abbott-in-the-1970s.html

I, for one, am starting to question his judgement.
>> No. 65625 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 9:26 am
65625 spacer
>>65624
But he's allowed to put his dick in crazy because he's INVINCIBLE, innit.
>> No. 65626 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 12:27 pm
65626 spacer
>>65624
Yeah, I mean, a politician having sex with a consenting adult. It's just not how things are done is it.
>> No. 65627 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 12:41 pm
65627 spacer
>>65626
I bet you'd be the first to moan about connections and jobs.
>> No. 65628 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 1:01 pm
65628 spacer
>>65627
The pertinent "connection" is that they're politically aligned, which is sort of important when the job in question is a political position.
>> No. 65629 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 1:16 pm
65629 spacer
>>65624
So that'll be why she only got international development.

While we're vaguely at it, how did you lads find his performance at PMQ? I didn't find it instantly engaging and he could have varied his subjects a bit more, but it was somewhat refreshing to see a break from the usual
>USE SHIT M8 INNIT
>NAH M8 USE SHIT BLUD
even if Callmedave's answers seemed almost transparent.
>> No. 65630 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 1:51 pm
65630 spacer
>>65628
Not him I think this is rather unprofessional. Call me old fashioned but it raises questions as to their working relationship given she is now part of the shadow cabinet.

I'm saying this without regard for the political dimension but instead from the perspective of the dynamics between a prime minister and his cabinet as a whole especially with the kind of office resentment this would create in other members. Regardless of her skills it should have been obvious of how this renders her unsuitable to be in a job close to her former lover which was selected by Corbyn in name if not deed.

Now for the political aspect of this Corbyn is a fucking moron. No matter his political skill these kinds of festering minor scandals and there frequency will destroy the credibility of a man with more than enough skeletons in his closet already (what exactly went on in those meetings in the Soviet Union for instance - which he refuses to speak about).
>> No. 65631 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 2:34 pm
65631 spacer
>>65630
If you think that's bad, wait til you find out who Yvette Cooper's married to!
>> No. 65632 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 4:26 pm
65632 spacer
>>65631
Shame she didn't win. She's got some Balls.
>> No. 65633 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 4:27 pm
65633 spacer
>>65630

People who spend lots of time together sometimes wind up shagging. I'd be aghast if they're the only pair in parliament to have shacked up at some point.
>> No. 65634 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 4:48 pm
65634 spacer
>>65629
I think time will tell on its effectiveness. Both sides liked it. The Tories because Cameron got to deliver his choreographed answers without being attacked back, and Labour because when Cameron dodges a question with his bullshit, he's dodging a question by a member of the public, which exposes how little toss he gives about their concerns.
>> No. 65635 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 5:30 pm
65635 spacer
>>65633
It's an even less appetising prospect to think about, but John Major and Edwina Currie was a thing.
>> No. 65636 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 5:42 pm
65636 spacer
>>65630
I think you, and the press, need to get over it. It was forty years ago.

Oh em gee guys, so-called socialist Corbyn lived in a MANSION sixty years ago!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3207530/Hard-left-Labour-candidate-Jeremy-Corbyn-brought-seven-bedroom-manor-house-father-converted-hotel.html
>> No. 65637 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 5:43 pm
65637 spacer
>>65626
Lad, it's Diane Abbott. I'm not talking about poles being greased IYKWIM to get ahead I'm on about the fact it's Diane Abbott. I know he's a bongo enricher, but those bongos? Multiculturally enriching himself with her fanny batter? If Diane Abbott is consenting to have sex with you then you turn 360° and walk away. I mean... it's Diane Abbott, I don't need to say anything further.
>> No. 65638 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 5:56 pm
65638 spacer
>>65637

I dunno, if we're talking thirty odd years ago, it might not have been such an unappealing prospect. Of course she's a fucking munter now, women age like fresh fruit. I bet she still had exactly as gratingly awful of a voice though.
>> No. 65639 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 6:01 pm
65639 spacer

poster.jpg
656396563965639
>>65638
Just in case you're unable to scroll up.
>> No. 65640 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 6:10 pm
65640 spacer
>>65636

I am over it. It's just that some people seem to forget, somewhat understandably, that Parliament is actually a workplace, and the kinds of things that happen in any workplace will also happen in Parliament, and that's okay.
>> No. 65642 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 6:14 pm
65642 spacer
"Jeremy Corbyn's ideas on the economy (which are to the right of the SDP) are LOONY, take our word for it. To prove it, here's some irrelevant bullshit about his personal life."

What a load of shite.
>> No. 65643 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 6:21 pm
65643 spacer
>>65636
I really do struggle to understand why some people think a socialist having wealth is somehow hypocritical. It only makes sense if you think socialism as an ideology is somehow as simplistic as RICH PEOPLE=BAD PEOPLE. Engels was a fucking industrialist for Christ's sake.
>> No. 65644 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 6:26 pm
65644 spacer

Diane-abbott-painting.jpg
656446564465644
>>65642
Ah, the hypocrisy of the left. It's fine to shoehorn into every conversation that Cameron was a member of the Bullingdon Club or that he left his daughter at a pub. It's fine to mock and celebrate the death of his severely disabled son. Highlighting that Corbyn slept with someone as grotesque as Diane Abbott, however, is beyond the pale.
>> No. 65645 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 6:30 pm
65645 spacer
>>65644
Wow, I am personally "the left" now? I'm honoured.
>> No. 65646 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 7:07 pm
65646 spacer
>>65644
Yes. But he shagged her about 40 years ago.
>> No. 65647 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 8:11 pm
65647 spacer
>>65646
She was still a munter 40 years ago.
>> No. 65648 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 8:25 pm
65648 spacer
>>65644
What? David Cameron fucked Diane Abbott? When? What the fuck?
>> No. 65649 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 8:31 pm
65649 spacer
>>65644
>It's fine to shoehorn into every conversation that Cameron was a member of the Bullingdon Club or that he left his daughter at a pub.
Well, the former is an example of him being wildly out of touch with reality thirty years ago, and the latter is an indication that he's still wildly out of touch with reality even now.

>It's fine to mock and celebrate the death of his severely disabled son.
This, on the other hand, isn't fine at all. Except for the obligatory reference to Atos declaring him fit for work, which is always fair game.
>> No. 65650 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 8:49 pm
65650 spacer
>>65644

But the Bullingdon Club is an organisation that indulges in psychopathic acts of total abandon during some of the most formative years of ones life. And the other two things don't happen, you silly sod.

Why should anyone give a fuck if Corbyn shagged somebody? Unless he's been having an affair with a member of the landed aristocracy, I'm not really bothered. You'd have to be thick as pig shit to care, in fact. And going "eww, but she's sooo ugly!" isn't a bloody reason.
>> No. 65651 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 8:56 pm
65651 spacer
>>65649
>Well, the former is an example of him being wildly out of touch with reality thirty years ago, and the latter is an indication that he's still wildly out of touch with reality even now.

In the same vein, having sex with Dianne Abbott at any point during your lifetime indicates that you have serious limitations in your mental capacity.

>>65650
>the other two things don't happen, you silly sod.

Except when the tolerant left are discussing the NHS or those on disability bennies, two of their main topics.

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 65652 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 9:51 pm
65652 spacer
>>65651
What do you have against Diane?


Stop starting your sentences with "except," you insufferable racist cunt.
>> No. 65653 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 9:58 pm
65653 spacer
>>65652
>Stop starting your sentences with "except,"
How does "no" grab you, you meme-forcing cunt?
>> No. 65654 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 10:00 pm
65654 spacer
>>65652
He's just trolling lad, let it go. Abbott is just a literal bête noire for some people on the right.

Personally I'm as left as they come and I can't stand her because of her voice, as someone above has mentioned. She might have been a bit of alright when she was younger but my God can you imagine that voice in bed?
>> No. 65655 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 10:03 pm
65655 spacer
>>65654
That's probably why the affair didn't last that long.
>> No. 65656 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 10:08 pm
65656 spacer
A few weeks back dead ringers did a sketch with Diane Abbot as a Corbyn groupie, fawning over him and lusting after him.

What else dose Mr Bremner know??
>> No. 65657 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 10:13 pm
65657 spacer

specialbranch.jpg
656576565765657
>>65656

Too much.
>> No. 65658 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 10:30 pm
65658 spacer
I would love somebody to write a smutty fanfic about Jez and Abbo's affair, preferably with the climactic ending of him pissing in her arse.
>> No. 65659 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 10:37 pm
65659 spacer
>>65653
Except you are meme-forcing by starting all your sentences with it.
>> No. 65660 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 10:47 pm
65660 spacer
>>65658
Jeremy rolled over in bed, sighing and cuddling into Diane's amble brown cleavage. The sheets were pulled up high to fight off the cold winters air as the power cuts prevented the use of the 2 bar electric fire. Even in this cold bleak winter, Jeremy didn't feel any discontent with these large dark lovesacks for comfort.

"Oh Jeremy" murmured Diane "I wish we could stay here forever, like that horrible Thatcher lady will be in opposition forever"
Jeremy smiled, "Are you ready for another snap pole?" he inquired.
"Oh yes, fuck me like Mr Callaghan has fucked the public sector unions" he she enthused, rolling her considerable bulk over onto her back.
"One day Diane" he said, gently entering her surprisingly pink lady garden with his people flag pole "Me and you will run this country".

"Can I help" interjected John Mcdonnell, lowering his Polaroid camera.
>> No. 65661 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 10:48 pm
65661 spacer
>>65659
Stop ending your sentences with pronouns, you nonce.
>> No. 65662 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 11:15 pm
65662 spacer
>>65661
There is a difference between one word and pronouns. Are you an American teenage girl by any chance?
>> No. 65663 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 11:19 pm
65663 spacer
>>65662
Lad, ending a sentence with a pronoun is just as incorrect as starting a sentence with a conjunction or a preposition.
>> No. 65664 Anonymous
19th September 2015
Saturday 4:23 am
65664 spacer
>>65659

Yeah cos meme forcing is the worst thing ever!

Have a word with yourself mate.
>> No. 65665 Anonymous
19th September 2015
Saturday 5:54 am
65665 spacer
>>65664
>Yeah cos meme forcing is the worst thing ever!
Nice knowing you.
>> No. 65666 Anonymous
19th September 2015
Saturday 6:35 am
65666 spacer
Don't we need memes in the first place in order to force them?
>> No. 65671 Anonymous
25th September 2015
Friday 6:50 am
65671 spacer
I'm liking how Corbyn saying he'd get rid of the welfare cap is being framed as UNLIMITED BENNIES AND HANDOUTS OF YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY TO THE FECKLESS.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3248322/Let-families-claim-unlimited-there is a group of drugs called benzodiazepines and a drug called diazepam, but no benzodiazepam-demands-Corbyn-Labour-leader-says-curbs-caused-social-cleansing-calls-State-control-rents.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/605443/Jeremy-Corbyn-there is a group of drugs called benzodiazepines and a drug called diazepam, but no benzodiazepam-cap-Labour-leader
>> No. 65672 Anonymous
25th September 2015
Friday 11:32 am
65672 spacer
>>65671
The government has itself broken the cap in several cases, admitting that a one-size-fits all policy can fuck over some people royally. Never mind that though, RED JEZ IS COMING FOR YOUR HARD EARNED CASH
>> No. 65673 Anonymous
25th September 2015
Friday 11:42 am
65673 spacer
>>65672
But I thought the Tories hated the poor?
>> No. 65674 Anonymous
25th September 2015
Friday 12:53 pm
65674 spacer
>>65673
What about that suggested they don't?
>> No. 65675 Anonymous
25th September 2015
Friday 2:47 pm
65675 spacer
>>65674
The fact that they've admitted that it's not, in fact, a cap.
>> No. 65676 Anonymous
25th September 2015
Friday 3:05 pm
65676 spacer
>>65675
Go on.
>> No. 65677 Anonymous
25th September 2015
Friday 3:39 pm
65677 spacer
>>65676
It means they have introduced something they know is full of holes, and they haven't done that accidentally. They're not stupid, believe it or not.
>> No. 65678 Anonymous
25th September 2015
Friday 3:52 pm
65678 spacer
>>65675
That seems to be counter to pretty much everything they've ever said about it.
>> No. 65679 Anonymous
25th September 2015
Friday 5:19 pm
65679 spacer
>>65677
The same applies to the, now delayed, care fees cap of £72,000. The first £12,000 of costs don't count and then they only pay up to the Local Authority standard rate, which averages out at £23,764 per annum when the average annual care fee costs are £28,964. As only £11,764 is going towards the cap a year (without taking into account inflationary increases - bearing in mind care fees go up on average somewhere around 5% per annum) it'll take just over 6 years to meet the cap and by then you'll have spent around £177,500 in actual care fees. Then there's the fact that meeting the cap doesn't actually achieve a great deal either.
>> No. 65680 Anonymous
25th September 2015
Friday 5:56 pm
65680 spacer
>>65679
So you still end up selling your house? I told you they hate the poor.
>> No. 65681 Anonymous
25th September 2015
Friday 6:19 pm
65681 spacer
>>65680
IIRC, the upper threshold (where you qualify for some Local Authority assistance) will rise from about £23,450 to having capital below £188k if your house is included or £27k if you don't own a house/it has been disregarded but I have the feeling there's some caveats to this.
>> No. 65682 Anonymous
25th September 2015
Friday 6:51 pm
65682 spacer
I'm waiting for Jezza to snap.
He doesn't do insults or spread rumors, but at some point, he's going to say Cameron has irked him or something, and it'll be all over the news. "RED LOONY USES COMMIE CODES TO CALL DAVES MUM A SLAG!"
>> No. 65683 Anonymous
25th September 2015
Friday 8:04 pm
65683 spacer
>>65682

Shouting pigfucker would be perfect.
>> No. 65684 Anonymous
25th September 2015
Friday 10:19 pm
65684 spacer
>>65683
"Alex from Gloucester asks, Did she spit or swallow?"
>> No. 65685 Anonymous
25th September 2015
Friday 10:25 pm
65685 spacer

20100622-pig-roast-03.2-thumb-625xauto-96350.jpg
656856568565685
>>65684
I think we all know the answer to that.
>> No. 65686 Anonymous
26th September 2015
Saturday 5:30 pm
65686 spacer
>John McDonnell, the new shadow chancellor, will tell the Labour conference that Britain must always live within its means as he announces that the party will vote in favour of a new fiscal charter proposed by George Osborne.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/25/john-mcdonnell-labour-will-match-osborne-and-live-within-our-means

I thought the 'Red Tories' didn't win the leadership contest?
>> No. 65687 Anonymous
26th September 2015
Saturday 5:53 pm
65687 spacer
>>65686
For the love of Christ, will they stop fucking playing along already? Have they forgotten what happened in May already?
>> No. 65688 Anonymous
26th September 2015
Saturday 5:59 pm
65688 spacer
>>65686
>Britain should not live within its means.
>> No. 65689 Anonymous
26th September 2015
Saturday 6:00 pm
65689 spacer
>>65686
Red Tories are actual Tories, it's Blue Labour.
>> No. 65690 Anonymous
26th September 2015
Saturday 6:03 pm
65690 spacer
>>65688
This kind of reprehensible Tory-lite thinking just isn't on.
>> No. 65691 Anonymous
26th September 2015
Saturday 6:04 pm
65691 spacer
>>65688
>The budget is just like my bank account.
>> No. 65692 Anonymous
26th September 2015
Saturday 6:05 pm
65692 spacer
>>65686

...is this a joke?
>> No. 65693 Anonymous
26th September 2015
Saturday 6:14 pm
65693 spacer
>>65686

>He says of Osborne’s plans to deliver an overall surplus: “There is an economic illiteracy about this. If you have a surplus in that sense you are actually taking capacity out of the economy.”

I'm confused, does he actually support the policy or not? This article seems misleading.
>> No. 65694 Anonymous
26th September 2015
Saturday 6:22 pm
65694 spacer
>>65693
I find it hard to believe that the Guardian would print anything misleading about the Corbyn and his shadow cabinet.
>> No. 65695 Anonymous
26th September 2015
Saturday 6:34 pm
65695 spacer
>>65693
He doesn't, but he knows that he has to pretend he does for Labour to be credible:

http://www.john-mcdonnell.net/jeremy_corbyn_would_clear_the_deficit_but_not_by_hitting_the_poor

>First, it is unarguable that no modern party leader can win an election if behind in the polls on economic competence. Ed Miliband, sadly, was proof of this truism. Second, deficit denial is a non-starter for anyone to have any economic credibility with the electorate. This was a key finding of the poll recently published by Jon Cruddas, examining why Labour lost the election.

He's being pragmatic. The failure of the media to challenge the demonstrably false narrative that a) Labour's spending was OUT OF CONTROL and b) that said OUT OF CONTROL spending had anything to do with the crash has been abysmal, but he knows he can't personally undo that and has to say these things to regain the fiscal credibility that Labour were wholly unjustly robbed off.
>> No. 65696 Anonymous
26th September 2015
Saturday 6:54 pm
65696 spacer
>>65695
>He's being pragmatic.
He's still signing a suicide note. Economic trust wasn't the issue. It was a contributing factor. Ultimately Labour's problem was that you couldn't put a fag paper between them and the Tories. They basically spoke out against what they perceived were a lot of nasty things the Tories were doing, while simultaneously saying they weren't going to do anything about them. In effect, anyone faced with a choice between Labour and Conservative was deciding what colour rosette their MP was going to wear. Any questions of economic credibility were just breaking the tie.
>> No. 65697 Anonymous
26th September 2015
Saturday 7:04 pm
65697 spacer
>>65691
Of course it isn't. But that's not what we're saying, is it?

>>65693
Hes' actually correct there to an extent, you are taking money out of the economy but what you are not doing is accumalating further debt to cover interest payment. Currently interest payments are one of the government's biggest expenditures. We spend more on debt interest than we do on the military, imagine where that could be better used?

>>65696
The suicide note is not saying it m80.

> Ultimately Labour's problem was that you couldn't put a fag paper between them and the Tories.

That's really not what election's have told us. It may not excite current Labour voters but that's not what wins elections. Are all those Tory voters going to vote Labour because they're suddenly different from the Tories? Of course not, and it those votes they need to win.

I think this goes back to earlier in the thread (or another thread?), it just goes back to the maths, getting people who are already going to vote Labour to do so again doesn't win you anything.
>> No. 65698 Anonymous
26th September 2015
Saturday 7:04 pm
65698 spacer
>>65696
>He's still signing a suicide note. Economic trust wasn't the issue. It was a contributing factor.
It will be the issue in 2020 if Corbyn's lot can't shift the conversation away from this shite.
>> No. 65699 Anonymous
26th September 2015
Saturday 7:04 pm
65699 spacer
>>65697
it's those votes*
>> No. 65700 Anonymous
26th September 2015
Saturday 7:10 pm
65700 spacer
>>65697
>Hes' actually correct there to an extent, you are taking money out of the economy but what you are not doing is accumalating further debt to cover interest payment. Currently interest payments are one of the government's biggest expenditures. We spend more on debt interest than we do on the military, imagine where that could be better used?
Maintaining growth is more important than reducing interest payments, and that's not exactly an easy thing to do with a shrinking money supply.
>> No. 65701 Anonymous
26th September 2015
Saturday 7:12 pm
65701 spacer
>>65700
That is indeed true, but then it's a question of where the debt interest payments are going. If bond holders are all British and all live here then it's moot, as is the case in Japan.
>> No. 65702 Anonymous
26th September 2015
Saturday 7:13 pm
65702 spacer
>>65701
Also bear in mind we should be expanding our debt capacity (not holdings) for when the next downturn comes.
>> No. 65703 Anonymous
26th September 2015
Saturday 7:16 pm
65703 spacer
>>65697
>Of course it isn't. But that's not what we're saying, is it?
It looks an awful lot like it is, though.

>Hes' actually correct there to an extent, you are taking money out of the economy but what you are not doing is accumalating further debt to cover interest payment.
Right. So you're not increasing your debt servicing costs, but you're taking money out of the economy that you could be using to cover it. The only sensible thing to do with a surplus is redeem perpetual bonds. In any other scenario it's literally pants-on-head retarded. If we're giving the government money but it's not spending it, why are we giving it to them?
>> No. 65704 Anonymous
26th September 2015
Saturday 7:17 pm
65704 spacer
>>65701
A big chunk of them are, through pension funds and Premium Bond holders.
>> No. 65705 Anonymous
26th September 2015
Saturday 7:26 pm
65705 spacer
>>65704
And a big chunk of them aren't!

>>65703
>It looks an awful lot like it is, though.
I'm not interested in talking if you're going to try and steer the conversation and attempt to write my posts for me.

>In any other scenario it's literally pants-on-head retarded.
Why?

>If we're giving the government money but it's not spending it, why are we giving it to them?
So that it can spend better in future? 30% of bonds are foreign owned, that's £15bn a year being paid directly by the government to foreign investors. There's your money being taken out of the economy.
>> No. 65707 Anonymous
26th September 2015
Saturday 7:40 pm
65707 spacer
>>65705
>And a big chunk of them aren't!
Meanwhile, the price of fish went up at my local Tesco.

>I'm not interested in talking if you're going to try and steer the conversation and attempt to write my posts for me.
If you're the lad that wrote that, you were implying that the opposite position to a balanced budget is "Britain not living within its means". If you have some reasoned argument to back that up that doesn't involve the brain-damaged thinking of "they've both got pounds in them so they must work the same" then I'd like to hear it, because most of the time people bring it up it is exactly because they think the nation's finances work just like their household accounting.

>Why?
You accuse me of writing your posts, when you won't even bother reading other people's. Have a word with yourself, lad.

>So that it can spend better in future?
So I was right, you do think the nation's finances work like your bank account. Government finances work on a year-to-year basis. The concept of "saving up" has no applicability whatsoever in this context.
>> No. 65708 Anonymous
26th September 2015
Saturday 8:58 pm
65708 spacer
>>65707
>So I was right, you do think the nation's finances work like your bank account.

No, you were wrong, I am sorry.
>> No. 65709 Anonymous
26th September 2015
Saturday 9:03 pm
65709 spacer
>>65708
Well, the thing is, were I wrong, then you couldn't have said something as silly as "So that it can spend better in future?" because you'd have already known that government spending simply doesn't work like that.
>> No. 65710 Anonymous
26th September 2015
Saturday 10:32 pm
65710 spacer
>>65709
You didn't quite get my meaning, evidently.
>> No. 65711 Anonymous
26th September 2015
Saturday 10:43 pm
65711 spacer
>>65710
Go on then, lad. Tell us all about the good that the government sitting on money can do. Bear in mind that other than the perpetuals, buying back bonds early is generally not a good idea.
>> No. 65712 Anonymous
26th September 2015
Saturday 10:53 pm
65712 spacer

angry-old-man[1].jpg
657126571265712
>>65711
I can't be bothered anymore.

I did not come here to have words put into my mouth and misrepresented. I'd have thought you got the gist from the length of my responses.
>> No. 65714 Anonymous
26th September 2015
Saturday 11:11 pm
65714 spacer
>>65712
>I did not come here to have words put into my mouth and misrepresented
I didn't put any words into your mouth suggesting a surplus might be a good idea. You put them there yourself.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how a surplus (i.e. the government taking money from the economy and not using it) might be a good idea. You suggested it might be "so that it can spend better in future". It would be helpful if you explained what you meant by this and how it doesn't equate to "saving up". Alternatively, you could continue with your teary.
>> No. 65715 Anonymous
27th September 2015
Sunday 1:34 am
65715 spacer
>>65714
I prefer the teary.
>> No. 65716 Anonymous
27th September 2015
Sunday 2:24 am
65716 spacer

fire-in-the-sky-1993-movie-alien-abduction-greys-m.jpg
657166571665716
>>65712
>> No. 65717 Anonymous
27th September 2015
Sunday 8:14 pm
65717 spacer
>>65712

Then what on earth are you doing here, lad. This is an internet politics board. We don't argue with people's points, it's far more effective to argue with an imaginary Daily Mail fascist/Guardian champagne socialist's opinions, depending on our own side of the fence.
>> No. 65718 Anonymous
28th September 2015
Monday 6:55 pm
65718 spacer
Corbyn's leadership approval rating is a net negative nationwide, but since the change in leadership voting intention for the Welsh Assembly elections show an increase in support for Labour. As it's a single poll we don't know whether it's the beginning of a trend or a dead cat bounce.

I can't find the actual publication itself, with its alleged 39% headline value, but here's the previous one with its 35%:
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/lowoar86v0/WelshBarometerResults_150626_VIandLeaders_W.pdf

Interestingly, the result extrapolated for this results in Labour losing one constituency seat to Plaid, but gaining it back via the lists. Go mock-PR!
>> No. 65719 Anonymous
29th September 2015
Tuesday 4:23 pm
65719 JFC Telegraph
>>65718
2nd September
>The case for renewing Trident is irrefutable

14th September
>Hostile Labour MPs demand Trident pledge from Jeremy Corbyn

21st September
>Trident will be Jeremy Corbyn's moment of reckoning
...

27th September
>Jeremy Corbyn bows to unions over Trident

If Jeremy Corbyn were to walk across the water of the River Thames one morning the headlines that afternoon would read 'CORBYN CAN'T SWIM'.
>> No. 65720 Anonymous
29th September 2015
Tuesday 5:01 pm
65720 spacer

_85809777_flag[1].jpg
657206572065720
Meanwhile, in France.
>> No. 65721 Anonymous
29th September 2015
Tuesday 5:09 pm
65721 spacer
>>65720
Fucking glorious. Backstory?

I hope it isn't shopped.
>> No. 65722 Anonymous
29th September 2015
Tuesday 5:11 pm
65722 spacer
>>65721
They're making a film, apparently.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34390525
>> No. 65723 Anonymous
29th September 2015
Tuesday 7:51 pm
65723 spacer

2CE783BB00000578-3253667-image-a-105_1443547724860.jpg
657236572365723
JEREMY CORBEAN.
>> No. 65724 Anonymous
29th September 2015
Tuesday 8:01 pm
65724 spacer
>>65723

Keep trying, Dacre.
>> No. 65725 Anonymous
29th September 2015
Tuesday 8:13 pm
65725 spacer
>>65722
Well, if there's one thing the world needs it's another film about the holocaust.

There's no business like shoah business.
>> No. 65726 Anonymous
29th September 2015
Tuesday 8:53 pm
65726 spacer
>>65725

Ooh, you seem like a nasty prick.
>> No. 65727 Anonymous
29th September 2015
Tuesday 9:09 pm
65727 spacer
>>65726

You seem to be of Hebrew descent.
>> No. 65728 Anonymous
29th September 2015
Tuesday 9:10 pm
65728 spacer
>>65727


Correction, you are a nasty prick.
>> No. 65729 Anonymous
29th September 2015
Tuesday 9:12 pm
65729 spacer
>>65725
You seem to be of stupid fucking cunt descent.
>> No. 65730 Anonymous
29th September 2015
Tuesday 9:17 pm
65730 spacer
>>65728
That was actually the other guy, not me.

On behalf of fascists everywhere, >>65727 please stop this shit. All that will happen is you will get banned, and you make the rest of us look bad.

It's probably just someone trolling...
>> No. 65731 Anonymous
29th September 2015
Tuesday 9:17 pm
65731 spacer
You know, I've always thought that if anyone should be able to find humour in the holocaust, it's Jews. And let's be honest, >>65725 is an excellent pun, on a technical level. I think you all need to chill, you know?

I'm allowed to say that too because I look like Jesus, the king of the Jews. I get called it at least twice per night when I go out in town, so for all I know maybe I am actually His second coming.
>> No. 65732 Anonymous
29th September 2015
Tuesday 9:27 pm
65732 spacer
>>65731
It's hardly his invention. It's an old Abba Eban quote.
>> No. 65733 Anonymous
29th September 2015
Tuesday 9:32 pm
65733 spacer
>>65732

Even more daft that twerp got his peyots in a twist over it then.
>> No. 65734 Anonymous
29th September 2015
Tuesday 9:37 pm
65734 spacer
>>65733
Not really. The sentiment that one of the greatest tragedies in modern history is not worth further examination because "we've done that enough" is worthy of derision, no matter who you quote.
>> No. 65735 Anonymous
29th September 2015
Tuesday 9:41 pm
65735 spacer
>>65731

It wasn't just Jews that were killed in the Holocaust, despite your assertion that the lad must be of "Hebrew descent" to be pissed off by Holocaust jokes.

Granted, that doesn't change the fact he was overreacting to a well worn joke, which he was and deride him for it by all means, but your response to his overreaction is just as fucking tedious to have read over and over again, ad nauseam, every time someone gets bent out of shape about the Holocaust.

I'm loath to have to say this, but try mixing in a little sarcasm and childish derision now and again. You might find it altogether more constructive.
>> No. 65736 Anonymous
29th September 2015
Tuesday 9:55 pm
65736 spacer
I'm Jewish and I can appreciate holocaust jokes. I think they're a gas. No need to get heated up about it. Unless they're just meanly antisemitic, in which case I might want to cool off with a cold shower.
>> No. 65737 Anonymous
29th September 2015
Tuesday 10:28 pm
65737 spacer
>>65736
I don't know, I think it's a very delicate subject. I would personally never make any joke where the punchline involves the literally dozens of Jewish people who were killed in the holocaust.
>> No. 65738 Anonymous
29th September 2015
Tuesday 10:37 pm
65738 spacer
>>65737
Seriously though, what happened to my ancestors was terrible but worse things are happening in Africa even today, I don't see why we should have precedence. It's fucked up, racist and unfair.
>> No. 65740 Anonymous
29th September 2015
Tuesday 10:49 pm
65740 spacer
>>65738
Agreed.

And I'd like to apologise once again for the twat who keeps popping up and calling everyone antisemitic names. He seems to have completely misunderstood fascism, and thinks that the horror story propaganda is the real deal. Idiots like this gravitate towards it because they think it's about hate. It's not. It's about love. Love of your own. Fascism is not about putting other peoples down, it's about raising your own people up.

It's called love. And it belongs to everyone but us.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwWIEXAM8Q0
>> No. 65741 Anonymous
29th September 2015
Tuesday 11:10 pm
65741 spacer
>>65738
>I don't see why we should have precedence. It's fucked up, racist and unfair
It's because there's 70 years distance from the Holocaust, the conflict was one sided, and the instigators were unambiguously morally repugnant. That's not the case with recent/ongoing conflicts in Africa.
>> No. 65742 Anonymous
29th September 2015
Tuesday 11:14 pm
65742 spacer
>>65741
> the conflict was one sided, and the instigators were unambiguously morally repugnant.
Remember that history is written by the winners.
>> No. 65743 Anonymous
29th September 2015
Tuesday 11:24 pm
65743 spacer
>Remember that history is written by the winners.

Yes, that's why Hitler was allowed to escape to Argentina.
>> No. 65744 Anonymous
29th September 2015
Tuesday 11:24 pm
65744 spacer
>>65742
N1 m8 them jews wont no (that they deserved) wot hit em
>> No. 65745 Anonymous
29th September 2015
Tuesday 11:41 pm
65745 spacer

hitler-in-argentina-a-few-years-before-his-death.jpg
657456574565745
>>>65744

No bluds found ma submarines innit
>> No. 65746 Anonymous
29th September 2015
Tuesday 11:52 pm
65746 spacer
>>65745
Nah m8 Hitler died in Berlin, it was his body double that escaped to Argentina.
>> No. 65748 Anonymous
30th September 2015
Wednesday 12:05 am
65748 spacer
>>65746

Innit bruv, Gustav Weler pimped up dem Beetles well sik
>> No. 65749 Anonymous
30th September 2015
Wednesday 1:36 am
65749 spacer
>>65744
Undoubtably, they didn't deserve what happened to them.

But what was going on was largely uncovered and documented after the war had ended. The war itself had far more nuances than that.
>> No. 65750 Anonymous
30th September 2015
Wednesday 2:04 am
65750 spacer

_53713781_hebden.jpg
657506575065750
>>65749
>> No. 65751 Anonymous
30th September 2015
Wednesday 4:25 pm
65751 spacer
Indications that rather than directly taking on the centrist MPs Corbs will use the constituency membership to do it for them. Centrists mobilising their forces but think they're on a losing battle. No deselection yet, that's for after the boundary change which gives them a big opportunity to purge the centrists.
>> No. 65752 Anonymous
30th September 2015
Wednesday 4:55 pm
65752 spacer

713818842858381745[1].jpg
657526575265752
>>65751
And so it begins.
>> No. 65753 Anonymous
2nd October 2015
Friday 1:21 pm
65753 spacer
>>65740

Mr Raymond?
>> No. 65754 Anonymous
2nd October 2015
Friday 3:04 pm
65754 spacer
>>65753
I don't get this reference.
>> No. 65759 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 7:35 am
65759 spacer

article-3259523-2D17E30D00000578-498_636x382.jpg
657596575965759
Typical totalitarian behaviour from the tolerant left when democracy doesn't do what they want it to.
>> No. 65760 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 7:43 am
65760 spacer
>>65759

Throwing eggs on poshos is "totalitarian" now?
>> No. 65761 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 8:00 am
65761 spacer
>>65760
If people have to be warned not to wear anything affiliating them with the Tory party outside of the Conference venue for fear of lynching, yes.
>> No. 65762 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 9:33 am
65762 spacer

1442608919609.jpg
657626576265762
>>65761
It's pretty annoying. There are many of us on the left who actually wear a suit and go to work each day without being a raging loonie.

The Tory's made that announcement knowing full well it would get in the news and play to the narrative that the left are a bunch of unrestrained, savage animals.

It's weird how immediately it's assumed that these are all Labour voters. But alas, I digress from the picture of the young man squashed by an egg. I don't by any means support it but he won't be the first, certainly not the last, and standing with such a smug look and literature in hand like your first day of private school near the demonstration line is, well prompting a response.

I'm in no way excusing it, but you have to be reasonable here. I'm just disappointed that it played into the narrative the tories so desperately wanted, I bet Dave is just a bit gutted there was no flashy shots of the police arresting people or people getting kettled. It really is disappointing that somebody thought it necessary to do this, but there we go.

As a reminder I'd like to suggest that everybody on all stops on the spectrum tend to get egged.
>> No. 65763 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 9:35 am
65763 spacer
>>65762
Tories* not tory's. Should proof read more. Sorry.
>> No. 65764 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 9:41 am
65764 spacer
>>65759

The dickheads were spitting at journalists. The face of a new, kinder politics.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/10/04/owen-bennet-spat-conservative-conference_n_8240458.html
>> No. 65765 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 9:42 am
65765 spacer
>>65761
>Actions shouldn't have consequences, dammit!
>> No. 65766 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 1:31 pm
65766 spacer
>>65759>>65761
He was asking for it. The whole group of them that went out to sneer at the poor folk were.
>> No. 65767 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 1:33 pm
65767 spacer
>>65764
This is the thing Corbyn actively requests people don't do. Same goes for slandering online and generally being cunts.
>> No. 65768 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 1:36 pm
65768 spacer
>>65767

If slandering anyone online had consequences, half the country would be facing them.
>> No. 65769 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 4:36 pm
65769 spacer
>>65759
Props to that guy, he handled it pretty well and laughed it off, as you should.

They were chanting 'Cunt cunt cunt' at a Shelter worker too.
>> No. 65774 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 5:39 pm
65774 spacer
>>65762
>standing with such a smug look and literature in hand like your first day of private school near the demonstration line is, well prompting a response.

That's like saying a girl wearing hotpants is "crying out for a rape."

The problem with the rabid aspects of the left is that they are unable to articulate their viewpoints with any degree of effectiveness, as they're so insular they genuinely believe that shouting things like TORY SCUM means they don't actually have to put across a compelling case. When they come up against independent thought they lash out like a toddler having a tantrum if their shrill cries have proved ineffectual. It's why Miliband failed so spectacularly in opposing the bedroom tax; he completely misjudged the public reaction and believed all he'd need to do was little more than say "wicked Tories, in it" to sway public opinion in his favour. In this regard, I have a lot of respect for the former EDL leader, Tommy Robinson, as he debated with those he had differing opinions to with an open mind, which shaped his worldview and ultimately led him him standing down from the organisation, which is far more than you can say about those on the tolerant left who would be able to do little more than shout bigot at him if he'd tried to engage them.
>> No. 65775 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 5:47 pm
65775 spacer
>>65774
>That's like saying a girl wearing hotpants is "crying out for a rape."
No, lad. It's like saying a girl wearing hotpants who attends a rape fantasy meetup and walks up to all the men she passes and asks if they fancy a shag is "crying out for a rape."
>> No. 65776 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 5:52 pm
65776 spacer
>>65775
A Tory supporter attending the Tory conference is asking for it? Are the rabid left so scared of independent thought they have to try and intimidate those with a different opinion to theirs?
>> No. 65777 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 5:57 pm
65777 spacer
>>65776

Stop trying to paint everyone discussing this as a "rabid lefty", how is that any different from people screaming "Tory Scum" at people?
>> No. 65778 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 6:02 pm
65778 spacer
>>65777
Because those who threw eggs at people and spat at journalists simply for attending the Tory conference are quite clearly rabid.
>> No. 65779 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 6:06 pm
65779 spacer
>>65774

>the tolerant left

Can we stop using this strawman please.

The left doesn't have to be tolerant; the only ones who insist that it does are the identity politics nutjobs, who use the word in a worryingly Orwellian manner (I still haven't decided whether it's intentional or not).
>> No. 65780 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 6:09 pm
65780 spacer
>>65778

They are militant, because they feel marginalised and to some extent prosecuted. People act in extremes ways when they feel like that. Were the coal miners "rabid lefties"? Where the Brixton riots perpetuated by a bunch of "rabid lefties"?

You're underestimating the times we live in, lad. Tories are back in power and the noose is tightening on the poor.
>> No. 65781 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 6:13 pm
65781 spacer
>>65779
When people stop fulfilling the definition of the tolerant left I'll stop using it. As evidenced by the baying mob outside the Conference, this may be some time.

For what it's worth, I think what the Tories are doing is morally repugnant but this rabid behaviour is extremely counterintuitive. It has overshadowed the tens of thousands of peaceful protestors and will grab all the headlines. I fail to grasp what they thought it would achieve, apart from ego stroking within their militant circlejerk.
>> No. 65782 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 6:15 pm
65782 spacer
>>65780
Also, there's loonies at both ends of the politic spectrum, and it's unfair to either side to characterise the whole based on the actions of a tiny minority. It should be noted that the far right have a particularly nasty history when it comes to "intimidating" their opposition.
>> No. 65783 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 6:39 pm
65783 spacer
>>65780
>because they feel marginalised
No fucking wonder.

>and to some extent prosecuted.
I wish.
>> No. 65784 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 6:40 pm
65784 spacer
>>65782
Economically the far right and this lot has an enormous amount of common ground.
>> No. 65785 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 6:40 pm
65785 spacer
>>65782
Granted, but this only happened yesterday and is current affairs.
>> No. 65788 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 7:21 pm
65788 spacer
>>65784
Horseshoe theory.
>> No. 65801 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 10:04 pm
65801 spacer
>>65788
A part of me has been waiting for this to be mentioned here.
>> No. 65910 Anonymous
13th October 2015
Tuesday 5:50 pm
65910 spacer
>>65686
Now he's changed his mind. Fucking amateur hour at Labour.
>> No. 66771 Anonymous
23rd November 2015
Monday 7:41 am
66771 spacer
I want to like Corbyn, I really do. I agree with most of his policies but I feel so... indifferent. I think it's because they come across like an inept magistrate political body.
>> No. 66772 Anonymous
23rd November 2015
Monday 7:56 am
66772 spacer
>>66771
You are right. You should vote for Cameron because he looks like what a leader should look like.
>> No. 66773 Anonymous
23rd November 2015
Monday 8:12 am
66773 spacer
>>66772
No, lad, it's nothing like that. It's not even the big bad media, either, because Labour seem perfectly capable of capitulating without any help.

I don't care if Corbyn has no charisma, I just want to see a basic level of competence.
>> No. 66774 Anonymous
23rd November 2015
Monday 9:21 am
66774 spacer
>>66773
Are you actually paying attention? If not, then you're letting the "big bad media" shape your perceptions, whether you like it or not.

What in your mind would competence look like, and why do you think you're not seeing it?
>> No. 66776 Anonymous
23rd November 2015
Monday 10:54 am
66776 spacer
>>66774
A party leader who is incapable of making peace with his parliamentary party is certainly incompetent.
>> No. 66777 Anonymous
23rd November 2015
Monday 11:13 am
66777 spacer
>>66776
So presumably Cameron is also incompetent. Yet this didn't stop him winning an election back in May.
>> No. 66778 Anonymous
23rd November 2015
Monday 11:17 am
66778 spacer
>>66777
I hope you're not serious.
>> No. 66780 Anonymous
23rd November 2015
Monday 11:57 am
66780 spacer
>>66778
Mate, have you not seen what he has to deal with from the Eurosceptics for the last 3-4 years? At least in the last Parliament he had Clegg's lot to fall back on. Then there were the numerous occasions where he had to rely on opposition votes to get things through, such as the same-sex marriage provisions.
>> No. 66781 Anonymous
23rd November 2015
Monday 12:57 pm
66781 spacer
It should really say something about how much control Cameron truly has of his own party, that he doesn't even intend to serve a full term. He's making a tactical withdrawal before things start to really unravel.
>> No. 66785 Anonymous
23rd November 2015
Monday 6:41 pm
66785 spacer
>>66774
It's probably because my expectations were higher, but it just feels like amateur university politics to me. He's been underwhelming, bordering on ridiculously amateur, so far.
>> No. 66789 Anonymous
23rd November 2015
Monday 9:33 pm
66789 spacer
>>66780
Yes, I have, but perceptions matter, and nobody's really aware of how much a thorn in the side of Camza is the Eurosceptic branch.

>>66785
What do you mean by underwhelming? He's certainly one of the most impactful PMs since Churchill, barring Attlee and Thatcher, not that that's necessarily a good or bad thing. That said, it's not his ideology, it's George Osborne's.
>> No. 66790 Anonymous
23rd November 2015
Monday 9:35 pm
66790 spacer
>>66789
Oops I thought you were talking about Cameron. Ignore that.
>> No. 66792 Anonymous
23rd November 2015
Monday 9:49 pm
66792 spacer
>>66789
>Yes, I have, but perceptions matter
That's a bit of a cop-out, TBH. Classic thought-terminating cliche stuff.
>> No. 66793 Anonymous
23rd November 2015
Monday 10:05 pm
66793 spacer
>>66792
Like eating a sandwich the wrong way?
>> No. 66810 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 8:57 pm
66810 spacer
>>66792
Whatever. Nobody considers the Conservatives particularly divided in the general population.
>> No. 66811 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 9:05 pm
66811 spacer
>>66810
I don't think people are really that stupid, m8.
>> No. 66812 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 9:06 pm
66812 spacer
>>66810

That's only because they have better whips. Many Tories wish they had a different leader, only they can't decide if they want Funny Teddy-like Etonian Man or Scary Orwellian Terminator Lady. There's also this schoolboy looking chap at the treasury who wants in, but no one's sure if he's old enough.
>> No. 66813 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 9:20 pm
66813 spacer
>>66811
I do.

The Conservative party has always been deeply divided along several lines, most conspicuously on Europe, but they're a pragmatic bunch and it's not nearly as obvious as it is with Jez's Labour.

>>66812
The She-Stalin in the Home Office won't be the next Tory leader.
>> No. 66815 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 9:25 pm
66815 spacer

The_Mouth_of_Sauron.jpg
668156681566815
>>66813
I don't think The Mouth of Sauron is in the running as the next Tory leader any more, she's more angling for a king-making function, presumably in exchange for more power for her armies of goons (NCA, the secret police, etc).
>> No. 66820 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 10:37 pm
66820 spacer
>>66815

How right am I in thinking that one of the reasons May set up the NCA was as a "fuck you" to local police forces?
>> No. 66825 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 11:49 pm
66825 spacer
>>66820
Not really. It was just consolidating a load of other national functions into one place. It basically just merged a load of things that worked closely with SOCA into it, and changed the name because the old one was dirt.
>> No. 66860 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 10:38 pm
66860 spacer
>>66825
Does anyone remember the little period before the war on terror when the intelligence services were doing drug busts?
>> No. 66862 Anonymous
26th November 2015
Thursday 9:15 pm
66862 spacer
>>66774
Is it the big bad medias fault that McDonnell pulled the Mao stunt yesterday?

Who needs enemies when you've got friends like him, Abbott and Livingstone?
>> No. 66863 Anonymous
26th November 2015
Thursday 10:09 pm