WHY WON'T HE FUCK OFF ?

>>80532
His ginormous mandate, which he is using to do...

>>80535
Holding onto power to piss off every cunt who couldn't handle his first mandate.

This is what you get for starting a cunt-off with a man who has nothing to lose.

>>80558
Exactly. Corbyn and his cult have no stake in keeping the Tories out. They're happy in the islington piles, sending their kids to private school and mouthing off at each other about how right-on they are. It's all just a joke to them, really.

>>80559
I can't blame them for it, honestly.
When your options are between other jokes (who can't keep the Tories out either, even if they'll poll ahead in the mid-term) and cunts who're so bad they'd leave you wondering why not just have the tories, you might as well just have fun burning the party to the ground and pissing everyone who ruined it off. They deserve it for being useless and evil, respectively.

Better to live a day as an octogenarian lion on fire than a hundred years as a Lib-Dem.

>>80559

What happened to you? Your hatred of the lefty metropolitan, cultural-relativist, champagne-swilling, liberal etc., etc. seems to go beyond the intellectual - it seems personal.

Did Tony Benn finger you in Leicester Square's public lav as EP Thompson watched?

>>80561
Perhaps they're a policy wonk upset that nobody cares about their strategic study into the implementation of a £8/hr Muh-Inimum wage (by 2020.) when they could talk about something equally unlikely to happen (Global communist revolution) that's actually fun to discuss. (I want to be the one who gets to use the testicle-shears on the DWP managers!)

>>80560
Oh, you're one of them too. The sort of sociopath that couldn't care less about the sort of people who depend on government help because the opposition party don't offer the ideologically pure platform that you post about on your facebook page.

I've more time for Tories than the likes of you. At least they don't have a cynical and smug 'ha ha isn't it all just a laugh' attitude.

>>80563

Good guess, but I'm pretty sure >>80559 is incapable of such a study. It would distract from his finger painting.

>>80564
>because the opposition party don't offer the ideologically pure platform that you post about on your facebook page.
No, you idiot: because the opposition party don't look like they can win anyway. It's not about being ideologically pure - if they could win on Miliband's shit Austerity-lite manifesto, I'd endorse it wholeheartedly because it would represent tangible improvement - but they can't. They lost. They lost badly.

It's not cynical and smug. It's actually utterly hopelesss: This country is evil. It actively resents the idea of the government helping those who depend on such help. It's fucked. If the country can't be changed because a majority of voters - and a majority of swing voters - actively hate the idea, you might as well have a laugh destroying the more annoying parts of party that promises change.

I feel it's probably necessary to clarify for the terminally thick that:
1. I'm not 100% serious. I'm essentially piss-taking while expressing genuine feelings.
2. I'm not a Labourite. Actually, I'm moderately left-wing. I just accept in advance that the UK isn't savable as part of the ideology of the party I actually do vote for. Labour's destruction is therefore a third-party spectator sport (and borderline foreign politics) to me.

>>80566
How short sighted can one arsehole get - 'it doesn't look like my sort of people could win any time soon, so I'll "have a laugh destroying parts of a party that annoy me". You're deluded and a prick.

>>80567
sighs if only Owen Smith had won, we wouldn't have been in this mess.

>>80568
It would have been better. I don't know how much better, but small percentage improvements could at least add up to half of something one day. All cunts like you do is repeat the same cynical shit again and again, because it's easier than actually bothering to do anything. Fuck the lot of you.

>>80567
They're not my sort of people and I won't have a laugh destroying anything, because it's not my party. I'll have a laugh watching it burn.
There's no delusion in saying that Labour faces serious problems. Rationally I would even say it's even possible they are insurmountable, and if they ARE insurmountable it just becomes a question of HOW the party dies. If it's going to die, it might as well die in a way that's interesting to watch instead of slowly declining.

It's perhaps worth noting that I'm one of the fucked individuals that could do with help from the Government, but I've long given up hope on that sort of thing. Emotionally speaking it becomes very tempting to then punish those who wrote the UK into a corner for the short and mid term. (Though as mentioned, I've had no real mechanism for doing that anyway.)

I've even lost hope that the breakup of the UK would be enough of a shock to the national psyche to kick out the Conservatives. Maybe they'd split. Most likely, as always, the worst possible thing would happen.

>>80569
If it's worth exerting a lot of effort for almost no reward, why didn't MPs rally around Corbyn instead of staging a coup, retain the absolutely ridiculous pretence he could win (like Foot), and march headlong into defeat but perhaps be a few seats up on what they're going to get now? After all, isn't a small percentage improvement worth it?
Why do MPs get to repeat the same cynical shit again and again, but party members get fuck for it?

This will be taken as a pro-Corbyn statement. I was actually praying for Liz Kendall to win, the boundary review would obliterate Labour anyway and then (in wishful thinking land) a moderate-left type who actually looks like a PM could take over and work towards 2025.

>>80566
>but they can't. They lost. They lost badly.
They really didn't, m7.

>>80570
It's probably most likely that we'd see a repeat of the 1980s within which Militant Tendency began to subvert the Labour council in Manchester to make them submit illegal budgets. Would you believe that, those dirty commie toerags began to demand more cash from the government than had already been given to them under our benevolent Thatcher. Thankfully it never happened and they had got rid of their hammer and sickle contingent in the end.

>>80571
>why didn't MPs rally around Corbyn

Because it is clear that Corbyn is not up to the job and that his leadership is going to take Labour into the worst general election drubbing since Michael Foot. The party's polling rates have plummeted. He has to go if there is to be any hope for the Labour party in the next 15-20 years.

>After all, isn't a small percentage improvement worth it?

You're a cunt who's deliberately misconstruing a point.

>This will be taken as a pro-Corbyn statement.

It's a pro-dickhead statement.

>>80572
Why're you only showing results in England? Is their collapse in Scotland not relevant when they continue to rule out an arrangement with the SNP?

I would make the case it was a worse loss than in 1992, which was also quite a bad loss when you (again) factor how close victory appeared and how unexpected a parliamentary majority for the Conservatives was. At least in 1992, the trend was positive for Labour.

Though I'd also raise that like 1992, the Kinnock Effect has to be factored in. The problem with that is, what future Labour leader isn't Kinnock-effect'd? (And perhaps now as part of my obligatory need to shoehorn in modernity, the Clinton effect?)

>>80574
>his leadership is going to take Labour into the worst general election drubbing since Michael Foot
You can still try to mitigate that drubbing. One way of doing that would be not trying to throw out a leader who has huge support among the people who actually get to vote on who the leader is. With 20/20 hindsight: You've gone and cunted it up. You've made things worse. Congratulations.

>You're a cunt who's deliberately misconstruing a point.
You're a cunt who's going to keep whining about Corbyn and doing further damage to the party on top of the damage he does. You don't actually care about making marginal gains in this case: You want him gone. If polling showed Owen "Negotiate with ISIS" Smith was even less popular than Corbyn with the public you'd still insist old-man-bycicle fuck off because you simply don't like him. Hell, you'd probably justify it with "Ah, but MPs can rally around Smith to mitigate the fact he's a twat" as though it was physically impossible to hold their noses and deal with the fact they're stuck with Mr. Marrow until 2020.

Or, y'know, "It would've been slightly better" isn't actually a rallying cry that gets anyone involved. You don't want a slightly-better Corbyn defeat, just like Corbyn lefties don't want a slightly better Tory policy...

Hey, maybe if they made him look credible enough to get an opinion poll lead MI5 help him kick himself to death in a tragic jogging accident.

>>80572
They lost incredibly badly and you're a fucking idiot if you can't tell why.

>>80577

I'm sure you're about to tell us. Some acidic bile about sandal-wearers and fruit juice-drinkers incoming in 3... 2...

>>80576
>You can still try to mitigate that drubbing.

That's like telling a drowning man to try laughing dryly. It won't work. It's going to be a complete bloodbath. The Tories haven't even begun their negative campaigning yet, which will be replete with Mcdonnell waving around copies of the Little Red Book, Corbyn endorsing IRA terror campaigns, and Abbott calling all white people racist. There is nothing that can be accomplished while these gang of scumbag cunts are at the top table.

>You've made things worse.

This is a core Corbyn cultist claim - that things were actually going really well until the leadership challenge. It's much like the German 'stabbed in the back' myth but this time with all Labour MPs who don't sit on the party's nutter left.

Funny how you, who 'isn't a fan of Corbyn at all, honest guv', are putting out messages that amount to no more than stop criticising the Dear Leader.

>>80578
That is pertinent but I was thinking more on the numbers game. There are fewer swing seats than ever, constituencies have gone harder Labour or harder Tory. Labour need a swing as great as 1997 (which was a Tory collapse in reality) to get a majority of 1. It simply won't happen.

And, on the point of sandal-wearers, as acidic as you might think it is, it's correct. I hope you guffaw and throw your quinoa out the window but it's true. Brexit has for many in hard Labour seats shown they don't need Labour and that as far as they're concerned it does nothing for them. Labour is now and will continue to be forevermore the party of the rich liberal.

Cheers Jezza m8

>>80579
>You've made things worse.
>This is a core Corbyn cultist claim
True, and they're right, the lack of party unity has made things worse. That is, however, an irrelevance as far as they're concerned because Corbyn is unelectable even with a united Labour party. That's why the Labour party is spazzing out about it.

>>80579
>The Tories haven't even begun their negative campaigning yet,
The next decade or two is completely in the Tory's hands. Labour simply from a mathematical point of view are irrelevant. The Tories either consolidate that (as I believe Mrs. May will do) or they throw it out the window.

Corbyn ultimately doesn't matter.

>>80579

>The Tories haven't even begun their negative campaigning yet, which will be replete with Mcdonnell waving around copies of the Little Red Book

Yep, all those comments from earlier just passed you by, didn't they? Jesus, how the fuck does your mind just do that?

>>80579
>that things were actually going really well until the leadership challenge
They weren't. You've made them more of a fucking disaster.
Also, I'm not talking "until the leadership challenge", I'm talking before he was even fucking elected, twats talking about what a cunt Corbyn is ignoring the fact he'd soon be leading the party.

>There is nothing that can be accomplished while these gang of scumbag cunts are at the top table.
Good luck making the bloodbath slightly worse then, because they ain't going anywhere soon.
Cunts like you make me hope they stay on after 2020.

>Funny how you, who 'isn't a fan of Corbyn at all, honest guv', are putting out messages that amount to no more than stop criticising the Dear Leader.
Stop criticising Corbyn if you want to be consistent with your own "Well, it'll add up to something" ideal.
Otherwise, have fun fighting him and losing. I'm sitting here with popcorn watching you dipshits tear your own party limb-from-limb.

>>80581
Why is the protagonist of Hot Fuzz thanking Jeremy Corbyn?

>>80582
Corbyn is unelectable, but in the circumstances of the leadership challenge so was his replacement.

Now, even after the failed challenge, MPs refuse to rally around him to mitigate what a fucking disaster 2020 will be. They're sitting being cynical arseholes when they could at least try to make things a little bit better.

>>80587
Jezter is the best advert for the Lib Dems.

>>80589

>Jezter

You needn't take time out of your busy Daily Mail commenting schedule to join us. Really.

>>80588

>Jez is so unelectable - note how his popularity made it impossible to oust him

>>80589
The who?

>>80588
Keeping a clear distance from Corbyn is making things better in the long run - at least Corbyn and Mcdonnell's rule, once it ends, can be spun as a fringe set of nutters at the helm, and not the entire party taking part in mass suicide.

>>80575
>Why're you only showing results in England?
Because that's where our elections are played out.

>>80580
>Labour need a swing as great as 1997 (which was a Tory collapse in reality) to get a majority of 1. It simply won't happen.
Only on the assumption of a uniform national swing. The swing in Scotland certainly isn't permanent. The SNP haven't gained support, they just attracted a lot of angry voters. That 30% swing almost certainly isn't going to stick if 2016 was anything to go by. Of course, who will actually take the two dozen or so seats they're going to lose is up for debate.

>>80595
>if 2016 was anything to go by
You mean when they increased their FPTP vote and bled votes entirely to the Green party?

Yeah, they're fucked. Labour will be back with 40 seats by 2025.

Have you considered getting better at making memes? I hear that works pretty well for winning elections.

>>80596
Oh, tartantorylad.

>>80598
The combination of the two has reminded me: Labour types I've spoken to are not optimistic that the boundary-review is going to aid unionist tactical voting for Labour. I've met some who think Labour's getting zero Scottish seats in 2020 when you factor that in. (Apparently Murray's seat is being redrawn to include poor parts of Edinburgh that'll probably tip things SNP, and they're just not optimistic about picking up any elsewhere.)

The boundary review is a fun confounding factor in all predictions.

>>80596
Yeah, I mean the one where they only managed a swing of a couple of points. If they were carrying their 2015 support into the 2016 election, they should have been winning around 55-60% of the primary vote and in total won around 75-80 seats.

>>80600
I'm not sure if turnout is what you're getting at here. Turnout has always been lower at Holyrood elections. (Though it was actually up 5% on 2011 in 2016. I believe it actually peaked in 1999 at 59.4%) That's not a drop in support, that's a continuation of a trend of depressed turnouts.

There's no point trying to extrapolate 2020's result from 2016's, just as there was no point in trying to get 2010's from 2007. (Even though 2011 and 2015 ended up aligning interestingly, this only came about after the referendum itself, with Labour leading Westminster voting intention, save one bump, from 2011 until 2014.)

>>80601
>I'm not sure if turnout is what you're getting at here
Erm, no. I mean actual share of the vote, as you'd understand if you'd bothered to read the words "of the primary vote" that came immediately after "55-60%". In the Westminster elections, they picked up a million additional votes, which is a pretty substantial share of the Scottish vote. In the subsequent Holyrood elections, it was only around 100k. Even accounting for lower turnout and "ticket-splitting" (given nothing dramatic happened in 2010-2011 other than the Lib Dem collapse), one would expect around 300-400k new votes and a significantly higher turnout.

If the votes that brought them the near-sweep in Westminster were a major shift, one would expect to see a similar effect in Holyrood, but we didn't. On that basis, it seems like a reasonable conclusion that it was little more than a reaction to the independence referendum, and that they're not likely to keep those voters.

>>80602
It still feels like a conflation of two different types of election.

2010: SNP ~20%
2011: SNP 44% FPTP, 45.4% List
2015: SNP 49.5%
2016: SNP 46.5% FPTP, 42% List

> In the Westminster elections, they picked up a million additional votes
On their 2010 result. On their 2011 result they were up ~600k, while 2016 was down 400k on 2015 and up ~150k on 2011.

The major shift was the change in Westminster dominance from Labour to SNP. Even if the SNP were to lose 400k votes in 2020, they'd be ahead of Brown in 2010 in raw numbers and remain the most popular party in Scotland. (Unless we assume the Labour vote held up entirely from 2015 and SNP voters went entirely to Labour, or both SNP and Labour voters went Conservative, or everyone voted Lib-Dem or UKIP, but that's a big mess, so for simplicities sake let's not assume that.)

Another thought: Labour were down 300k votes on 2010. Lib-Dems down ~230k. Toss all that at the SNP and you get them as the largest party in Scotland.

There were two components to the 2015 funfest: Voters abandoning Labour and "new" voters from the referendum. Even if we write off the newly registered voters and say they've given up entirely and won't vote in 2020, the SNP > Lab shift hasn't actually slowed at all.

I feel I've perhaps rambled and estimated that last point far less than it warrants.
As a final uncomfortable note - who's to say Labour would be the beneficiary of any SNP losses? You can't ignore that they came third in 2016. If anything Ruth Davidson's never surrender to a second referendum don't use the word Tory party could find itself the beneficiary of tactical pro-union voting. In which case, well, Labour's still fucked.

>>80604
Actually with hindsight "types of election" really ought to be "times of election" or something.

Essentially trying to get at the fact that 2011 was a major shift in-and-of itself. Confirmation of something along the lines of "People actually prefer the SNP to Labour at this stage, but saw Labour better placed to fight the Tories in 2010. Come 2015, people didn't see Labour in that light any-more and so gave in and voted SNP, and then voted SNP again in 2016. These people will probably still vote SNP in 2020, because Labour have only managed to implode further and you can't exactly fight the Tories by voting for them."

That's without factoring any of the people who only registered to vote because of the referendum. They're being written off here. They only really increase the margin of victory.

Dear Leader isn't happy with just endorsing Castro - he's flying to Cuba for his fucking funeral. I wonder what sorts of interesting characters he'll have photo opportunities with in that visit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/27/boris-johnson-may-attend-fidel-castros-funeral-barack-obama/

>>80607

José “Pepe” Mujica, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Rafael Correa, Juan Manuel Santos, Evo Morales, Jacob Zuma, others from the ANC figureheads, the Sandinistas, Paul Kagame, Pierre Nkurunziza, Abdul Hamid, Pranab Mukherjee, Michel Aoun, Mahmoud Abbas... a who's who of the developing world, not to mention all the EU and UN delegates that'll be there.

Ought to be an interesting affair (although I imagine your favourite "joke" - Dear Leader Dear Leader Dear Leader would fall flat among its guests).

>>80608
Dry your eyes, cultist.

>>80604
>>80606
Typical cybernats. Almost as bad as the Corbynisti. Almost.

>>80609

And just how long does it take your work to dry?

>>80612
What's hilarious about Trot nutters is how at pains they are to present themselves on the intellectual high ground, all while splitting and arguing with each other about who's the Blairite. It's a laugh, don't ever stop.

>>80607

To be honest, people laud praise on Corbyn for 'not playing the media game' and see this as a great virtue. In reality they should abhor how fucking poor he is at communicating and how painfully he fails to anticipate the results of his actions.

If he was a CEO, or even just a standard run of the mill worker and he said 'well what I did wasn't technically wrong, who cares for the implications?' he'd be out on his arse. He's useless.

It's like the banker turning up to a food bank to donate in his chauffeur driven, gilded, Jag limo. Sure, it's technically not prohibited or bad but the implications would show a lack of understanding or care for the perceived backlash.

>>80612

Yes, yes, that's all well and good, but just how does one get paint out from under one's fingernails?

>>80615
Same way your mum gets my spaff off her teeth m8

>>80616

I see. It must do wonders for the cuticles, I imagine.

>>80613

There is an excellent book called The Opium Of Intellectuals that is well worth a skim over if you happen to find a copy.

Dear Leader isn't going - the other champion of the proletariat, Emily Snobberry, is going instead. Hasta la disastro sempre!

>>80610
I was unaware that the evil separatism of the SNP extended to separating me into two different people.

If such an occurrence has happened, I would like to renounce arguing about election numbers at 6AM after being awake for 12 hours. I've found something much more fun to do with my life.
Thank you, Alex.

Richmond on Thursday.

Whilst UKIP and the Tories have been pragmatic enough not to field candidates against Goldsmith, the 'Progressive Alliance' on the left are in disarray. The Lib Dems are the only ones with a realistic chance of winning the seat, but Labour have decided to field a candidate and split the vote despite the local parties not wanting to. The Greens have decided not to field a runner and Lucas has thrown her weight behind the Lib Dems, which has infuriated the local Green parties who are still mad at them for getting into bed with the Tories so they've decided to come out in support of Labour. What a fucking shitshow.

>>80621
Maybe, since Labour is the country's official opposition, the lib Dems should have stepped aside instead.

There is no 'progressive alliance' involving Labour, outside the febrile imaginations of left wing nutters, so fuck off.

>>80622
If fairly sure the 'progressive alliance' hates the liberals for being actually liberal, I mean liberal princpals are all well and good and it's a nice buzzword, but what about when feelings can get hurt? feeelings.

>>80623
The Lib-Dems are only liberal in the most relative of senses.
Orange Bookers go home. Oh wait, most of you had to. Let's see your economically-liberal solution to unemployment, you fucks. You fucking idiots, you killed the--[Connection Lost.]

>>80622
>Labour is the country's official opposition

They should start acting like it, then.

>>80625
By refusing to contest seats? Er, right...

>>80626
Richmond Park for Labour:

2005: 9.2%
2010: 5.0%
2015: 12.3%

It's not a seat Labour have any hope in, whereas the Lib Dems have polled over 40% in two of those and there's been a resurgence in support since Brexit. It's better for Labour for this to be a Lib Dem seat than a Tory one, especially when the majority is so small.

Is there anybody who genuinely believes Corbyn has the slightest chance of actually becoming PM and being the man in charge?

I'd say, as things are, discounting the possibility of May being found to eat babies but even then I think she'd still win.

>>80628

I think the next election is a long time away and we have no idea what's going to happen before then. After this past year I wouldn't like to make any sort of political predictions really.

>>80628
I mean, he could become PM. That's within the bounds of the system. It's very unlikely. though honestly i'd fucking love it, what a bloody adventure that would be.
I have my doubts he'd be in charge if he was, though.

>>80628
He essentially doomed to fail really:

If he defers from the opposition leadership; he'll forever be known as a flaccid dishcloth of a man achieving less that fuck all and sending the labour party into oblivion

He hangs on, well there is no fucking way he'll be PM - he'll lose to another authoritarian Tory - essentially handing the leadership, yet again, to the Tories, but this time with a red bow.

If by some miracle, he actually DOES become PM, he'll be utterly shit and ineffective. "Lets get rid of Trident and have the submarines deliver fresh organic vegetables and hemp products to the needy".

>>80631
>"Lets get rid of Trident and have the submarines deliver fresh organic vegetables and hemp products to the needy".


Ah fuck, you got me. That was good.

>>80631

Imagine Corbyn trying to negotiate with Trump or Putin.

"I've had an e-mail from Rhys in Betws-y-Coed. He asks what the impact of nuclear armageddon will be on the tourism industry in Snowdonia".

>>80633
There would be no negotiations, it's like two completely different beings of two different consciousnesses meeting and not really knowing how the other communicates.

"But yes Mr. Trump, we've already donated 3 billion pounds worth of Brompton folding cycles and high-vis jackets to the South Sudanese in order for them to live more sustainably - what do you... Mr. Trump? Hello? Diane check if the line is working..."

Can you, for second, imagine Corbyn on the world stage?

He'll be erecting statues of Mugabe in no time.

>>80612>>80615
I'll have you know I use a palette knife.

>>80635

At least someone here has a decent sense of humour.

>>80627
Great - so if the Lib dems withdrew their candidate, their voters would swing to Labour, and the Tory would be gone. Result!

>>80637
And this entitlement (expressed in jest or otherwise) is why a lefty-alliance would never work. Labour thinks everyone should stand aside and let them win.

I think everyone should gang up and put a pillow over Labour's face while it's asleep, to be honest.

>>80638
Funny, I'm not the one demanding that a political party stop allowing British citizens to cast a vote for it at the ballot box. Weird how I get called 'entitled'. I didn't ask that the lib dems abandon it at all, so try paying attention next time.

>>80640
>demanding that a political party stop allowing British citizens to cast a vote for it at the ballot box
Christ, what a wank.

ICM poll out today. Tories on +44, one point off their highest ever rating. They're ahead of Labour in every socioeconomic group and age group except for 18 to 24 year olds.

>>80642
He's really energising the voters, isn't he?

>>80638
It'd probably be the best way for labour to go, whilst it's in its sleep. Give it that long slumber.

Just as a general point, I find it amazing just how lads here are ignorant of internal Labour politics. You're talking as if Labour is this static thing, and it's plan for the next five years is "dither". Without boring you with details, all I'm going to say is this:

Corbyn's team and, more importantly, Momentum know the current status quo isn't tenable, and have known so for over a year (prior to the second leadership contest definitely). I will however provide what details I have if anyone is interested.

>>80645
>Corbyn's team and, more importantly, Momentum know the current status quo isn't tenable

Of course it's tenable. They'll do what they are their mates did in the 80s - collect the nice salaries, go to 'fact finding' trips to Cuba and Vegas paid for by union expenses, and achieve nothing while the Tories do the actual running of the country.

>>80642

>18 to 24 year olds

AKA shithead know-it-all students who are just so fucking enlightened.

>>80645

Of course we're interested, the real question is will anyone actually listen and the cunt off will continue.

>>80645
I would love to hear the details lad.

>>80647

Nothing Earth-shattering but: they're grooming some young hopefuls, one of which will take over before the election. Corbyn will step down, asking his supporters to get behind whoever's picked. Admittedly, I don't have a fucking clue who it is, but if they're smart they'll be largely unheard of (no IRA stuff please), a Scot and female with some funky-looking hair. I say "some" because I have have heard nothing about the supposed successor - a guy - since spring.

Corbyn's holding out until someone decent can get their act together - like Lenin in waiting for the German revolution (I know, I know). In the meantime Momentum is taking full advantage of the distraction, and is doing a remarkable job in taking over the party apparatus at every level. They're transforming the Labour Party in a way that will be difficult to reverse. Politicos did also say that about Blair's changes, but then again he had the Iraq fuck-up. (Me, being a cynical cunt though, think they'll be corrupted long before they take the Front Bench.)

There's a big push to get across that the party won't be new Old Labour (which can only make it New New Labour, right?) They're also reaching out to some public intellectuals/academics to endorse policies such as the Universal Minimum Wage and tax reform more prominently. Sadly Picketty's out, but expect to see more of Paul Mason and Yanis Varoufakis on TV. Whoever they get on board, the prospect of a left Labour government won't put the Bank of England at ease: the talk of "QE for the people" is a declaration of war - one that gets the enemy prepared and leaves our side ("the people") completely unaware... but perhaps that'll change once the ideas get out there some more.


>>80646

>collect the nice salaries, go to 'fact finding' trips to Cuba and Vegas paid for by union expenses, and achieve nothing while the Tories do the actual running of the country

I've been a fully paid-up member of Labour for some time but, fuck, there's a lot of truth to that.

I noticed, as typing the above out, I wrote "they" instead of "we". Momentary despair perhaps, or maybe I too am giving up.

>>80649
>I've been a fully paid-up member of Labour for some time

So have I. It's something I've always known about the LP nutter left - they enjoy making pulpit speeches to the hordes of the faithful, but never miss out on sticking their snouts in the trough.

>>80649
You're talking about Lewis?

>Corbyn's holding out until someone decent can get their act together - like Lenin in waiting for the German revolution (I know, I know). In the meantime Momentum is taking full advantage of the distraction, and is doing a remarkable job in taking over the party apparatus at every level.

It's a funny one because yes, they've swarmed at NEC level, but at a local level I don't think they're doing so well. Everyone outside of the nutter left in my CLP has done a splendid job of keeping the nutters away from the levers.

>They're also reaching out to some public intellectuals/academics to endorse policies such as the Universal Minimum Wage and tax reform more prominently

They tried this before - remember the 'New Economics' (http://www.labour.org.uk/blog/entry/the-new-economics)? That lasted about as long as a sand castle in Hurricane Katrina. No one worth their weight in peanuts would go near anything promulgated by Labour right now. We are a joke.

>>80650

>You're talking about Lewis?

Yes, what's up with him? He can give a good speech, I saw him give a vehement anti-Trident one...

>We are a joke

We are. We should set up a support group... or just leave the country, but who would have us?

>>80649
Interesting. I had also wondered whether Corbyn had an active seat-warming plan, it would be the only possible explanation. Would love to hear who the "guy" is, but I agree, it should probably be a female (LIZ KENDALL) if they want to get some of our shy Tory votes - are they starting to realise yet that to win an election you need some of us?

Paul Mason is a fucking twat. At least Varoufakis has actually been in government. Corbyn and his crew don't understand that hanging around with bell ends like Mason is detrimental.

>>80652

I like Varoufakis a lot. Did you know his wife is apparently the girl referred to in Pulp's Common People?

And he's actually a very good writer. I would check out his Minotaur book even if you're not on the left.

i'm still quite drawn to the idea of labour outright lying their way into power, though it's not a panacea for winning elections.

say "it's normal to have a small deficit" in opposition and you'll get booed - but when in power, run one and say "lol no it's okay listen to these economists" and you might just penetrate the press-wall (they can't exactly ignore the PM) and people can realize come the next election that the country hasn't collapsed and let the incumbency effect carry you forward. so lie, say you'll avoid it and then don't - that's what the tories are going to get away with in 2020. (for very different reasons.), just lie lie lie.

i'm mostly fantasising aloud because this is more of a problem for miliband-types and miliband's biggest problem was being miliband, but it's a genuine point when you've got something that's consensus, but bullshit. if it's bullshit in reality then just play along until you're in power and then smash it. once you've actually got power, if the policy works nobody's going to say "Ah, you did the right thing but you lied", if people's services and lives get better they're not going to complain that actually you promised zero deficit but we're on 2%.
it's a shame most people are either keen to signal that they're right, or genuinely believe nonsense. politicians should spin less and lie more.

May will obliterate Labour regardless of their leader.

>>80653

That's bollocks, you are making that Pulp thing up.

>>80656
She was a Greek heiress who studied sculpture at St Martin's at the same time tuat Jarvis Cocker studied there.

>>80657

Stop lying to me!

>>80655
What if she WAS their leader this entire time?

I think Corbyn is just May in a very well-made wig, a character used as an outlet for her multiple personalities. She's split in half between naive-good and ruthless-evil.

Watch PMQs carefully and you can see the flicker as she jumps across the dispatch box.

Some small good news in a reduction in the government majority. Result not officially declared, but this is the look on Zac Goldsmith's face, while his Lib Dem opponent has a massive shit-eating grin.

>>80660

I laughed a lot when the Monster Raving Looney bloke shook the One Love candidate's hand, the latter seeming to realise something dreadful.

>>80660
Result is now in. Sarah Olney will be the new MP, with a majority of a little under 2k. (Goldsmith's majority was over 23k.) That might be where the good news ends, as Christian Wolmar has lost his deposit.

Diane Abbott tried to land a zinger on the This Week special.
>Andrew Neil: Is there a danger that if you really feel strongly about Remain, if you think the country took a wrong turn on June 23, that the party now to vote for to try and reverse that is the Lib Dems, not Labour?
>Diane Abbott: If you take the Lib Dems seriously.

Maybe she's just dead tired but Olney's smile is reasonably unsettling.

>>80662
The good news is that the Labour candidate lost his deposit and the liberals continue to advocate the status quo and lose even more seats in the general elections.

>>80664
In every picture I've seen of her she looks like Carla from Coronation Street.

Anyway, it's a good job the Greens didn't field a candidate. They polled over 3,500 in 2015 and the Lib Dem's majority yesterday was about 1,870. At least some on the left are pragmatic enough to think of the greater good and not their own self interest. Labour losing their deposit is humiliating.

To those discussing corby's successors, of course that's what he's doing, that's how he sees himself, as the would be legendary figure who never quite made it but groomed the next generation.

When Foot got absolutely obliterated Tony Benn wasn't upset that Labour got obliterated, he said 'yeah but 10 million voted for real socialism', it's all these loons care about.

Clive Lewis and Rebecca Long Bailey, maybe Angela Rayner all see themselves as future Labour big dogs, shame they're all fucking shite and about as convincing as Tim Farron's smile.

On the by-election win, who really cares? Posh London suburb that largely voted remain votes for middle class remain candidate who was on their side on the biggest issue in politics right now. People had a go at Zac for being out of touch but this is the same woman who said she didn't really care if she won because she had a nice big house and a great job to go back to.

>>80667
>would be legendary figure who never quite made it but groomed the next generation.
Yes, and we all know what the public thinks of those who groomed a generation.

>>80666
As a Green I'm pleased we helped kick out the Tory and secure a pro-EU MP, but I'm worried about our trend in recent by-elections of just standing down apparently without proper negotiations first. We should be getting something tangible out of this in future - for all Olney's gratitude, are we really going to trust the Lib Dems to reciprocate somehow, apropos of nothing?

>>80670
Maybe you should think about putting your house in order before you start making bold claims of political relevance? After all the local Greens clearly stood on the way of a champion of the environment according to your weird co-council leader.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/green-party-leader-caroline-lucas-praises-zac-goldsmith-for-brilliant-environmental-work-a3390296.html

>>80670
Based on this, securing Olney doesn't seem like that much of an achievement:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn3vuKEgTbs

While we're at it, what's particularly Green about wanting to be in the EU? I remember the days when the Greens used to be against high levels of immigration and population growth because they didn't think our country could sustain more than 20 million people and were actually about the environment rather than airy fairy identity politics bollocks like transbathrooms. Besides, I'd have thought the EU was too corporatist for the likes of the Greens and the way it cosies up to tobacco and car manufacturing firms.

>>80681
>While we're at it, what's particularly Green about wanting to be in the EU?

EU provided a framework for environmental management standards. A government can cancel and ignore it's own objectives. An EU wide initiative has more force. Brexit is going to cause problems for groups like the national trust and wildlife trust.

Not a green btw.

>>80681
Dealing with the burgeoning environmental crises of the 21st century will require international co-operation on an unprecedented scale.

The only proponents of an actual fully united Europe I've known have been environmentalists who think a world of competing nation states is incompatible with the long term survival of civilisation.

>>80682

This is why we need a fully codified constitution for the UK itself, such things could be legally binding.

>>80685
This whole discussion is starting to annoy me now. We do have a quasi-constitutional commitment to carbon emission reductions under the Climate Change Act that our government is about as bound to as you can get in our system. In my opinion its a bit aspirational and conflicts with the responsibilities conferred by the 2015 infrastructure Act to the extraction of petroleum but we have done allot in terms of emissions reductions and we should be commended for it.

Greens support the EU because as >>80684 says to address issues of climate change you quite rightly need to make it a global effort otherwise we have the system we have now where those nations that would enact conventional emissions policies don't because it would be a competitive disadvantage. That doesn't mean the Greens aren't opposed to the EU we have today (obv. a neo-liberal economic union doesn't sit too well) they instead want to reform it as they would want to do with the UN instead of pulling out like the ideologically compromised might suggest.

>>80687

>but we have done allot in terms of emissions reductions and we should be commended for it

Everyone pat the back of the lad to their left.

>>80684
Why does that require being in the EU though? It's not a prerequisite to being part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which has seen nearly 200 nations from around the world negotiate the Paris Agreement.

I can't recall the Greens making an environmental case for staying in the EU. All I remember is them banging on about how deeply flawed the EU is but we should remain and reform from within, sounding like a desperate battered housewife convinced she's too weak to stand on her own two feet and that her husband will really change and not knock her teeth out again if she accidentally overcooks dinner.

quite drawn to the idea of bullying the third world, BRICS, etc, into reducing emissions to be honest. (it's because i'm a cunt.) instead of taking a fairer more co-operative approach.

as a bonus we (i.e. "the west" including USA) could use it as an excuse to fuck them economically so that we never have to compete as equals, allowing the first world to retain what really ought to be unsustainable living standards.

>>80693

Have you ever thought of a career at Chatham House?

>>80693

Go ahead 老外，make my day.

>>80693
Just level the carbon tax at the consumer level rather than domestic production and its done. Its frankly bullshit that a factory in Britain should pay 9%~ more for electricity than in BRICKShire because of environmental policy like somehow we all get a quota of how much we can fuck up the planet.

As a plus we can also neatly deal with the problem of shipping pollution which is something that at least was being talked about circa 2004 in the Green Alternatives to Globalisation book^*. The problem of course is simply in oversight giving how shifty the Chinese are when it comes to product labelling but if the EU comes together what the fuck are they going to do if we tell all that steel to fuck off.

Imagine if the Green party grew a cock and started talking like this.

^{*wouldn't recommend}

>>80698

What's the first rule?

DON'T START A BLOODY TRADE WAR WITH CHINA.

I don't even know why third-worlders listen to us when we talk about global warming. I would be really pissed if I were them. Industrialised nations basically became really rich by fucking the environment, and now the South Africans can't do it because think of the earth. Think of the poor earth. It is almost like a conspiracy to keep the poor, well, poor.

Every nations should get a chance to reach the per capita emission levels of Britain in the 1880s. Then, and only then, will they be forced to reduce their emissions.

After Corbyn's fawning of Castro recently, here's a picture of a general election under El Commandante Corbyn.

>>80721
Firing squad is one of the best ways to die. If I ever find myself being killed by the state, I hope they give me the choice of facing a firing squad.

>>80722

Cheer up Sartrelad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCeIIcPAwv8

>The populist right are “political parasites feeding on people’s concerns and worsening conditions”, Jeremy Corbyn has told a gathering of European socialist and progressive parties.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/03/corbyn-far-right-are-parasites-feeding-on-peoples-concerns

What utter bastards the far right are. Who do they think they are, gaining popularity off of paying attention to people's concerns rather than ignoring them and trying to take their votes for granted?

>>80725
The failing Guardian newspaper is going down the tubes, very low circulation of 160.000, won't be long until it joins its cousin the Indy in internet only limbo.

>>80726

Islington uber alles. Uber alles Islington.

Send the m1grants there.

A female to male trans walks into a masjid in Saudi Arabia.

>>80724
I don't understand. I'm not in agony. What's my post's connection to The Wall and that song you posted?

>>80727
I remember when it was shit. I visited it a couple of weeks back. It changed a lot. I wonder what happened to all those coloured scum who used to stab each other over postcodes.

>>80729

Not me, Confusedsartrelad.

I'm otherlad.

>>80720
We didn't know it'd kill the earth. They do now.

Sacrifices must be made. :^)

>I wonder what happened to all those coloured scum who used to stab each other over postcodes.

A bunch of crackers sat on a runway to enrich bongolads postcodes innit m9

>>80733
>A bunch of crackers sat on a runway to enrich bongolads postcodes innit m9

This is somehow the most .gs post in the history of .gs. I can't quite articulate how.

>This is somehow the most .gs post in the history of .gs. I can't quite articulate how.

1. Stop reading the Guardian
2. Play the Macc Lads really loud in your student room
5. Dirty posh girls will suck your cock endlessly

>>80733
>>80734

>I can't quite articulate how.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8wPu8-wemM

>>80734
I believe the phrase you're looking for is "a post of true /iq/ quality.

>>80730

Gentrification happened.

>>80762
Good thing it happened. It was pure scummy. My only problem is where do they ship all the scummy bastards to?

Sharp divisions have emerged within Momentum, the grassroots organisation which supports Jeremy Corbyn, following reports of an attempted takeover by Trotskyist and factional groups, an executive committee member has claimed.

Momentum’s women’s officer has written a blog which claims that members of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty and others are seeking to wrestle control away from its founder, Jon Lansman. Laura Murray, who is also a Labour shadow cabinet adviser, has claimed that ultimately, some activists will try to force Momentum to abandon Corbyn and turn to another leftwing organisation.

“Jeremy Corbyn will inevitably make one compromise or concession that isn’t ideologically-pure enough for them and they will abandon him and Labour altogether to turn Momentum into a rival leftwing party,” she wrote.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/05/trotskyist-factions-seeking-to-take-over-momentum-member-claims

SPLITTERS!

>>80765

These cunts are fucking useless, all they do is argue and bicker and argue and bicker.

They're absolutely fucking useless. It makes my bloody boil.

>>80765
Yep, the Trots are trying to take over Momentum, because they definitely don't control it already.

>>80767
Give it a rest.

>>80768
When it ceases to be true, and not before.

>>80769 Have you ever met a "Trot" or a member of Momentum or both?

Trotskyists don't really exist anymore - they're largely a figment of the media's imagination, certainly not enough in number to take over an organisation of 20,000. Momentum is generally just teachers, students and public sector workers - they aren't the big scary boogyman that everyone thinks.

>>80767
Yep, they actually don't. This sort of misunderstanding is what happens when the term "Trot" is used as a catch-all dismissal of the hard left and activist soft left instead of the distinct current of British Marxism which is what it, you know, means.

Maybe if the Labour right actually understood who they were opposing they would fare better against them.

>>80770

I find a group of people attempting to deselect moderate electable MPs through subversion and ruining any effective opposition in the country to be a huge boogyman.

They are fucking useless.

>>80766

That statement has so many redundancies, you repeat yourself it is redundant. I think your statement shouldn't have so many redundancies

>>80773

Wow, so witty.

>>80774

At least my post couldn't easily be mistaken for a doge meme.

>>80766
That's Labour as a whole.
>>80772
It would help if large numbers of those moderate MPs weren't faceless nobodies that look and sound weird.

De-selection of the boring and robotic in favour of the human but stupid shouldn't be written off. Remember: Tony Blair started as a lefty. Every man has his price.

>>80770
>Momentum is generally just teachers, students and public sector workers - they aren't the big scary boogyman that everyone thinks.

In other words, the type of mongs who come up with the likes of Winterval.

>>80776
Imagine the embarrassment of posting twice to try and act snarky and still coming off as puerile and still managing to contribute nothing to the thread.

Go and have a think.

>>80778
Give it a rest, lad.

>>80778
Every time I go back and read about Winterval and think about it from the perspective of a local government officer it seems like a brilliantly logical idea.

>we needed a vehicle which could cover the marketing of a whole season of events... Diwali (the Festival of Lights), Christmas Lights switch-on, BBC Children in Need, Aston Hall by Candlelight, Chinese New Year, New Year's Eve, etc. Also, a season that included theatre shows, an open-air ice-rink, the Frankfurt Open-air Christmas Market and the Christmas seasonal retail offer

Trying to market a diverse range of events in one inclusive branding exercise? Burn him at the stake!!

>>80787
That would actually be great for the economy.

>>80778
FESTIVUS - THE FESTIVAL FOR THE REST OF US

>>80787

http://allusionist.prx.org/2016/12/winterval/

Which MPs voted against triggering Article 50 by April 2017?

Tory (1)

Ken Clarke

Labour (23)

Rushanara Ali
Graham Allen
Ben Bradshaw
Ann Coffey
Neil Coyle
Stella Creasy
Geraint Davies
Jim Dowd
Louise Ellman
Chris Evans
Paul Farrelly
Mike Gapes
Helen Hayes
Meg Hillier
Peter Kyle
David Lammy
Chris Leslie
Ian Murray
Barry Sheerman
Tulip Siddiq
Angela Smith
Catherine West
Daniel Zeichner

56 Labour MPs abstained.

>>80793

I've had it with this blighted country. Good luck, you poor bastards.

>>80793

Ken Clarke may be a buffoon but at least he is a principled buffoon.

>>80793
Rice: packed
ITZ: Hitz

>>80796
ITZ:RITZ

>>80797
PUTIN ON THE RITZ.

>>80793
Nice one, Jez. By accepting the government's amendment, you've enabled them to claim a mandate for their timetable while extracting almost exactly nothing in return. If only he'd taken the same approach to the leadership challenge, eh?

>>80795
Lay off Ken Clarke, he's a decent Tory. I know that's like saying he's the tallest pygmy but it's better than nothing.

>>80799

I'm almost amazed at how inept he is. If I was trying to play 'useless fuck' as leader of the party I'd struggle to do it as convincingly as him.

Truly amazing.

>>80799
Even if Labour voted against, would the Tories not still have had a majority for it?

(Excluding the possibility more Tories voted against May in the knowledge their votes might actually swing it, and the counter-possibility that if Corbyn said to vote against some MPs would defy him to look loyal to the constituency.)

>>80802

Yeah. Jezza's pro-leave, the problem is that his party's mostly pro-EU. He paid lip service to the remain campaign presumably to appease his party and keep a party line but it wasn't very convincing. It's not necessarily that he's inept, the problem is that parliamentary politics is shit.

>>80800

Yeah, no. He is a fucking buffoon, all of his wrangling and he has nothing to show for it. But at least he has his principles.

>>80802
>Even if Labour voted against, would the Tories not still have had a majority for it?

They would but, like the Referendum result itself, it would have been close as the other parties opposed it.

Around 75 Labour MPs voting against the motion or abstaining shows Corbyn's still got no authority over them. I know people go on about how many Labour constituencies voted Leave and how if they don't support it they'll lose votes to UKIP, but I think they're more in danger of losing votes to the Lib Dems on the Remain side.

I can't believe Andrew Neil accidentally laughed at the Bataclan murders on QT, Doherty accused Portillo of mouthing off about him in Parliament and then pic related happened.

What a fucking shit show.

Here's a short snippet if anybody fancies cringing into themselves: https://twitter.com/AndrewNeilHair/status/807026525640019969

>>80806
I found it funny. How much time should pass before people stop being joyless cunts like yourself?

>>80806
To be fair, I only got the full understanding once Neil explained his own mistake as well.

Actually (partially due to poor audio on the clip I assume.) I'm confused about how the picture ties to it.
(Now I'm presuming it's "It was terrible" > "We didn't play that badly" > "You played with someone you had a bust-up with right?" > "It was terrible, took them three weeks to mop up the blood" > "Hahaha" > "Well it's not funny is it." > "Well, I mean --Oh, no I thought you meant the bust up. Obviously the murders aren't funny." which is very confusing since they've got two conversations going on at the same time.)

>>80807
I dunno, 3 weeks to clean up the blood from a mass murder isn't that funny. 3 weeks to clean up the blood from a fight between two individuals is. It's only funny if you make the same misunderstanding that Neil did.

>>80806

Doherty was wrecked out of his mind and barely coherent. Neil can be forgiven for not having a fucking clue what's going on.

>>80806

I'm no Doherty fan, and I mean that I simply haven't listened to him/his music, but that's pretty funny. Almost worth watching Andrew Neil's cartoon blubbery-ness for.

Also, I think I'm right in saying he's been plugging something for a few days now, so he's been answering that question a hundred times a day for a while now, let alone all the times he's answered it previously just because he's a person of some note who was there that night.

Labour down from second to fourth in Sleaford. The Corbyn effect in action.

Caroline Johnson (Cons) 17,570 (53.51%, -2.68%)
Victoria Ayling (Ukip) 4,426 (13.48%, -2.21%)
Ross Pepper (Lib Dem) 3,606 (10.98%, +5.33%)
Jim Clarke (Lab) 3,363 (10.24%, -7.02%)

>>80815
Looks like people are taking 'we must invoke article 50 now' at his word.

What a spiteful cunt. Corbyn is probably Brexit, which alienates the liberal-leaning Labour vote in towns and cities, but is too much of a oussy to present a proper leave package, which alienates brexiteers. We are so fucked.

>>80816
It's a disaster mate, I've been a member since I was 16 and campaigning every time with them, even I'm not entirely sure where we stand.

My local council is getting absolutely cleaned despite the fact it was strong Labour. I dread knocking on doors now. People aren't even saying 'thanks, but no thanks' but simply look at me with pity or just vehement anger as if to say 'you are joking, vote Labour? Yeah...'

Labour are fucked, I don't think Jezza and co realise how bad an election will be. Richard Burgon big mouthing yesterday on Question Time to say that Labour want an election to show the tories really made me cringe.

Sad to say the party of the working man is over and is being replaced.

>>80817

You're absolutely right. And tide of history brought Labour in, and now we're seeing it taking it out and, this time, it's personal (I know, I know).

The comparisons to the 1930s are remarkable, the threat to the present system is clear. Only this time there is not an effectual Left: expect the synthesis of late capitalism and right-wing populism to be an ugly one.

>>80817
>I don't think Jezza and co realise how bad an election will be.

I think they know full well. People like Corbyn and McDonnell don't want an effective Labour Party because that would sate the proletariat's lust for revolution. Their unholy alliance with the likes of the AWL has produced a system in which there is no choice between the Tories and the populist far right, it's textbook accelerationism.

>>80818

>it's textbook accelerationism

I think you're giving them too much credit.

>>80816
>Corbyn is probably Brexit, which alienates the liberal-leaning Labour vote in towns and cities, but is too much of a oussy to present a proper leave package, which alienates brexiteers. We are so fucked.

My understanding is that Corbyn isn't trying to actually lure existing voters away from the likes of the Tories, Lib Dems and UKIP but is trying to appeal to the apathetic people who don't bother to vote. The only problems with this are he doesn't know how to do this and, even if he did, he's as inspiring as a wet dishcloth.

>>80835
Someone like Corbyn wouldn't think of dirtying his hands by ever talking to anyone who'd voted Tory, that's for sure.

I think Corbyn is so divisive because people want to like him and his message but the reality is if this cunt was ever allowed to come to power we'd end up with the DDR and nothing less.

>>80835

Running a campaign by appealing to non-voters is a massive uphill struggle. If you swing a voter over from your main rival, your majority increases by two - you gain a vote, they lose a vote. If you're relying on non-voters, you need to persuade twice as many people. What's more, you have to persuade them to do much more - rather than just ticking a different box, they have to register to vote, find out where their polling place is and arse themselves to turn out.

>>80839

That and I think we have to accept that some people just will not vote. Sure, you'll have the 'I was disaffected but now I'm encouraged voter' but the large part do not care.

I worked in politics, I ramble on about politics, it's still a nightmare getting my disinterested immediate family to vote because they just don't care or follow it. It's a useless, useless, tactic.

>>80839
A study into the Brexit vote concluded that there were approximately 5m voters who hadn't voted in 2015 who voted in the referendum. I think there's a massive error margin on that but even if you assume that's 2.5m it's incredible.

>>80841

Yep, somehow the uneducated louts were mobilised en masse. If only we can find the Pied Piper responsible and have him put them all somewhere... a bit more manageable.

>>80837
>is if this cunt was ever allowed to come to power we'd end up with the DDR and nothing less.
You do know Corbyn's the cunt who doesn't actually have a cunt, right?

It's not the official opposition who're setting up the Stasi. okay, okay, Blair sort of started it.

>>80841
It isn't that impressive if you make the choice simple. Rather than convincing people that your policies are good or whatever, you should defend something they care about deeply (even if what they care about is being racist). "Vote for me and I will deport any cunt who is brown and any twat with a non-English name."

>>80841

It's because the referendum was a fair election in which everyone's vote counted. It wasn't an absurd compromise, where you have to vote for one person because their party promised to deliver one policy you want and you have to just accept all the other policies that go along with it.

The notion that people don't vote out of "apathy" is a lie to get voters to congratulate themselves for making their infinitesimal contribution to the political process every five years. The truth is that main reason people don't vote is that the whole electoral system is transparently awful and clearly rigged against any possibility of positive change in government.

>>80854

Yes. Voting leave was widely seen as a protest against the entire party political system. Many people turned out to vote Leave precisely because they didn't feel that it was worth voting in a general election.

I'd be curious to see what the turnout would be like at a general election if the ballot included a "none of the above" option. I know you can spoil your ballot, but it's not the same as overtly and inarguably voting against the status quo.

>>80855

Will it result in a constitutional reform of the electoral system? Nah... one of the very serious problems with it is that it does not select for any sort of competence. In theory, it selects for the local popularity of one person (the candidate) but in practice, parties just put on a media circus and hope that it entertains better than the others party.

It's possible that Corbyn is trying to de-circus politics, and move back to grass roots politics.

>>80855
>Many people turned out to vote Leave precisely because they didn't feel that it was worth voting in a general election.

I've only been old enough to vote in two general elections. On both occasions my vote didn't really matter because I was living in a Labour stronghold at the time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38274634

Actually feel a bit sorry for him here, how do you deal with this and come across well?

Although he's unlikely to be PM, making the one likely to help your cause look like a tit if he does win is probably not a good idea.

Why are these virtue signalling people so thick? Do it at a fucking tory speech.

>>80858
Ha ha ha, you can see him spaz out cranially at the prospect of him being the subject of a protest. It just doesn't compute.

>>80858
>how do you deal with this and come across well?

You certainly don't dither around and let them treat you as a doormat, then walk off camera to ask someone to remind you what your own policy is (whilst forgetting that you're still wearing a mic).

>>80858
>Why are these virtue signalling people so thick?
I wonder...

(I'm not one for suggesting conspiracies, but without much overt conspiring the correlation still stands. Personally I like to think it emerged out of the rise of Blair-Type politicians who took neoliberal economics and fused it with social-modernism. Give up the means of production and we'll give you all woman shortlists. Fight hard on the matter and you'll get nothing, just like you did all the other times you fought. Combine that with consumer-capitalism stripping away many more traditional sources of identity while increasing emphasis on being a special and unique individual and you've a big push to the current situation.)

>>80862

I've been saying the same thing for a couple of years now. Those fuckheads are useful idiots helping to prop up the worst injustices of society because they are completely happy with consumer capitalism itself, and only care about their own individual agenda. They think they are the goodies fighting against the baddies but they are essentially victims of a big bait and switch where meaningful discussion of class struggle and wealth inequality are rendered almost a complete non-issue.

It really is like how in 1984 the party intends to use language to control people's thoughts. These people are unable to see beyond the framework of the modern Western socio-economic consensus because their terminology ("intersectional" anyone) doesn't allow them to express concepts independently of it.

But what do I know, I'm just a big Marxist shitlord.

>>80858
I know Syria is far from black and white but, relatively speaking, aren't Russia the good guys?

>>80868

I've lost track a bit of the whole thing.

We (as in, the UK, US, etc) are funding the rebels to get rid of Assad supposedly for being evil right? But having seen what lies in the wake of removing a strong man is much worse, why are we still opposed?

No /boo/ stuff, please. What's the official line? I don't have any sympathies anywhere but I'd rather a bit of a crackpot hold the country together rather than remove him and just have a complete mess and failed state that leads to more death.

>>80869

Imagine Mr. Bean in the kitchen for twenty minutes, that's what the West is doing in Syria.

>>80869
>We (as in, the UK, US, etc) are funding the rebels to get rid of Assad supposedly for being evil right? But having seen what lies in the wake of removing a strong man is much worse, why are we still opposed?
Western support is a mess.

There are different rebel groups backed the CIA and Pentagon fighting each other, a bunch of divisions of the US-supported rebel groups are fighting the Kurdish YPG/J, who are also supported by the US. Other Arab rebel groups under the Free Syrian Army umbrella have joined with the YPG in the Syrian Democratic Forces. Turkey, who, it shouldn't be forgotten, are a NATO member, is currently fighting the US-backed YPG with other branches of the very same FSA.

Russia, by contrast, are intervening on behalf of the Syrian government. Which makes the oft-heard refrain about Russia "having no strategy" and "sowing chaos" ridiculous.

None of this is to say that Assad isn't an awful butcher, but there is no moral outcome, there's a political outcome. At this point, a "moderate" victory is impossible. The Islamist rebels have done the bulk of the fighting and are the bulk of the rebel forces. There is no scenario that I can see where a rebel victory doesn't result in an Alawite genocide and an Islamist government that could be just as bad as Assad's.

I am getting sick of gullible RT junkies propagating the 'stupid west vs crafty russians' narrative when they're the ones who've ended up cutting themselves out if the western economy and are prone to sudden and violent breakups and colour revolutions.

>>80872

Thanks for providing some much needed perspective. Do you also read Patrick Cockburn?

Here's one of Dear Leader's supporters berating Thatchell about how Syrian White Helmets are agents of the Rothschilds.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JonIronmonger/status/807550636065755136/video/1