[ 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 80531)
Message
File  []
close
bn_bean_comp1.jpg
805318053180531
>> No. 80531 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 11:01 am
80531 Corbyn Mk III: Electric Boogaloo
I think it's time for a new Corbyn thread.

The previous thread (>>73072) is reaching critical mass. In combination with the original thread (>>64990) we've had over 4,700 posts on Dear Leader since August last year. That's a lot of shitposting. Keep up the good work, lads.
Expand all images.
>> No. 80532 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 12:12 pm
80532 spacer
WHY WON'T HE FUCK OFF ?
>> No. 80535 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 12:30 pm
80535 spacer
>>80532
His ginormous mandate, which he is using to do...
>> No. 80558 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 7:24 pm
80558 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80559 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 7:30 pm
80559 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80560 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 7:53 pm
80560 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80561 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 8:14 pm
80561 spacer

image.jpg
805618056180561
>>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?
>> No. 80563 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 8:45 pm
80563 spacer
>>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!)
>> No. 80564 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 8:50 pm
80564 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80565 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 8:58 pm
80565 spacer
>>80563

Good guess, but I'm pretty sure >>80559 is incapable of such a study. It would distract from his finger painting.
>> No. 80566 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 9:11 pm
80566 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80567 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 9:14 pm
80567 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80568 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 9:23 pm
80568 spacer
>>80567
sighs if only Owen Smith had won, we wouldn't have been in this mess.
>> No. 80569 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 9:29 pm
80569 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80570 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 9:31 pm
80570 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80571 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 9:35 pm
80571 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80572 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 9:37 pm
80572 spacer

ingerlund.png
805728057280572
>>80566
>but they can't. They lost. They lost badly.
They really didn't, m7.
>> No. 80573 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 9:40 pm
80573 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80574 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 9:52 pm
80574 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80575 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 10:00 pm
80575 spacer
>>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?)
>> No. 80576 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 10:08 pm
80576 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80577 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 10:12 pm
80577 spacer
>>80572
They lost incredibly badly and you're a fucking idiot if you can't tell why.
>> No. 80578 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 10:19 pm
80578 spacer
>>80577

I'm sure you're about to tell us. Some acidic bile about sandal-wearers and fruit juice-drinkers incoming in 3... 2...
>> No. 80579 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 10:21 pm
80579 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80580 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 10:23 pm
80580 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80581 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 10:23 pm
80581 spacer

Tim-Farron-says-rebuildin-009.jpg
805818058180581
Cheers Jezza m8
>> No. 80582 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 10:24 pm
80582 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80584 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 10:27 pm
80584 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80585 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 10:30 pm
80585 spacer
>>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?
>> No. 80586 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 10:32 pm
80586 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80587 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 10:33 pm
80587 spacer
>>80581
Why is the protagonist of Hot Fuzz thanking Jeremy Corbyn?
>> No. 80588 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 10:35 pm
80588 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80589 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 10:37 pm
80589 spacer
>>80587
Jezter is the best advert for the Lib Dems.
>> No. 80591 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 10:44 pm
80591 spacer
>>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
>> No. 80592 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 10:44 pm
80592 spacer
>>80589
The who?
>> No. 80593 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 10:45 pm
80593 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80594 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 11:13 pm
80594 spacer
>>80575
>Why're you only showing results in England?
Because that's where our elections are played out.
>> No. 80595 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 11:24 pm
80595 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80596 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 11:41 pm
80596 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80597 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 12:56 am
80597 spacer
Have you considered getting better at making memes? I hear that works pretty well for winning elections.
>> No. 80598 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 1:08 am
80598 spacer
>>80596
Oh, tartantorylad.
>> No. 80599 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 1:33 am
80599 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80600 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 2:27 am
80600 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80601 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 3:00 am
80601 spacer

SCVIAPR.png
806018060180601
>>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.)
>> No. 80602 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 5:50 am
80602 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80604 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 6:13 am
80604 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80606 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 6:48 am
80606 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80607 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 8:20 am
80607 spacer
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/
>> No. 80608 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 9:00 am
80608 spacer
>>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).
>> No. 80609 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 9:55 am
80609 spacer
>>80608
Dry your eyes, cultist.
>> No. 80610 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 10:11 am
80610 spacer
>>80604
>>80606
Typical cybernats. Almost as bad as the Corbynisti. Almost.
>> No. 80612 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 10:46 am
80612 spacer

image.jpg
806128061280612
>>80609

And just how long does it take your work to dry?
>> No. 80613 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 11:18 am
80613 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80614 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 11:32 am
80614 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80615 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 11:57 am
80615 spacer
>>80612

Yes, yes, that's all well and good, but just how does one get paint out from under one's fingernails?
>> No. 80616 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 2:30 pm
80616 spacer
>>80615
Same way your mum gets my spaff off her teeth m8
>> No. 80617 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 3:12 pm
80617 spacer

image.jpg
806178061780617
>>80616

I see. It must do wonders for the cuticles, I imagine.
>> No. 80618 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 4:06 pm
80618 spacer

shit.jpg
806188061880618
>>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.
>> No. 80619 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 4:09 pm
80619 spacer

emily-thornberry.jpg
806198061980619
Dear Leader isn't going - the other champion of the proletariat, Emily Snobberry, is going instead. Hasta la disastro sempre!
>> No. 80620 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 4:16 pm
80620 spacer

nowneitherofuswillbevirgins.jpg
806208062080620
>>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.
>> No. 80621 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 4:23 pm
80621 spacer

People.jpg
806218062180621
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.
>> No. 80622 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 4:26 pm
80622 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80623 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 4:44 pm
80623 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80624 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 4:49 pm
80624 spacer
>>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.]
>> No. 80625 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 4:49 pm
80625 spacer
>>80622
>Labour is the country's official opposition

They should start acting like it, then.
>> No. 80626 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 5:34 pm
80626 spacer
>>80625
By refusing to contest seats? Er, right...
>> No. 80627 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 5:52 pm
80627 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80628 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 6:02 pm
80628 spacer
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.
>> No. 80629 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 6:19 pm
80629 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80630 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 6:37 pm
80630 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80631 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 6:39 pm
80631 spacer
>>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".
>> No. 80632 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 6:56 pm
80632 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80633 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 6:58 pm
80633 spacer
>>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".
>> No. 80634 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 7:15 pm
80634 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80635 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 7:34 pm
80635 spacer

the_last_hand.jpg
806358063580635
>>80612>>80615
I'll have you know I use a palette knife.
>> No. 80636 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 8:00 pm
80636 spacer
>>80635

At least someone here has a decent sense of humour.
>> No. 80637 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 10:26 pm
80637 spacer
>>80627
Great - so if the Lib dems withdrew their candidate, their voters would swing to Labour, and the Tory would be gone. Result!
>> No. 80638 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 11:09 pm
80638 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80640 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 11:21 pm
80640 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80641 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 11:30 pm
80641 spacer
>>80640
>demanding that a political party stop allowing British citizens to cast a vote for it at the ballot box
Christ, what a wank.
>> No. 80642 Anonymous
29th November 2016
Tuesday 12:50 pm
80642 spacer
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.
>> No. 80643 Anonymous
29th November 2016
Tuesday 2:03 pm
80643 spacer
>>80642
He's really energising the voters, isn't he?
>> No. 80644 Anonymous
29th November 2016
Tuesday 2:42 pm
80644 spacer
>>80638
It'd probably be the best way for labour to go, whilst it's in its sleep. Give it that long slumber.
>> No. 80645 Anonymous
29th November 2016
Tuesday 3:31 pm
80645 spacer
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.
>> No. 80646 Anonymous
29th November 2016
Tuesday 3:42 pm
80646 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80647 Anonymous
29th November 2016
Tuesday 3:43 pm
80647 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80648 Anonymous
29th November 2016
Tuesday 6:48 pm
80648 spacer
>>80645
I would love to hear the details lad.
>> No. 80649 Anonymous
29th November 2016
Tuesday 7:44 pm
80649 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80650 Anonymous
29th November 2016
Tuesday 7:54 pm
80650 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80651 Anonymous
29th November 2016
Tuesday 8:00 pm
80651 spacer
>>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?
>> No. 80652 Anonymous
29th November 2016
Tuesday 8:02 pm
80652 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80653 Anonymous
29th November 2016
Tuesday 8:09 pm
80653 spacer

wankbank-defcon3.jpg
806538065380653
>>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.
>> No. 80654 Anonymous
29th November 2016
Tuesday 8:16 pm
80654 spacer
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.
>> No. 80655 Anonymous
29th November 2016
Tuesday 8:25 pm
80655 spacer
May will obliterate Labour regardless of their leader.
>> No. 80656 Anonymous
29th November 2016
Tuesday 8:28 pm
80656 spacer
>>80653

That's bollocks, you are making that Pulp thing up.
>> No. 80657 Anonymous
29th November 2016
Tuesday 8:36 pm
80657 spacer
>>80656
She was a Greek heiress who studied sculpture at St Martin's at the same time tuat Jarvis Cocker studied there.
>> No. 80658 Anonymous
29th November 2016
Tuesday 8:47 pm
80658 spacer
>>80657

Stop lying to me!
>> No. 80659 Anonymous
29th November 2016
Tuesday 9:14 pm
80659 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80660 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 2:04 am
80660 spacer

zac.jpg
806608066080660
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.
>> No. 80661 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 2:09 am
80661 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80662 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 2:14 am
80662 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80663 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 2:32 am
80663 spacer
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.
>> No. 80664 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 3:34 am
80664 spacer
Maybe she's just dead tired but Olney's smile is reasonably unsettling.
>> No. 80665 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 3:37 am
80665 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80666 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 7:15 am
80666 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80667 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 9:11 am
80667 spacer
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.
>> No. 80669 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 12:13 pm
80669 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80670 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 1:31 pm
80670 spacer
>>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?
>> No. 80671 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 4:24 pm
80671 spacer
>>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
>> No. 80681 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 5:47 pm
80681 spacer
>>80670
Based on this, securing Olney doesn't seem like that much of an achievement:


http://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.
>> No. 80682 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 6:03 pm
80682 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80684 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 6:11 pm
80684 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80685 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 6:17 pm
80685 spacer
>>80682

This is why we need a fully codified constitution for the UK itself, such things could be legally binding.
>> No. 80687 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 6:43 pm
80687 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80688 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 6:48 pm
80688 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80689 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 7:19 pm
80689 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80693 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 9:09 pm
80693 spacer
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.
>> No. 80696 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 9:57 pm
80696 spacer
>>80693

Have you ever thought of a career at Chatham House?
>> No. 80697 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 10:17 pm
80697 spacer

df21d.jpg
806978069780697
>>80693

Go ahead 老外,make my day.
>> No. 80698 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 10:26 pm
80698 spacer
>>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
>> No. 80699 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 10:47 pm
80699 spacer

5053.jpg
806998069980699
>>80698

What's the first rule?

DON'T START A BLOODY TRADE WAR WITH CHINA.
>> No. 80720 Anonymous
3rd December 2016
Saturday 8:07 pm
80720 spacer
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.
>> No. 80721 Anonymous
3rd December 2016
Saturday 8:13 pm
80721 spacer

Firing-Squad-Shutterstock-800x430.jpg
807218072180721
After Corbyn's fawning of Castro recently, here's a picture of a general election under El Commandante Corbyn.
>> No. 80722 Anonymous
3rd December 2016
Saturday 8:17 pm
80722 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80724 Anonymous
3rd December 2016
Saturday 8:25 pm
80724 spacer
>>80722

Cheer up Sartrelad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCeIIcPAwv8
>> No. 80725 Anonymous
3rd December 2016
Saturday 8:30 pm
80725 spacer
>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?
>> No. 80726 Anonymous
3rd December 2016
Saturday 8:42 pm
80726 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80727 Anonymous
3rd December 2016
Saturday 9:35 pm
80727 spacer

fascist HQ.jpg
807278072780727
>>80726

Islington uber alles. Uber alles Islington.

Send the m1grants there.
>> No. 80728 Anonymous
3rd December 2016
Saturday 9:51 pm
80728 spacer

lesbiantits.jpg
807288072880728
A female to male trans walks into a masjid in Saudi Arabia.
>> No. 80729 Anonymous
3rd December 2016
Saturday 9:52 pm
80729 spacer
>>80724
I don't understand. I'm not in agony. What's my post's connection to The Wall and that song you posted?
>> No. 80730 Anonymous
3rd December 2016
Saturday 9:54 pm
80730 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80731 Anonymous
3rd December 2016
Saturday 9:58 pm
80731 spacer
>>80729

Not me, Confusedsartrelad.

I'm otherlad.
>> No. 80732 Anonymous
3rd December 2016
Saturday 10:08 pm
80732 spacer
>>80720
We didn't know it'd kill the earth. They do now.

Sacrifices must be made. :^)
>> No. 80733 Anonymous
3rd December 2016
Saturday 10:09 pm
80733 spacer

blm2.jpg
807338073380733
>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
>> No. 80734 Anonymous
3rd December 2016
Saturday 10:32 pm
80734 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80736 Anonymous
3rd December 2016
Saturday 11:09 pm
80736 spacer
>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
>> No. 80737 Anonymous
3rd December 2016
Saturday 11:26 pm
80737 spacer

how.jpg
807378073780737
>>80733
>>80734

>I can't quite articulate how.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8wPu8-wemM
>> No. 80740 Anonymous
4th December 2016
Sunday 7:34 am
80740 spacer
>>80734
I believe the phrase you're looking for is "a post of true /iq/ quality.
>> No. 80762 Anonymous
5th December 2016
Monday 2:26 pm
80762 spacer
>>80730

Gentrification happened.
>> No. 80763 Anonymous
5th December 2016
Monday 3:55 pm
80763 spacer
>>80762
Good thing it happened. It was pure scummy. My only problem is where do they ship all the scummy bastards to?
>> No. 80765 Anonymous
5th December 2016
Monday 10:06 pm
80765 spacer
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!
>> No. 80766 Anonymous
5th December 2016
Monday 10:32 pm
80766 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80767 Anonymous
5th December 2016
Monday 10:55 pm
80767 spacer
>>80765
Yep, the Trots are trying to take over Momentum, because they definitely don't control it already.
>> No. 80768 Anonymous
5th December 2016
Monday 11:09 pm
80768 spacer
>>80767
Give it a rest.
>> No. 80769 Anonymous
5th December 2016
Monday 11:12 pm
80769 spacer
>>80768
When it ceases to be true, and not before.
>> No. 80770 Anonymous
5th December 2016
Monday 11:26 pm
80770 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80771 Anonymous
5th December 2016
Monday 11:26 pm
80771 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80772 Anonymous
5th December 2016
Monday 11:35 pm
80772 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80773 Anonymous
5th December 2016
Monday 11:36 pm
80773 spacer
>>80766

That statement has so many redundancies, you repeat yourself it is redundant. I think your statement shouldn't have so many redundancies
>> No. 80774 Anonymous
5th December 2016
Monday 11:43 pm
80774 spacer
>>80773

Wow, so witty.
>> No. 80776 Anonymous
6th December 2016
Tuesday 12:12 am
80776 spacer
>>80774

At least my post couldn't easily be mistaken for a doge meme.
>> No. 80777 Anonymous
6th December 2016
Tuesday 3:05 am
80777 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80778 Anonymous
6th December 2016
Tuesday 6:54 am
80778 spacer

christmas_card-page-001-407x577.jpg
807788077880778
>>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.
>> No. 80781 Anonymous
6th December 2016
Tuesday 10:00 am
80781 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80786 Anonymous
6th December 2016
Tuesday 2:06 pm
80786 spacer
>>80778
Give it a rest, lad.
>> No. 80787 Anonymous
6th December 2016
Tuesday 2:24 pm
80787 spacer
>>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!!
>> No. 80789 Anonymous
6th December 2016
Tuesday 5:41 pm
80789 spacer
>>80787
That would actually be great for the economy.
>> No. 80791 Anonymous
6th December 2016
Tuesday 10:41 pm
80791 spacer
>>80778
FESTIVUS - THE FESTIVAL FOR THE REST OF US
>> No. 80792 Anonymous
6th December 2016
Tuesday 11:47 pm
80792 spacer
>>80787

http://allusionist.prx.org/2016/12/winterval/
>> No. 80793 Anonymous
7th December 2016
Wednesday 8:19 pm
80793 spacer

CzGLXzwWEAAeCgX.jpg
807938079380793
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.
>> No. 80794 Anonymous
7th December 2016
Wednesday 8:45 pm
80794 spacer

solong.jpg
807948079480794
>>80793

I've had it with this blighted country. Good luck, you poor bastards.
>> No. 80795 Anonymous
7th December 2016
Wednesday 8:53 pm
80795 spacer
>>80793

Ken Clarke may be a buffoon but at least he is a principled buffoon.
>> No. 80796 Anonymous
7th December 2016
Wednesday 9:06 pm
80796 spacer
>>80793
Rice: packed
ITZ: Hitz
>> No. 80797 Anonymous
7th December 2016
Wednesday 9:34 pm
80797 spacer

ritz-crackers-original.png
807978079780797
>>80796
ITZ:RITZ
>> No. 80798 Anonymous
7th December 2016
Wednesday 10:29 pm
80798 spacer

ritz.jpg
807988079880798
>>80797
PUTIN ON THE RITZ.
>> No. 80799 Anonymous
7th December 2016
Wednesday 11:32 pm
80799 spacer
>>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?
>> No. 80800 Anonymous
7th December 2016
Wednesday 11:47 pm
80800 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80801 Anonymous
8th December 2016
Thursday 12:27 am
80801 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80802 Anonymous
8th December 2016
Thursday 3:20 am
80802 spacer
>>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.)
>> No. 80803 Anonymous
8th December 2016
Thursday 5:38 am
80803 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80804 Anonymous
8th December 2016
Thursday 7:11 am
80804 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80805 Anonymous
8th December 2016
Thursday 7:56 am
80805 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80806 Anonymous
9th December 2016
Friday 1:23 am
80806 spacer

Screen Shot 2016-12-09 at 00.50.53.png
808068080680806
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
>> No. 80807 Anonymous
9th December 2016
Friday 3:19 am
80807 spacer
>>80806
I found it funny. How much time should pass before people stop being joyless cunts like yourself?
>> No. 80808 Anonymous
9th December 2016
Friday 3:58 am
80808 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80809 Anonymous
9th December 2016
Friday 5:21 am
80809 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80811 Anonymous
9th December 2016
Friday 6:11 am
80811 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80815 Anonymous
9th December 2016
Friday 6:56 am
80815 spacer
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%)

>> No. 80816 Anonymous
9th December 2016
Friday 9:55 am
80816 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80817 Anonymous
9th December 2016
Friday 11:02 am
80817 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80818 Anonymous
9th December 2016
Friday 11:12 am
80818 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80825 Anonymous
9th December 2016
Friday 2:34 pm
80825 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80827 Anonymous
9th December 2016
Friday 2:43 pm
80827 spacer
>>80818

>it's textbook accelerationism

I think you're giving them too much credit.
>> No. 80835 Anonymous
9th December 2016
Friday 5:12 pm
80835 spacer

2015-11-11-1447264958-1653153-vote-thumb.jpg
808358083580835
>>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.
>> No. 80836 Anonymous
9th December 2016
Friday 5:49 pm
80836 spacer
>>80835
Someone like Corbyn wouldn't think of dirtying his hands by ever talking to anyone who'd voted Tory, that's for sure.
>> No. 80837 Anonymous
9th December 2016
Friday 6:27 pm
80837 spacer
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.
>> No. 80839 Anonymous
9th December 2016
Friday 9:58 pm
80839 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80840 Anonymous
9th December 2016
Friday 10:25 pm
80840 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80841 Anonymous
9th December 2016
Friday 10:59 pm
80841 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80842 Anonymous
9th December 2016
Friday 11:32 pm
80842 spacer

PartyAtMichaelBarrowmores.jpg
808428084280842
>>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.
>> No. 80843 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 12:22 am
80843 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80848 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 1:01 am
80848 spacer
>>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."
>> No. 80854 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 3:39 am
80854 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80855 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 6:02 am
80855 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80856 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 6:47 am
80856 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80857 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 10:43 am
80857 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80858 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 11:39 am
80858 spacer
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.
>> No. 80859 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 12:09 pm
80859 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80861 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 12:19 pm
80861 spacer
>>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).
>> No. 80862 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 12:35 pm
80862 spacer

sjws defend wallstreet.jpg
808628086280862
>>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.)
>> No. 80863 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 1:23 pm
80863 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80868 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 4:13 pm
80868 spacer
>>80858
I know Syria is far from black and white but, relatively speaking, aren't Russia the good guys?
>> No. 80869 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 4:18 pm
80869 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80870 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 5:00 pm
80870 spacer
>>80869

Imagine Mr. Bean in the kitchen for twenty minutes, that's what the West is doing in Syria.
>> No. 80872 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 5:52 pm
80872 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 80873 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 5:55 pm
80873 spacer
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.
>> No. 80874 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 5:57 pm
80874 spacer
>>80872

Thanks for providing some much needed perspective. Do you also read Patrick Cockburn?
>> No. 80876 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 6:11 pm
80876 spacer
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
>> No. 80877 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 6:15 pm
80877 spacer
>>80858
>how do you deal with this and come across well?

Given Labour's demographics you have to let them have the podium like Sanders did. I'd probably make a point of it being human rights day or whatever to bring some principle into why I'm stepping back. Then of course you can pick apart their shitty opinions about how we can air-drop aid on besieged cities without the serious risk of aircraft being shot down.

From the other point of view the strategy of attacking the Labour party on this is of course sound. The party will listen to you unlike that Cruella de Vil impersonator we have for PM and there is more chance of you getting through security at an opposition leader event.

>>80869
The general plan seems to be for a negotiated peace similar to what the African Union was doing in Libya before NATO declared a no-fly zone. I think the West is aware of the risk of a failed state scenario but then Assad winning and promptly massacring opposition ethnicities isn't so great either.

http://sites.tufts.edu/reinventingpeace/2012/12/19/the-african-union-and-the-libya-conflict-of-2011/

Of course Assad has outplayed the West by first decimating the liberal opposition and then securing the help of Russia which effectively means he might just well win total victory. My opinion is we should have intervened in 2011 given any outcome is better than what we have now but telling the 'NOT ARE WAR' types that blood is on their hands can prove controversial.

>>80872
>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.

To be honest before Aleppo started to fall it did seem like there wasn't much of a coherent strategy going on. Russia is looking for a negotiated peace too but the key condition has always been for Assad to step down which of course he won't do whilst he is winning so its inherent mission creep.
>> No. 80879 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 6:30 pm
80879 spacer
>>80873
I'm saying that western strategy in this theatre is incoherent. I am not saying that this is because the west is "stupid". If pressed, I would say it's a result of inter-agency rivalry between US defence institutions and the hesitant kind of hedging which has marked the Obama administration's foreign policy (allowing the former problem to grow).

>>80874
Yes, Cockburn (or the Cockburns, I should say, his brother does excellent work too) are very good indeed.
>> No. 80881 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 6:33 pm
80881 spacer
The inmates have taken over the asylum.

>The chief of staff of Unite’s leader, Len McCluskey, has left the Communist party to become a Labour member.
>Andrew Murray, who last year said communism represented “a society worth working towards”, joined Labour’s ranks recently, a Unite spokesman said.
>Murray, a former Morning Star journalist and longtime chair of Stop the War, said in a Guardian interview last year that his adherence to communism prevented him from joining Labour.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/10/unite-leaders-aide-andrew-murray-leaves-communist-party-to-join-labour


Time for me to hand in my membership I think. (Adding in a random picture as it won't let me post without one for some reason.)
>> No. 80887 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 7:12 pm
80887 spacer
>>80876
Guy's a kook, but he's right to be suspicious of the White Helmets. They were established with millions of dollars in funding from USAID's office of transitional initiatives, which is explicitly concerned with the furthering of US foreign policy objectives abroad. And if you visit the White Helmets' website, the first thing that pops up is a link to a No Fly Zone petition. Quelle surprise.
>> No. 80890 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 7:35 pm
80890 spacer
>>80887
You'd think Trump's cabinet nominees would have better things to do than sow conspiracies on an obscure British imageboard, but there we go.
>> No. 80900 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 8:23 pm
80900 spacer
>>80890
Would you like to elaborate on what exactly in that post is conspiratorial, mate?
>> No. 80902 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 8:25 pm
80902 spacer
>>80887
Yes, clearly the reason they're petitioning for a no-fly zone is because they're shilling for the Americans. It's not like their country is having the shit bombed out of it or anything.
>> No. 80904 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 8:28 pm
80904 spacer
>>80900
The part between "They" and "surprise", inclusive.
>> No. 80907 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 8:42 pm
80907 spacer
>>80902
A no-fly-zone would, in no uncertain terms, be an escalation of the conflict. If you don't want "the shit bombed out of" your country, petitioning for a war between the US and Russia on your doorstep isn't what a smart person would be doing.

>>80904
Cute.
>> No. 80913 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 9:01 pm
80913 spacer

article-2428993-182972C200000578-852_634x801.jpg
809138091380913
>>80907
>A no-fly-zone would, in no uncertain terms, be an escalation of the conflict.
Yeah, just look at these yellow-jacketed cunts escalating the street fight.

>If you don't want "the shit bombed out of" your country, petitioning for a war between the US and Russia on your doorstep isn't what a smart person would be doing.
But they're not petitioning for a war between the US and Russia. They're literally petitioning for people to stop bombing the shit out of them.
>> No. 80917 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 9:06 pm
80917 spacer
>>80913
Do you know what a no fly zone involves? You don't sound like you do.
>> No. 80922 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 9:34 pm
80922 spacer

soccer-gillingham-222_2_2-375706.jpg
809228092280922
>>80917
I see. What you're saying is that by shooting down violators, they're escalating the conflict. Much in the same way as these bastards in the hi-viz escalated the conflict between them and the fans when that poor innocent hooligan violated the no-pitch-invasion zone.
>> No. 80923 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 10:11 pm
80923 spacer
>>80922
To establish a no-fly zone and get into a position where the "hooligans" are being shot out of the sky, the party instituting it (which, let's not kid ourselves, would be the US) would need to take out Syria's air defence capabilities. These are much more robust that those in any country where a NFZ has previously been established: Syria has 130 SAM sites. These are, unsurprisingly, not out in the desert where they can cleanly be taken out, but tend to be clustered around cities, where the actual infrastructure and populations they want to defend from an air attack are generally located located. Taking these out means bombing Syrian population centres. It's not for no reason that Hillary Clinton privately admitted that instituting a NFZ would entail “killing a lot of Syrians”.

Then you have the issue of what actually happens when the US controls the skies over Syria (ignoring the fact that even without SAM sites, Syria still has thousands of MANPADs to shoot down their planes). Shooting down a Russian plane over the Skies of Syria, where they are there at the invitation of the government, is an extremely provocative act. To say it wouldn't escalate the war is to say that Putin would do nothing in response, which is, to say the least, extremely optimistic.
>> No. 80924 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 10:13 pm
80924 spacer
>>80907
I imagine its just pure inertia that keeps them on this position rather than an American conspiracy. It was tenable before Russia got involved but now I doubt anyone side is treating this as a serious option.

Keep in mind white helmets are dealing with the consequences so you can forgive them having a little tunnel vision.

>>80922
Are you being deliberately thick for laughs? A no fly zone would have to be imposed unilaterally and illegally by the West under the 'threat' of shooting down Russian jets in an area covered by their air-defences.

That's escalating off a fucking cliff even if the coalition doesn't follow through.
>> No. 80925 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 10:35 pm
80925 spacer
>>80924
It's not a conspiracy. The White Helmets were founded by James LeMesurier, a British army officer turned mercenary turned participant in the Syria Regional Option, part of USAID's Office of transition Initiatives. Which, again, is explicitly charged with supporting US foreign policy goals.
>> No. 80926 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 10:41 pm
80926 spacer
>>80925
Back to /boo/, lad. Don't you know that only foilhat loons don't take everything at face value?
>> No. 80927 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 10:48 pm
80927 spacer
>>80924
>A no fly zone would have to be imposed unilaterally and illegally by the West
Go on.

>under the 'threat' of shooting down Russian jets in an area covered by their air-defences.
What are they going to do, shoot down anyone that tries to enforce the zone? Assad isn't that stupid.
>> No. 80928 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 10:56 pm
80928 spacer
>>80925
US foreign policy goals such as wading into a bomb site to evacuate the survivors?
>> No. 80929 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 11:01 pm
80929 spacer
>>80928
Such as filming themselves evacuating said survivors and using the attention this brings them and their position as a supposedly neutral actor to petition for a NFZ.
>> No. 80930 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 11:09 pm
80930 spacer
>>80929
You're right, that's awful. How dare they bring attention to civilians being bombed and use that attention to advance a goal of ending the civilians being bombed thing.
>> No. 80931 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 11:15 pm
80931 spacer
>>80930
Where did I say the White Helmets are awful? I haven't once attacked their actions. All I've done is doubt their pretensions of neutrality.

As far as a NFZ being a straightforward case of "ending the civilians being bombed", I repeat:

>Syria has 130 SAM sites. These are, unsurprisingly, not out in the desert where they can cleanly be taken out, but tend to be clustered around cities, where the actual infrastructure and populations they want to defend from an air attack are generally located located. Taking these out means bombing Syrian population centres. It's not for no reason that Hillary Clinton privately admitted that instituting a NFZ would entail “killing a lot of Syrians”.
>> No. 80932 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 11:32 pm
80932 spacer
>>80931
I repeat:
>What are they going to do, shoot down anyone that tries to enforce the zone? Assad isn't that stupid.
>> No. 80933 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 11:36 pm
80933 spacer
>>80927

Not him, but by international law it's illegal for any troops to enter Syria without Assad's permission. Same goes for warplanes and the like necessary to create a no fly zone.
>> No. 80934 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 11:38 pm
80934 spacer
>>80932
Oh, so the US just flies jets over Syria to attack Syrian and Russian planes without ever actually taking out Syria's air defence capabilities?

That's a... Uh... "Novel" proposal.
>> No. 80935 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 11:45 pm
80935 spacer
>>80925
>It's not a conspiracy.

Well according to the rest of your post it is. Lets apply Occam's Razor for a second though; would an aid agency that deals directly with the consequences of air-strikes be opposed to them? Yes.

>>80927
>Go on.

I don't see what more needs to be said. The West would be directly violating article 2(4) of the UN Charter to conduct a no-fly zone which is a serious destabilizing act as it is.

As for thinking Assad would just back down its irrational jingoism and concedes your original flimsy argument of no-escalation. He is aware of what we did to Gaddafi when NATO imposed a no-fly zone and he is aware that not a single nation outside (what remains of) the coalition would support such an act. So Assad and Russia starts downing coalition jets, what the fuck are we going to do about it?
>> No. 80936 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 11:55 pm
80936 spacer
"To have a no fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we’re not putting our pilots at risk—you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians. So a-"

Suddenly, a voice from the crowd:

"What are they going to do, Mrs Clinton, shoot down anyone that tries to enforce the zone? Assad isn't that stupid."

A hushed silence falls over the room, as those gathered wait with bated breath to hear the former Secretary of State take down her interrupter. What feels like an unbearable age passes until:

"My God. You're right. What's your name?"

"Some dickhead on britfa.gs", came the reply.

"No. no. I won't have that", said Clinton, shaking her head. "If I have my way, your name will be US Secretary of Defense Some dickhead on britfa,gs".

Cheers erupted around the room as Clinton walked through it to shake hand of her new mastermind ally.
>> No. 80937 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 12:18 am
80937 spacer
>>80934
>Well according to the rest of your post it is. Lets apply Occam's Razor for a second though; would an aid agency that deals directly with the consequences of air-strikes be opposed to them? Yes.
USAID deals only with victims who it chooses to aid. And I'll say this yet again, their office for transition initiatives is explicitly aimed at furthering US foreign policy goals. They work in places like like Cuba and Venezuela. Strangely, they don't feel obliged to promote transition in Ethiopia!
>> No. 80938 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 12:20 am
80938 spacer
>>80937
So what? You cynical RT junkies cunts are just the worst. I'd give all of you bitch slaps across the chops if I could. 'Waaaah evil West' in every cunting thread again and again. Why don't you fuck off to Moscow and blow Putin.
>> No. 80940 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 12:29 am
80940 spacer
>>80938
So... That's why the White Helmets aren't being truthful when they claim neutrality. Which is, you know, what the conversation has been about. Clearly you'd rather throw a tantrum and pretend I'm taking positions I've never remotely articulated, though. Have fun with that.
>> No. 80941 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 12:35 am
80941 spacer
>>80940
You dumb cunt, organisations like WH have to jump through hoops to get funding and permission to operate. That doesn't mean they're pushing a disingenuous political agenda like you and your RT fanboy mates are constantly foaming at the mouth to claim.
>> No. 80942 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 12:39 am
80942 spacer
>>80934
>He is aware of what we did to Gaddafi when NATO imposed a no-fly zone
I imagine he is also aware of what we would do to him if he shot down a NATO plane.

>he is aware that not a single nation outside (what remains of) the coalition would support such an act.
Perhaps you'd care to name a few countries other than Russia, Iran and China that would be opposed to it.
>> No. 80944 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 12:45 am
80944 spacer
>>80941
I'm curious, who do you imagine they need permission to operate from?
>> No. 80945 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 12:46 am
80945 spacer
>>80941
If you're not american, you've clearly spent way too much time on the internet. Not that that's a bad thing, I would think that anyone browsing this site has done so. But you, from your writing style, have let it seep in and effect you - if you're British and you speak like that. That's probably how you developed your hideous world perspective, reading too much throwaway shite that made you feel a certain way.

That's how some friends of mine ended up with schizophrenia. They were predisposed, but they became obsessed with conspiracy theories and quasi-religious new age stuff, and when they developed full blown schizoid disorders, it all came spilling out as their own beliefs. Extreme political viewpoints seem to develop in the same way.
>> No. 80946 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 12:50 am
80946 spacer
>>80944
Fuck that's a tricky one, I suppose just anyone could go to Syria and starting acting around with no questions asked, now that I think about it. Thanks for setting me straight, thicklad.
>> No. 80947 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 1:20 am
80947 spacer
>>80946
Yep, I'm very thick. So thick that I need you to tell me who they would need permission from. So...?
>> No. 80948 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 1:22 am
80948 Edward J. Smith
eeee.jpg
809488094880948
It's.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ITbhTu2BBQ
>> No. 80949 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 1:22 am
80949 spacer
>>80941
>You dumb cunt, organisations like WH have to jump through hoops to get funding and permission to operate.
This. Giving or accepting money is not, in and of itself, an endorsement. They may be volunteers, but their time is pretty much the only resource that comes for free. Anyone who's worked in that sort of environment will tell you that a lot of the time the ends justify the means. The typical pattern in Africa is that you take the money from a state front organisation and use it to pay for the guns you have to give the local warlord. You bribe the warlords so they don't prevent your people from working. You take the money from the front because the people behind it are well aware you have to bribe the warlords but are still happy to fund you anyway.
>> No. 80950 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 1:25 am
80950 spacer
>>80877
I'm curious, why should we have intervened earlier?

Would that not probably just have wound up like Libya again, minus the drawn-out bit?

>>80941
That's not what's being implied. What's being implied is that as a result of jumping through hoops that restrict their neutrality, they aren't neutral. They're operating in accordance with the hoops.

>>80942
>I imagine he is also aware of what we would do to him if he shot down a NATO plane.
The same as if he doesn't - overthrow and probable death?
Might as well take a few NATO pilots with you.
>> No. 80951 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 1:32 am
80951 spacer
>>80949
It's not a case of "giving or accepting money in and of itself" when the person using USAID money to found and run the organisation is a veteran of the USAID OTI Syria Regional Option.
>> No. 80952 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 1:41 am
80952 spacer
>>80950
>Would that not probably just have wound up like Libya again, minus the drawn-out bit?
Yes. In case you haven't been paying attention, it's the drawn-out bit that's been the problem.

>What's being implied is that as a result of jumping through hoops that restrict their neutrality, they aren't neutral.
And that would be bollocks. It was bollocks in the Somalian civil war, it was bollocks when it was levelled against Comic Relief and Band Aid, and it's still bollocks now.
>> No. 80954 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 1:57 am
80954 spacer
>>80951
You sound like those Leave people who thought we shouldn't listen to experts because they'd received funding from the EU.

Though if you think they're using their position to advocate for a no fly zone in order to overthrow the government, perhaps you could show us where they do so. As far as I can see, the guy in charge of the operation has called for adherence to UN resolutions, but not for any sort of action above and beyond that.
>> No. 80959 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 3:45 am
80959 spacer
>>80954
If you say so mate. As far as their NFZ support goes, seeing as you're apparently incapable of using a search engine here you go:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/stop-the-barrel-bombs-the-deadliest-weapons-in-syrias-civil-war/2015/03/27/c983d024-cf4e-11e4-8a46-b1dc9be5a8ff_story.html

>Only the international community can stop the bombs — with a no-fly zone, if necessary.

https://news.vice.com/article/syrias-first-responders-say-they-need-a-no-fly-zone-but-no-one-listens

>In an interview with VICE News, Saleh said he wants the "Syrian people to get safe zones to protect civilians from the airstrikes of the Syrian Regime."

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/20161202STO54435/syria’s-white-helmets-“we-need-a-no-fly-zone-and-humanitarian-corridors”

>Addressing Parliament’s foreign affairs and development committees on 5 December, their chief liaison officer Abdulrahman Al-Mawwas decried the current situation in Aleppo and called for both a no-fly zone and humanitarian corridors to prevent a large-scale humanitarian disaster.
>> No. 80960 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 4:35 am
80960 spacer
>>80959
>seeing as you're apparently incapable of using a search engine
If you want to make a claim, it's on you to find the sources. It's not for the rest of us to guess your meaning and figure out what might be appropriate reading.

You seem to be suggesting that they're not neutral because they're pushing the American agenda for air strikes. You haven't provided any evidence of this. (No, insinuation is not evidence.) All I see in what you've provided is individuals calling for an end to targeted bombing of civilians and the establishment of aid corridors. Which, in a conflict where civilians are being targeted, and where aid convoys and humanitarian facilities have been caught in air strikes, some accidentally and others "accidentally", is not entirely surprising.

As the saying goes, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
>> No. 80961 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 5:01 am
80961 spacer
>>80960
What I have provided is what you asked for: evidence of the White helmets calling for a NFZ. Can't control what you see, sorry!
>> No. 80962 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 5:06 am
80962 spacer
>>80960
If, as a necessity of establishing a NFZ, you have to attack Syrian SAM installations then you are by necessity calling for air strikes.
You can pad it out and go "Oh no, we want the nice imaginary solution where Assad just tells all his SAM sites to sit and do nothing as he's dragged into the streets with a broom handle up his arse" but if that's an unrealistic scenario you're just deluding yourself as to the consequences of your actions.

You can call it insinuation, but it's not particularly unreasonable to expect people to look at the full consequences of the policy you're calling for.
>> No. 80963 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 5:30 am
80963 spacer
http://www.army.mod.uk/signals/24986.aspx
Hard evidence of ties to active British military personnel. Secrets revealed!
>> No. 80968 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 10:19 am
80968 spacer
Corbyn's reaction to the Tatchell thing didn't seem as shit as it probably came across to the wider world. At least from the clip that appeared on my Facebook thing.
I mean, he didn't come across as a future PM or anything, but he kept up the nice-man image and basically went "Right, okay, fine. Say it."

My favourite being
Audience: We came here to hear Jeremy!
Corbyn: It's okay, It's okay, everyone has a right to speak.

I mean it's inept and yada yada yada, and the protesters were fucking Corbyn's thing up like dickheads, but it's not like he just stood back awkwardly saying nothing, which is the impression I initially got of what he did. He pretended he gave a shit, which was nicely fitting with the way I like to imagine Corbyn, as a nice but inept man.
>> No. 80970 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 10:33 am
80970 spacer
>>80968
>it's not like he just stood back awkwardly saying nothing

That's exactly what he did. He tried mumbling 'we're trying to do a speech here pls wait for the Q+A', at which point Thatchell ignored him completely and went off on his rant. It's pathetic. Supposedly Thatchell is his friend, and he publicly humiliated Corbyn live on TV.
>> No. 80973 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 10:50 am
80973 spacer
>>80970
>Supposedly Thatchell is his friend, and he publicly humiliated Corbyn live on TV.

That's lefties for you, if you don't agree with them 100% on every single issue then they think you're lower than vermin.
>> No. 80974 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 11:44 am
80974 spacer
>>80973
Reminds me of he hustings at my local CLP when deciding between Owen Smith and Corbyn.

Some member who had served as a councillor for god knows how many years said that we all wanted to see a Labour government and she believed that Smith was probably the best way to go about it.

This is in turn led to the lefties who joined about a year ago all calling her vermin and a Blairite infiltrator.

I wish I was joking. I can't understand how you get it into their heads that politics is about compromise and sometimes you can't have everything you want in order to get something that you want.

It's like they're beyond rational thought or reasoning. It just defeats me.
>> No. 80977 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 12:06 pm
80977 spacer

NIP000000946500_771807j.jpg
809778097780977
>>80974
>I can't understand how you get it into their heads that politics is about compromise and sometimes you can't have everything you want in order to get something that you want.
I still want to find a source on what was perhaps my favourite (paraphrased) quote of all time.
We're willing to compromise for power. We're just not willing to compromise for is 230 seats under Yvette cooper.

Now I mean the people you're specifically getting at probably aren't all wonderful nice people of that variety, but it's still a quote I like a lot, because a lot of the time the compromises suggested really are too great and the gains they'd likely yield really are empty. There does come a point when you have to have a dividing line.

I'd draw the analogy to the SNP simply because they eventually won power. It's all well and good to stand up to Alex Salmond circa 1999 and say "Ah, well you'd really be much more popular if you dumped that silly independence policy." but such a compromise would have surrendered the very reason the party existed in the first place, (Easy, since it's pretty unambiguous "Scotland not in UK thank you" rather than a more wooly "We want the best deal for the disadvantaged in this country.") probably de-energized their grassroots and still not yielded power any faster than 2007.

Now, that's a far-cry from Corbyn because it's an intentionally simplistic example to get the core point across, but it's something vaguely worth keeping in mind with certain people (not all of them moderates - I know of outright communists.) who aren't willing to compromise. They are willing to compromise overall, they're just not willing to make shit compromises.

Mostly I just wanted to imagine myself talking to 90s Alex Salmond. Isn't he dashing? Almost European? Oh my... Yes we can indeed!
>> No. 80979 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 12:09 pm
80979 spacer
>>80977

Agreed, slightly, but there is a huge difference though.

Alex Salmond didn't compromise in a party that existed to push for Scottish nationalism and independence. These people won't comrpomise until they've turned a centre-left party into a failed communist party.
>> No. 80980 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 12:12 pm
80980 spacer
>>80977

I should also add, there's something to be said for the fact that they did compromise a bit, they supported devolution even though they thought it would be a disaster for Scottish nationalism and put the question to bed, because they knew that not doing so would make them look terrible.

It's only with a modern day slant on the SNP that they can now say they won't compromise for independence.

There are huge factions in the SNP which disagree on this issue too, some believe in clawing it bit by bit from Westminster, some believe that they should not accept anything but outright independence.

You'd never guess the disagreements were so large within such a party now, as they put on such a strong united front. Of course they compromised.
>> No. 80982 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 12:27 pm
80982 spacer
>>80980
While we've got a party to draw directly to:
It's interesting to think in the wider sense that really, within Labour, you've almost got an argument about end goals and the purposes of the party - whereas within the SNP it's almost a purely method based argument (Gradualist/Fundamentalist, "Independence then you decide what sort of country" or "Displace Labour"), because their purpose is relatively unambiguous.

You could of course say Labour's purpose is to make things good for the disadvantaged and dispense happy things, but really on a more concrete level you've an argument of whether you have a kinder neoliberal-styled economy with limited state intervention and state-private co-operation, or a more social-democratic model with more state intervention and less enthusiasm for the private sector (but still an essentially free market economy), or outright steps towards socialism or other more radical ideas, all with relative advantages and disadvantages and levels of accepting failures in working towards/achieving the main aim. (well, the aim is to make things better so in a mathematician's sense, you could always just progress very slowly so that technically it's always being fulfilled, but that's cheating.)

Now that's not new, but it's very poorly handled. Really, I'd question the cleverness of having them all in one party instead of just having them co-operate where they agree, but then that's FPTP for you. You can't just outsource all the nutters to the Greens. It'd be fun to break Labour up into various different parties, though, for "Who you are" purposes. (Didn't YouGov do something like that?)

Labour really ought to learn lessons on putting up a united front though. By god if nothing else they should pick that up. Though I still think the SNP only manage it because they used to be on the fringes and so could all meet up in a pub together and let alcohol water down the political disagreements as they coalesced around the fact everyone else didn't like them.
>> No. 80990 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 2:43 pm
80990 spacer
>>80982
Although I don't have time to reply now I just want to say thank you for actually writing interesting, logic and fact based information in your post.

It's refreshing to read something that puts an interesting point across without thinking an end game is to have an argument or be 'more right' and prove others wrong.
>> No. 80991 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 4:12 pm
80991 spacer
>>80982

I think we need to consider group dynamics. It's much easier for a group to coalesce around a common enemy or a common fear than a common hope.

The SNP have the same vaguely social-democratic aspirations as the Labour party, but they have the hatred of Westminster to unite around. What holds them together is the desire to be free of British rule. They don't really care if they alienate every single English voter in the process.

Conservatism is almost defined by a common fear - even if you disagree on everything else, you can agree that fucking everything up is a bad idea. As a rule, it's easier to persuade an undecided person with the fear of uncertainty than with the hope of change, particularly if they already feel quite uncertain.

Old Labour was very cohesive, but that cohesion came at the cost of electability. They presented a lot of perfectly ordinary middle-class people as being the enemy. Momentum suffers from the same problem - if your out-group is too big and too real, you alienate more people than you include. Old Labour can completely sew up Walton or Tottenham with class struggle, but they forfeit Bedford and Twickenham.

Blair was greatly assisted by a weak Tory party, but he and his team had a real genius for framing the argument. His campaign was characterised by relentless positivity - "things can only get better". He capitalised on a wave of general optimism during the economic boom of the mid-90s. Major's campaign seemed dull and petty by comparison.

Given the state of the economy and the fear generated by Syria and Russia, Labour are swimming against the tide. Undecided voters are craving a sense of security, hence the success of The Great British Everything and "vote leave to take back control". Nobody really likes Theresa May, but her schoolmarmish nature is reassuring on a deep level.

As I see it, the Labour party need to wrest control of how the argument is framed to make themselves appear to be the safe choice. If they continue under a Corbyn or Corbynesque leadership, they need to present the argument that things have become hopeless for the middle class, that nothing will get better without radical change, that ordinary people have nothing to lose. If they revert to a more mainstream social-democratic leadership, then they need to present May as a reckless ideologue who can't guide us safely through Brexit. They need to relentlessly pick away at her credibility, turning every minor gaffe into a humiliating failure. Hope won't work, they need fear on their side.
>> No. 81091 Anonymous
14th December 2016
Wednesday 3:51 pm
81091 spacer

image for ants.jpg
810918109181091
>>80991

>Hope won't work, they need fear on their side.

Maybe they should use fear of climate change. With business as usual we could be seeing a 2c rise in global temperatures in about 15 years, i.e. castrophic change in most people's lifetimes. If people are worried about the current refugee crisis, they should be encouraged to imagine what it would be like when so much of the developing world becomes increasingly uninhabitable. And now there's strong evidence suggesting we could be on course to a 7c rise before the end of the century. This would essentially mean voters' future kids and grandkids would grow up in unimaginably awful apocalyptic conditions - surely not even middle England wants that?

Drastic actions are essential if we want to avert this fate. I would say the most effective action would be the abolition of capitalism, but massive investment in renewables & greentech and the elimination of petrol powered cars (both things Corbyn has proposed) are good places to start. So perhaps there's a potential for Labour to emulate what the Tories did with austerity, but without the bullshit. Like the Tories did with the deficit, Labour should (rightly) stoke up fear of an impending climate-induced apocalypse, arguing that only Labour is able to take the tough measures necessary to go zero carbon (something we'd need to do by about 2021) in order to save voters, their children and their grandchildren from a hellish existence.

Though unfortunately I think the more likely response to environmental disaster will be totalitarianism and fascism. I suppose the goal of the Labour Party here should be to steer us away from this by not capitulating to creeping fascism.

Still, I like to fantasise about an eco-Stalinist regime which bans all fossil fuels, introduces a two-child policy and restricts meat consumption.
>> No. 81092 Anonymous
14th December 2016
Wednesday 4:27 pm
81092 spacer
>>81091
>Though unfortunately I think the more likely response to environmental disaster will be totalitarianism and fascism. I suppose the goal of the Labour Party here should be to steer us away from this by not capitulating to creeping fascism.

Nothing creeping about it. It's a huge, ugly tsunami wave and it's about to fill the trans-Atlantic corridors of power with those scary sea monsters we had thought hoped extinct. The comparisons to the 1930s aren't to be dismissed, particularly in Europe - only this time there isn't a powerful Left counter-weight. So which do you prefer lads: capitalism-cum-oligarchy or fascism? Or simply fucking off?

(I've gone metaphor mad, this is fun: I used to warn the comrades that the Overton Window would spin to the Right if a creditable, radical left alternative wasn't found. Well, it has, and the shards have now peppered our faces. Brace yourself for the blood.)
>> No. 81093 Anonymous
14th December 2016
Wednesday 5:47 pm
81093 spacer
>>81092
This post gave me an erection.

>>81091
Supposing climate change is happening exactly as the "experts" say, let's take Mr Al "The polar ice caps will be no more by 2014" Gore by his word. What can we actually do? Recycling is just pointless bullshit to assuage guilt, ALL of it is utterly meaningless while people have their own cars and refuse to even use public transport. To make a real difference (assuming it isn't too late already, as they say it is) you'd have to go back to a pre-Victorian stage of development.

Oh, and there's only 60 million of us here in the UK, China and the rest of the world has no such interest in cutting emissions, and they number in the billions. Complaining about Global Warming Climate Change always seemed more like a fashion statement than anything else, especially when the people that purport to give a shit about it are the ones driving huge expensive BMWs that fly to Goa for their holidays.
>> No. 81094 Anonymous
14th December 2016
Wednesday 5:49 pm
81094 spacer
>>81093
>Complaining about Global Warming Climate Change always seemed more like a fashion statement than anything else, especially when the people that purport to give a shit about it are the ones driving huge expensive BMWs that fly to Goa for their holidays

You live an extremely sheltered life.
>> No. 81095 Anonymous
14th December 2016
Wednesday 5:50 pm
81095 spacer
>>81093
*AND fly to Goa, unless BMW are taking notes from that Final Fantasy XV car.
>> No. 81096 Anonymous
14th December 2016
Wednesday 6:04 pm
81096 spacer
>>81092
I'd take fascism over oligarchal-neoliberalism honestly, even as a lefty.

It's either because we've already seen fascism beaten* before (whereas neoliberalism maintains the illusion that it's permanent and unbeatable.) giving hope for a brighter future after a period of darkness, or out total surrender (where in facing the fact the world is always going to be hellish, I pick fascism just to take neoliberalism down with me - knowing that fascism will in turn be permanent.)

*Okay, okay, I do have to rub in that Spain remained notionally fascist until the 70s and the West loved them because that meant they weren't commies. That's usually left out of the "WW2 was to destroy fascism :^) " narrative.

Hope for the future is draining at a worrying rate.
>> No. 81097 Anonymous
14th December 2016
Wednesday 6:26 pm
81097 spacer
>>81093
It's either not real or we can't do anything about it. What a convenient position to take.
>> No. 81098 Anonymous
14th December 2016
Wednesday 6:27 pm
81098 spacer
>>81096
>I'd take fascism over oligarchal-neoliberalism honestly, even as a lefty.

I hate to be so predictable but, do you the slogan of the German socialists/communists before their parties were abolished?

After Hitler, Our Turn

Only they weren't there to witness life post-Hitler, the first prisoners of Auschwitz were leftist politicos.

I'll stop there because, if I don't, fingerpaintlad's monitor will lost under gallons of stringy semen.
>> No. 81099 Anonymous
14th December 2016
Wednesday 6:29 pm
81099 spacer
>>81097
>It's either not real or we can't do anything about it

Your sex life?
>> No. 81100 Anonymous
14th December 2016
Wednesday 6:32 pm
81100 spacer
>>81099
n1m8
>> No. 81101 Anonymous
14th December 2016
Wednesday 7:12 pm
81101 spacer
>>81098
In some ways they were right, if perversely so. Even though countless individuals died parties and ideologies lived on. The SPD did get power eventually.
When facing the idea the current ideological system is permanent, dying as the result of a weird trolley-problem scenario so that the system may one day fall and be replaced by something better (albeit via something just-as-bad-or-worse) becomes a less scary prospect - at least in an abstract "I'm perfectly safe right now and therefore able to be very casual about the concept" sense.

(Naturally, there's the problem the countless other deaths from a hypothetical fascist and the question of whether leverman has any right to interfere, though from a utilitarian perspective that doesn't hide deaths from laissez-faire economic failure off balance sheet either it might be the best available option.)

Though I suppose assuming the present will be permanent is the eternal mistake of those who try to predict the future, as Adolf "Thousand Year Reich" Hitler can attest to.

This post is a mess. I'm quite drawn to the trolley-problem analogy though, it lets me describe the hypothetical without sounding completely unhinged, genocidal, or vaguely terrorist-ish. (Former is certain given I'm here, latter two I can assure are not.)
>> No. 81102 Anonymous
14th December 2016
Wednesday 8:28 pm
81102 spacer

3B60DEA700000578-0-image-a-18_1481734810488.jpg
811028110281102
"Jeremy, we're polling at our lowest levels since the early 80s, MPs are furious about your lack of activity and even your closest supporters like Abbott and Livingstone are saying you must turn things around in the next 12 months. Don't do anything stupid, like hiring former Sinn Fein staffers to your team as that'll remind everyone of your continued support for the IRA."

>.....................

>"Oh."
>> No. 81103 Anonymous
14th December 2016
Wednesday 9:11 pm
81103 spacer
>>81093

>What can we actually do?

As that post says, have a government willing to take drastic action to go zero carbon. It's not a matter of 'we can't do it', it's a matter of 'we need to do it otherwise we're going to be unequivocally, irreversibly fucked'. Or we could just close our ears and mutter something about Al Gore exaggerating until our climate begins to resemble that of Venus'.

>To make a real difference (assuming it isn't too late already, as they say it is) you'd have to go back to a pre-Victorian stage of development.

It's not too late yet, just very, very nearly too late. Why would we need to go back to a 'pre-Victorian stage of development'? We increasingly have the means for everyone on the planet to have perfectly comfortable lives through green technologies - it's a political question rather than a scientific one. Though that being said I am in favour of degrowth. If anything we could really do without contemporary society's misguided fetish for economic growth for the sake of it. The overconsumption it encourages really is not sustainable.
>> No. 81104 Anonymous
14th December 2016
Wednesday 9:13 pm
81104 spacer
>>81103

You've been gargling the kool aid too much.
>> No. 81105 Anonymous
14th December 2016
Wednesday 9:35 pm
81105 spacer
>>81101

I think you have to ask yourself: at what cost are you willing to see neo-liberalism collapse?

Granted, much of this is academic seeing as the status quo is unsustainable, and neither you or I will have much say in what follows.

But - call me conservative or a splitter or whatever - I would make common cause with social democrats, capitalists, even liberal imperialists, if fascism ever became a real possibility. We, pale faces that we are, may not be harmed by the pogroms and expulsions unleashed by European right-wing populism, but we would be affected by the crushing of worker rights, the stripping of civil liberties and increased surveillance (can you just imagine a Ukipper heading the Home Office?), etc. (Although, I should make clear, pogroms would bother me much more than any of that.)

Fucking hell, I'd happily jump into a foxhole beside Blair, Osborne and Peter Hitchens if the alternative is mob rule, xenophobia and barbarity. Nothing is worth the de-civilisation of society, even if there's a potential paradise somewhere down the line. I'm a socialist because, among other things, I oppose fascism wherever or whenever it rears it ugly head. That, in a few words, is a good enough end for me.
Besides, I've never really gone in for all that bolshie "ends justify the means" sort of thing. Unless, of course, we're talking about culling yuppies and Jeremy Kyle fodder.

I don't think the above is helpful to anyone but future compilers of GCHQ watchlists, but, still, I maybe a shit but I'll never salute Herr Saville/Trump/[insert Supreme Fruitcake here].
>> No. 81106 Anonymous
14th December 2016
Wednesday 9:47 pm
81106 spacer
>>81104

This is the point we've reached: the person who suggests unlimited growth on a planet with limited resource is not sustainable is branded crazy.

No, lad, stop and fucking think. Try. I know it's hard, and that it goes against everything you've been told by your dad/teacher/Daily Mail/Sith master, but we're pushing this planet to the limits of livability, and something drastic has to be done.
>> No. 81107 Anonymous
14th December 2016
Wednesday 9:59 pm
81107 spacer
>>81106
>This is the point we've reached: the person who suggests unlimited growth on a planet with limited resource is not sustainable is branded crazy.
That may be becauase it comes from the same school of thought as LIVIN WIVIN ARE MEENS. Which, as anyone that's actually engaged their brains knows, is nonsense.
>> No. 81108 Anonymous
14th December 2016
Wednesday 10:14 pm
81108 spacer
>>81107
>That may be becauase it comes from the same school of thought as LIVIN WIVIN ARE MEENS

How does it? Austerity, in this country at least, is a moral decision (making people suffer for perceived overspending, even if it also hurts the economy), whereas ensuring the oceans don't annex the land beneath our feet has more to do with, well, preservation.

You're either lazily confusing categories or are really, really simple.
>> No. 81109 Anonymous
14th December 2016
Wednesday 10:26 pm
81109 spacer
>>81108
>You're either lazily confusing categories
No, you're lazily confusing categories. Remember this? That's you on the right, that is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTXYlJNZ7tU?start=143
>> No. 81110 Anonymous
14th December 2016
Wednesday 10:35 pm
81110 spacer
>>81109

Okay, we have the answer: you are really, really simple.
>> No. 81111 Anonymous
14th December 2016
Wednesday 10:46 pm
81111 spacer
>>81107
So how do we achieve unlimited growth on a planet with limited resources then?

Eagerly awaiting your rebuttal of the first law of thermodynamics.
>> No. 81112 Anonymous
14th December 2016
Wednesday 10:46 pm
81112 spacer
>>81110
Whatever you say, m7. Economic growth requires resource growth and resource growth requires drowning, just like being Nige's PA means being married to him, and anyone who picks you up on it is really, really simple.
>> No. 81113 Anonymous
14th December 2016
Wednesday 10:49 pm
81113 spacer
>>81111
Growth faster than your preferred rate does not equal "unlimited".
>> No. 81114 Anonymous
14th December 2016
Wednesday 10:57 pm
81114 spacer
>>81113
I suggest you read what you're calling nonsense then.
>> No. 81115 Anonymous
14th December 2016
Wednesday 11:04 pm
81115 spacer
>>81114
Go on. No, really, do go on. I'd love to hear this.
>> No. 81116 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 12:10 am
81116 spacer
>>81113
So when is growth going to stop then?
It's not a question of rates, when do we stop? Just wait until we hit a resource crisis?

To answer >>81111
There's only one way you can have permanent growth which is to exploit the resources in space.

Fortunately space has suffered chronic under-investment and will hopefully continue to do so until the economic problems are too bad for us to develop effective space-mining infrastructure thus ensuring we stay on earth forever.
>> No. 81117 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 12:13 am
81117 spacer
>>81116
>So when is growth going to stop then?
So when are you going to stop beating your wife?
>> No. 81118 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 12:14 am
81118 spacer
>>81117
Is that how we refer to masturbation now?
>> No. 81119 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 12:17 am
81119 spacer
>>81118
I thought the official euphemism in these parts was "playing Forza 4".
>> No. 81120 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 12:58 am
81120 spacer
>>81119

That was basically my entire 2012.

You should have seen the paint jobs.
>> No. 81122 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 4:34 am
81122 spacer

Clark's_Sector_Model.png
811228112281122
>>81116

>So when is growth going to stop then?

Never.

Dinner at The Fat Duck doesn't have a significantly greater use of natural resources than dinner at Nandos. A £2000 Louis Vuitton handbag doesn't consume 200x more resources than a £10 bag from Primark. Google's infrastructure consumes several orders of magnitude less energy than Altavista or Ask Jeeves did. We're not facing an ecological crisis due to the increasing skills of cardiac surgeons or psychiatrists. Making an iPhone 7 consumes considerably less resources than making a camera, camcorder, clock radio, record player, TV, typewriter, a shelf full of books and about a hundred other things that a smartphone replaces.

You don't have to make more stuff to grow the economy. You can make better stuff. You can make stuff that only exists as magnetic flux on a platter or stored charge in a MOSFET. The only limit to growth is our ability to come up with new ideas.
>> No. 81123 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 6:39 am
81123 spacer
>>81122
>Google's infrastructure consumes several orders of magnitude less energy than Altavista or Ask Jeeves did.
Got a source on that? It sounds like bollocks, there's no way that Altavista ever used a fraction of the power that google's server farms use today.
>> No. 81124 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 7:35 am
81124 spacer
>>81122

The problem with GDP is that it's really just a measure of money changing hands; that this is done in exchange for necessary work is just assumed. Money is increasingly spent on socially useless things- like rent, taxes, and profit on inexhaustible goods, like music or ebooks.

A lot of Marxists predicted the end of capitalism due to its need to expand indefinitely in a finite planet. They didn't factor in all the pointless financial chicanery we're forced to endure, possibly because Marx had a boner for capitalism and didn't believe it could be so inefficient.

Governments can easily massage GDP figures by increasing spending, which is why austerity has been such a complete fucking failure. Of course, as I said, increased spending doesn't actually translate to increased useful work, and therefore real wealth.
>> No. 81125 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 10:14 am
81125 spacer
>>81122
Making an iPhone still consumes resources. Resource use as a whole can decline as technology improves, but it's never going to hit zero. (Also, the population is growing, and as the economic growth fairy will certainly fairly spread growing living standards to China, India, etc, that means more iPhones owned than kitchen sinks the iPhone replaces.)
>> No. 81126 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 10:21 am
81126 spacer
>>81122

The amount of stupid that went into this post astounds me.
>> No. 81127 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 11:53 am
81127 spacer
>>81123

It depends how you slice it - per search they're vastly more efficient, but they're handling vastly greater numbers of searches. Google's data centres are the most efficient in the industry and will run on 100% renewable energy by the end of next year. They've spent $2.5bn on renewable generation facilities and are doing all sorts of clever things to reduce their environmental impact.

https://www.google.co.uk/green/projects/environmental-report-2016/

>>81124

Set aside GDP then, and consider "aggregate human benefit". How much better is life now for the ordinary person today than in 1966? Would you go back to boiled beef and carrots, coal fires, outdoor toilets and three TV channels? Everyday life used to be really fucking boring.

Even if we were a communist state that had abolished money, it would be clear that our economy has grown massively. We live much more comfortable lives and have far greater choice; part of that improvement is material, but a very large part of that is intangible. We have often combined efficiency savings with improvements in utility - a gas central heating boiler is far cleaner than a coal range, a massive flatscreen TV consumes a lot less energy than an old CRT.

>>81125

You'd be surprised at how small the resource impact is. Producing and using an iPhone 7 consumes energy equivalent to 56kg of CO2, which is about the same as two kilos of beef or half a tank of petrol. The materials used to make it are not environmentally hazardous and are ~90% recyclable. We tend to assume that gadgets have a very high environmental impact, but in reality they're very small objects that are produced very efficiently.

http://images.apple.com/euro/environment/pdf/a/generic/products/iphone/iPhone_7_PER_sept2016.pdf

>>81126

Well, that's me told.
>> No. 81129 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 12:14 pm
81129 spacer
>>81127
>You'd be surprised at how small the resource impact is. Producing and using an iPhone 7 consumes energy equivalent to 56kg of CO2, which is about the same as two kilos of beef or half a tank of petrol.
Are you living in a version of the Star Trek universe in which replicators run on CO2?

>http://images.apple.com/euro/environment/pdf/a/generic/products/iphone/iPhone_7_PER_sept2016.pdf
This doesn't talk about pollution other than emissions of carbon dioxide. Nothing harmful being in the phone doesn't mean that nothing harmful was used or emitted during its manufacture. I half remember a story about the chemical used to polish the screens doing quite nasty things to workers in China, for example.
>> No. 81130 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 12:37 pm
81130 spacer
>>81129

>Are you living in a version of the Star Trek universe in which replicators run on CO2?

The atoms in an iPhone don't dematerialise when you upgrade to the newest model. You can get all of the aluminium and copper and gold and lithium and glass back. There's a little bit of plastic that's good for nothing, but everything else can be reused in an endless loop. We're concerned about carbon because we don't know how to turn atmospheric CO2 back into crude oil.
>> No. 81131 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 1:03 pm
81131 spacer
>>81130
>The atoms in an iPhone don't dematerialise when you upgrade to the newest model.
I didn't mean to imply that they did.

Carbon Dioxide emissions don't tell you anything about how much energy was used. Identical factories next to a hydroelectric dam and next to a coal fired power plant would result in totally different total carbon dioxide emissions.
>> No. 81133 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 1:20 pm
81133 spacer

image.jpg
811338113381133
>>81131

Do you work for the Adam Smith Institute? Usually such piffle is limited to their yuppie-congested corridors.

If what you were saying was actually enacted we would be seeing a decrease in the production of "aluminium and copper and gold and lithium", only we're not seeing that. In fact the mines are filling with more and more ebony-skinned youngsters in the pursuit of cobalt, to take one example. And how exactly do you think that metal gets turned into the devices in our pockets? Cleanly? Without any emissions?

You're talking about a world that could, conceivably exist (where the materials of the economy are almost entirely recycled), but it doesn't. So how odd it is that, instead of wanting us to work toward that ideal, you would have us do nothing - which was your position on climate change. Is it still?
>> No. 81134 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 1:49 pm
81134 spacer
>>81127
>How much better is life now for the ordinary person today than in 1966?
On an interesting tangent, I'm reminded of the claim that 1976 was Britain's happiest year ever despite economic difficulties.
(And relatedly, if I recall, the number of people reporting themselves happy/very happy is declining.)
Sadly honesty bounds me to admitting that the claim for 1976 came from a think-tank and isn't without controversy (as it factored income inequality for example - which is naturally very low when all the rich people are emigrating in expectation of a military coup.) but if true in spite of itself, it'd be interesting to factor into affairs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3337143/Remember-1976-Britains-best-ever-year.html

It's definitely worth factoring that counter-intuitively people can be less happy with better things, even if it's a cliche and not an anti-growth argument.
I'm still convinced the world did something absolutely abhorrent towards the end of the 70s into the early 80s, but I can't quite put my finger on it beyond a simplistic "Neoliberalism", it's much worse than that. Something very scary is lurking in the shadows. My working hypothesis is that it's unrestrained international capital.
>> No. 81135 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 2:00 pm
81135 spacer

Soma.png
811358113581135
>>81134
>On an interesting tangent, I'm reminded of the claim that 1976 was Britain's happiest year ever despite economic difficulties.
>(And relatedly, if I recall, the number of people reporting themselves happy/very happy is declining.)

But the average Brit's stated happiness is still, somehow, ridiculously high. See image.

(I have a working theory that Pew limited their sample to Chelsea housewives or insane asylums.)
>> No. 81136 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 2:55 pm
81136 spacer
>>81133

The metal you're talking about is tantalum, not cobalt. The popular press have somehow convinced themselves that cobalt is an issue, but it's rarely used in modern electronics. Tantalum is mined in the form of coltan ore, hence the confusion. Coltan does not contain significant amounts of cobalt; it is a mixture of columbite (a niobium-rich iron ore) and tantalite (a tantalum-rich iron ore).

All of the big players (including Apple) use rare earths sourced via the EICC CFSI programme. These minerals are sourced from mines and smelters that do not use child labour and do not contribute to conflict in the DRC. The DRC has never been a particularly important source of tantalum, with their exports now representing less than 1% of the global market. The majority of tantalum is sourced from Australia, Brazil and China.

I am hugely concerned about climate change, which is why I am completely unconcerned about the technology industry.

Firstly, it represents a tiny fraction of emissions; the overwhelming majority of emissions have always come from heating food and transport. With the reduction in use of fluorocarbons in semiconductor manufacturing, the entire technology industry now represents no more than 1% of global emissions.

Fixating on technology is at best ignorant and at worst a form of scapegoating to absolve people of their own responsibility. Apple keep reducing the embodied energy of their products in response to public pressure, but it amounts to naught if those same people go on to eat 1500kg CO2e worth of meat every year, or blow 3000kg CO2e on a long-haul holiday. It's easier to blame Tim Cook than to get your own house in order.

Secondly, the electronics industry is leagues ahead of any other sector in terms of sustainability and corporate social responsibility. The goal of most technology companies is not merely "good enough", but perfect - 100% renewable energy inputs, 100% ethical sourcing of raw materials, 100% recycling of post-consumer waste. The industry is spending unbelievable sums of money on renewable technology, at a time when most industries are only paying lip service. Technology companies are part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.
>> No. 81137 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 2:59 pm
81137 spacer
The last week or so has shown us just how useless Corbyn really is. Forget about controlling the media narrative, or controlling the PLP; he can't even control the shitposting in his own .gs thread.
>> No. 81138 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 3:03 pm
81138 spacer
>>81137

I'd like to know what Maureen from Stoke Newington has to say about that.
>> No. 81139 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 3:38 pm
81139 spacer
>>81136
You (or at least I think it was you) seem to have introduced technology in the first place. Economic growth isn't driven by iPhones alone.

>>81137
Corbyn has his purpose: Appearing in photoshops giving Blair a bloody lip for Iraq as I post Question Time episodes from 2003 on other sites in a desperate bid to relive the past by reminding everyone that people can look silly in hindsight.
>> No. 81140 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 5:24 pm
81140 spacer
>>81134
>Something very scary is lurking in the shadows. My working hypothesis is that it's unrestrained international capital.
Go and read Nick Land.
>> No. 81141 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 9:07 pm
81141 spacer
Does fascism only hold such a horrible place in our minds because of Hitler? I think it would be far more acceptable had Adi not gone berserk.
>> No. 81142 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 9:25 pm
81142 spacer
>>81141

There's no way you could get me to go in for a militarized, racialist, religious, authoritarian state.

There has never been an acceptable form of fascism - Islamic, Catholic, Aztec - it's all been shit. The Third Reich just one particularly memorable example.
>> No. 81143 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 9:29 pm
81143 spacer
>>81142
Define fascism. It actually seems pretty hard to do, so I'll forgive you if you can't.
>> No. 81144 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 9:54 pm
81144 spacer
>>81143

My working definition has been "marginally easier to shoot than rabbits" (any comrades out there will get the reference), but I can attempt a fuller one.

A fascist government is one propelled and sustained by right-wing populism. (As an aside, I've been getting rather annoyed at the leftists seemingly unable to differentiate conservationism from right populism.) So that means it has policies that promote, to quote Kipling, "thinking with the blood", moral purity while harshly denigrating out-groups - those seen as a threat to the church/race/national identity. An authoritarian state that stimulates the basest passions and has no truck with deviations - or, to use a word that has crept back up on us, "degeneracy".

Much depends, of course, on time and place, but the same basic traits (along with sadomasochistic allusions) can be found in all fascist societies: Franco's Spain, Taliban's Afghanistan, Mussolini's Italy, Duterte's Philippines and Trump's America and Putin's Russia.
>> No. 81145 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 10:16 pm
81145 spacer
>>81144
Seems like you're painting with a very broad brush, by all accounts 90% of all governments up until the 20th century were fascist. Is current day Israel fascist, Japan maybe?

Also, is "fascism" more acceptable when the totalitarianism is directed towards the largest ethnic/religious group in society? For instance, there are news laws being put in place that could make even the tiniest slight against the Jewish people a criminal offense, which could technically land you a decade in the clink whether this is enforceable is another matter yet Christians are allowed to be vilified, slandered, blasphemed etc and no-one cares. Is "Fascism" - so long as it's against a larger section of society - morally acceptable?
>> No. 81146 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 10:18 pm
81146 spacer
>>81144

I usually use Mussolini's Italy as the baseline for fascism, and treat any qualities that define that as boxes. I judge how fascist a state is by how many boxes it ticks. If it ticks enough, it's fascist or quasi-fascist.

Fascism has no single defining feature, but if you're as finicky about calling something fascist as a fascist historical purists are, you'd really only get away with calling Mussolini's Italy fascist. That's why, in order for the term to be useful, it necessarily had to be a broad, slightly woolly concept.
>> No. 81148 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 10:34 pm
81148 spacer
>>81145

>Is current day Israel fascist, Japan maybe?

I'm not sure if you're aware, but Japan's military is strictly limited by its constitution - that alone separates it from the other nations I mentioned (that looks set to change later down the line, but that's another story). Culturally speaking though, it's very, very conservative, and a liberty-loving, multi-culturalist, bleeding heart like me couldn't stand the place.

Israel leans that way, sure. Blood-led thinking is pretty widespread ("right of return"?), and the messianic "settlers" are reminiscent of the very worst European imperialists.

As for the rest of that, I'm not even sure you know what you're on about.

>>81146

Yeah, I agree for the most part, it is slightly woolly, but that doesn't make it a useless concept.
>> No. 81150 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 10:47 pm
81150 spacer
>>81146
Interestingly, Mussolini seemed rather unconcerned with race, so I don't think ethnicity or purity is necessarily a factor.

My personal definition is simply a society that operates the same as nature does, the strong rule and the weak perish. This is how life operates on every level, and how personal and sexual relations work, I would say women are natural fascists, they despise weakness. Only Christianity and its derivatives since the enlightenment and eventually communism tried to protect the weak. Before Christ might made right, and no-one would ever dispute that (perhaps why Mussolini and Hitler took such inspiration from Rome).

So perhaps I can agree in principle with
>>81144
Even though this is quite different to the mainstream definition, which can only comfortably class the WW2 axis as fascists, and anyone who even remotely resembles them in the modern day which is a little stupid and narrow in focus since Japan and Israel has more "fascist" policies than Le Pen, Wilders, Trump or Putin, for instance.

>>81148
So the military is what qualifies a nation as fascist? Is a nation that makes immigration practically impossible not "fascist"?

Well, Israel is on record for sterilizing Africans.

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-admits-ethiopian-women-were-given-birth-control-shots.premium-1.496519

I haven't yet heard of Trump or Putin instigating any sterilization policies, they determine entry to Israel on an ethnic basis, on whether you have Jewish blood or not. But I guess The Donald is more deserving of the fascist moniker, because, reasons.
>> No. 81151 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 10:51 pm
81151 spacer
>>81148
>the rest of that, I'm not even sure you know what you're on about

It's not too hard to follow, Christians are faced with any degree of mockery, yet if you mock muslims or jews in the same manner you could face charges. Don't make me go through the countless instances, we've seen them all before.
>> No. 81152 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 10:57 pm
81152 spacer
>>81151
>Don't make me go through the countless instances, we've seen them all before.

No, go through them please.

>>81150

Honestly, learn to read. You've made at least three errors about things said this thread, and I really shouldn't have to correct you. Fucking hell, teachers nowadays, heh?
>> No. 81154 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 11:04 pm
81154 spacer
Umberto Eco's description of the 14 features of fascism gives a very good working definition of the ideology, I think.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/
>> No. 81155 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 11:05 pm
81155 spacer
>>81152
There are no errors, let us clarify two points you have stated -

>Trump is "fascist" (because, well I'm not sure, you didn't back this up with anything. Something to do with Mexicans probably)

>but Israel, which sterilizes Africans and admits entry on a racial basis is not "fascist"

This is very interesting, I'd like you to further explain your rationale.
>> No. 81156 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 11:36 pm
81156 spacer
>>81155

Stop trying to act smart, it's not even vaguely convincing.

>>81154

That's a really good read, thanks for sharing. Just some paragraphs I found relevant:

>All this does not mean that Italian fascism was tolerant. Gramsci was put in prison until his death; the opposition leaders Giacomo Matteotti and the brothers Rosselli were assassinated; the free press was abolished, the labor unions were dismantled, and political dissenters were confined on remote islands. Legislative power became a mere fiction and the executive power (which controlled the judiciary as well as the mass media) directly issued new laws, among them laws calling for preservation of the race (the formal Italian gesture of support for what became the Holocaust).

(It seems the lad who said Mussolini wasn't interested in race hadn't read beyond his Wiki entry.)

>So we come to my second point. There was only one Nazism. We cannot label Franco’s hyper-Catholic Falangism as Nazism, since Nazism is fundamentally pagan, polytheistic, and anti-Christian. But the fascist game can be played in many forms, and the name of the game does not change. The notion of fascism is not unlike Wittgenstein’s notion of a game. A game can be either competitive or not, it can require some special skill or none, it can or cannot involve money. Games are different activities that display only some “family resemblance,” as Wittgenstein put it.

>Fascism became an all-purpose term because one can eliminate from a fascist regime one or more features, and it will still be recognizable as fascist. Take away imperialism from fascism and you still have Franco and Salazar. Take away colonialism and you still have the Balkan fascism of the Ustashes. Add to the Italian fascism a radical anti-capitalism (which never much fascinated Mussolini) and you have Ezra Pound. Add a cult of Celtic mythology and the Grail mysticism (completely alien to official fascism) and you have one of the most respected fascist gurus, Julius Evola.

I think of this a similar to the left-right divide somewhat (regimes of a broadly "left" or "right" identity could have existed before the French Revolution, only we wouldn't have called them that). It's more to do with ease and finding common roots - when we're talking about ideology, much can be traced back to the psychological - than anything. Only pedantic postmodernists, finger-painters or identity politics obsessives, expect perfectibility from language.

>Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak. Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism.

This is where Trumpism relates.
>> No. 81157 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 11:51 pm
81157 spacer
>>81156
No-one's acting. Your claim was that Trump was a fascist, remarkable claims require remarkable evidence, I'm afraid.

I would hope that you have some hard evidence, or at least something comparable to Israel's actions, (the aforementioned sterilizations of minorites) which, according to you aren't really fascist.
>> No. 81158 Anonymous
15th December 2016
Thursday 11:52 pm
81158 spacer
>>81140
Anything in particular of his that you would suggest?
>> No. 81159 Anonymous
16th December 2016
Friday 1:34 am
81159 spacer
>>81158
Just bear in mind that I have no idea what I'm talking about, so these are probably horrible picks.
http://www.ccru.net/swarm1/1_melt.htm
http://www.xenosystems.net/tag/teleology/
http://www.xenosystems.net/tag/acceleration/
>> No. 81160 Anonymous
16th December 2016
Friday 5:23 am
81160 spacer
Trump isn't a fascist, he just appeals rhetorically to fascists. A more convincing argument could be made that the USA is already a quasi-fascist (or crypto-fascist) state, with only a veneer of democracy. Elections serve to pacify the population, without seriously disturbing the class collaboration which occurs due to the ubiquitous ambition for personal wealth, nationalism, worship of the military, and reinforcement of conservative values.
>> No. 81161 Anonymous
16th December 2016
Friday 6:56 am
81161 spacer

3500.jpg
811618116181161
Labour strategists are planning to relaunch Jeremy Corbyn as a leftwing populist in the new year, as the party seeks to ride the anti-politics mood in Brexit Britain and narrow the gap with the Tories.

While the Islington North MP’s politics are very different from those of Jimmy Saville or Donald Trump, senior Labour figures believe his unpolished authenticity could help the party draw on the wave of anti-establishment feeling sweeping through politics.

Corbyn is expected to appear more frequently on television, and a newly expanded team of advisers are working to formulate flagship policies that would underline his willingness to lead a revolt against vested interests.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/15/labour-plans-jeremy-corbyn-relaunch-as-a-leftwing-populist

Populism? What a bloody sellout.
>> No. 81162 Anonymous
16th December 2016
Friday 7:56 am
81162 spacer
>>81161

They'll fail. The popular will has attached itself to the right, and there's little a PR team can do about that.

Personally, I think Labour would be better off appealing to the middle classes at this point - coming out in support of Brexit in nothing but name, and, honestly, by exploiting the growing fear of those below (I say this as a hard leftist but frankly the hoi polloi is terrifying me.).
>> No. 81163 Anonymous
16th December 2016
Friday 8:11 am
81163 spacer
>>81162
>I think Labour would be better off appealing to the middle classes at this point - coming out in support of Brexit in nothing but name

That's what they appear to be advocating already, in the EU in all but name. Well, at the moment they're doing a fine job of appealing to neither the Brexit or Remain sides.

Anyway, worst bit of the article is this - Thornberry lined up as Corbyn's successor:

Emily Thornberry – the shadow foreign secretary and Corbyn’s constituency neighbour – was widely perceived to have done well in pressing the government on Brexit when she stood in for him at PMQs last week. She is now regarded as the favoured pro-Corbyn candidate to take over if the 67-year-old fails to restore the party’s fortunes and faces a renewed challenge to his leadership.
>> No. 81164 Anonymous
16th December 2016
Friday 8:15 am
81164 spacer
>>81162
Labour is inherently unappealing to the middle class and in particular to the swing-voters who actually matter.

Labour could plagiarize Thatcher's manifestos oh wait that'd still be a move left from the current UK consensus :^) and still lose. They could position themselves to the right of the Conservatives and lose. They can offer whatever the hell they want because nobody trusts them to deliver it.

For Labour to take power you need relative Tory-voter apathy more than anything else.
>> No. 81165 Anonymous
16th December 2016
Friday 8:16 am
81165 spacer
>>81163

But she's like the shittest parts of Corbyn and the shittest parts of Blairism in one unhelpful package.
>> No. 81166 Anonymous
16th December 2016
Friday 9:10 am
81166 spacer
If you listen to what Trump voters were asking for, you'll find that there's a lot of traditional working class sentiment there. Obviously Trump's not going to deliver, but I think people believe that Corbyn might. Traditional working class sentiments haven't gone away in the UK, their media representation has just disappeared.
>> No. 81167 Anonymous
16th December 2016
Friday 10:04 am
81167 spacer
>>81166

Mark Blyth is very good on this sort of thing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2VUFjSWN2w
>> No. 81168 Anonymous
16th December 2016
Friday 7:45 pm
81168 spacer
>>81166
>I think people believe that Corbyn might

This week John McDonnell has said that he wants to keep freedom of movement but regulate the labour market more. Numbers are of no concern to him.

Labour are out of touch. They have nothing to offer the average person, other than to call them privileged or bigoted, because they're too concerned with issues that matter to all of 0.00001% of the population such as gender neutral pronouns like ze and xe.
>> No. 81169 Anonymous
17th December 2016
Saturday 1:31 am
81169 spacer
>>81168

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G07szNm_5Jk
>> No. 81170 Anonymous
17th December 2016
Saturday 2:36 pm
81170 spacer
>>81168
I don't think I've ever seen Jeremy Corbyn or John McDonnell mention gender neutral pronouns once.
>> No. 81171 Anonymous
17th December 2016
Saturday 3:30 pm
81171 spacer
>>81170

Don't let facts get in the way of a stupid post.
>> No. 81172 Anonymous
17th December 2016
Saturday 3:56 pm
81172 spacer
>>81168
All those Tory moves to, say, repeal the ban on fox hunting are totally about the average person though.
>> No. 81173 Anonymous
17th December 2016
Saturday 4:14 pm
81173 spacer
>>81170
They'll be part of the Dear Leader's gender audits. Lest we forget this is the man who has endorsed all-black, all-disabled and all-LGBT MP shortlists.
>> No. 81174 Anonymous
17th December 2016
Saturday 10:36 pm
81174 spacer
>>81173
>Dear Leader

Fingerpaintlad is back! Don't all vomit at once.
>> No. 81191 Anonymous
18th December 2016
Sunday 3:49 am
81191 spacer
Corbyn said yes to this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY-FhQFnl1w
>> No. 81204 Anonymous
18th December 2016
Sunday 4:28 pm
81204 spacer
>>81191

At least he had the sense not to appear in it...unlike that Dan Jarvis bloke which Labour 'moderates' fantasise about as their new Tony because he was in the army, you know.
>> No. 81205 Anonymous
18th December 2016
Sunday 6:03 pm
81205 spacer
>>81191
This just made me feel sad.
>> No. 81206 Anonymous
18th December 2016
Sunday 6:17 pm
81206 spacer
>>81191
Everyone knows "Me Chip Pan's On Fire" should be Christmas number one.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWFH1Y0WocI
>> No. 81207 Anonymous
18th December 2016
Sunday 8:37 pm
81207 spacer
>>81206
Fuck me, Greg Davies isn't in good shape.
>> No. 81208 Anonymous
18th December 2016
Sunday 10:03 pm
81208 spacer

greg.jpg
812088120881208
>>81207

He doesn't look that bad.
>> No. 81209 Anonymous
19th December 2016
Monday 5:02 pm
81209 spacer
>>81191

Embedding in case anyone missed it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY-FhQFnl1w

RIP the Labour Party, 1900-2016.
>> No. 81210 Anonymous
19th December 2016
Monday 6:37 pm
81210 spacer
Meanwhile, in America:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z60RusmnqSw
>> No. 81212 Anonymous
21st December 2016
Wednesday 3:45 pm
81212 spacer
One of Jeremy Corbyn’s most persistent critics is to quit as a Labour MP and take a job in the nuclear industry, triggering a three-way fight for his marginal northern seat with the Conservatives and Ukip.

Jamie Reed, the MP for Copeland in west Cumbria since 2005, told the Guardian he was resigning because he believed he could achieve more for his community in his new job, working for the nuclear processing site Sellafield, than on the backbenches.

The outgoing MP has been very critical of Corbyn’s leadership, having resigned from the shadow frontbench almost immediately after he was first elected in 2015. In June, Reed called for Corbyn to stand down after the EU referendum, accusing the Labour leader of seeking “to inject an unprecedented poison” into the party.

In the 2015 general election Reed’s majority was reduced to 2,564, with the Tories second and Ukip third, gaining more than 5,000 votes on the previous election to win a 15.5% vote share. Copeland also recorded one of the strongest votes to leave the EU, with 62% voting out, although Reed supported the remain campaign.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/21/corbyn-critic-jamie-reed-quits-labour-mp-byelection-copeland

A by-election Labour really can't afford to lose.
>> No. 81213 Anonymous
21st December 2016
Wednesday 8:51 pm
81213 spacer
>>81212

I think he's acted as the sacrifical lamb. I've worked in public affairs and community relations and the salary he'll get for that (cosnidering it's outside London) will not be that of an MPs and the work will be considerably more boring.

I think he's realised his seat might be hard to maintain come the boundary change and he wants to use his marginal seat to lose to that Jeremy faces the pressure.

God bless Jamie Reed, what a brave soul.
>> No. 81214 Anonymous
21st December 2016
Wednesday 8:59 pm
81214 spacer
>>81213

Even though I've had a few pints, I appreciate this doesn't really make sense. Please just ban me and get it over with.
>> No. 81216 Anonymous
21st December 2016
Wednesday 9:13 pm
81216 spacer
>>81213
He's said in the article his salary is a little bit higher than it was as an MP.

It may be a marginal seat now, but it's one Labour have held since the 1930s. The Tories will be sniffing blood because it would be such a PR coup to take a traditional Labour seat away from them. Apparently they'd be the first governing party to win a seat from the official opposition at a by-election since 1960 if they pull it off.
>> No. 81217 Anonymous
21st December 2016
Wednesday 9:31 pm
81217 spacer
>>81216
Oh fair enough, that's quite interesting then actually. If he's getting paid more I can definitely see the temptation.

Why trek to London for most of the week and live in a shitty, lonely, flat when you can be at home every night and earn more money?

I really hope Jeremy gets battered with this so we can begin the process of ousting him and getting somebody can actually win and improve the lives of working people in place.

Maybe I'm just blinkered but being an MP seems like such an amazing job that I find it difficult to see why people would voluntarily give it up.
>> No. 81218 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 7:33 am
81218 spacer
>>81213
I can see what you're thinking, but it sounds pretty silly when you consider everything else that hasn't made Corbyn resign.
Then again I'd never put doing something silly and expecting good results past the Labour party.
>> No. 81221 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 3:04 pm
81221 spacer
Labour's response to the boundary changes is to propose an amendment so Corbyn's constituency remains intact and other MPs, such as Kate Osamor and David Lammy, risk losing their seats instead. Naturally, they're taking it well.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/22/shadow-minister-irate-labour-plan-save-jeremy-corbyn-seat-kate-osamor
>> No. 81224 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 3:31 pm
81224 spacer
>>81221

Oh my fucking God, there's just no end to it is there?
>> No. 81225 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 3:32 pm
81225 spacer
>>81224

I should add tohugh, I'm quite glad the wheels are coming off. Maybe we can finally drop this overplayed meme of Corbyn as a man of principle and fairness who doesn't politik.
>> No. 81227 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 5:22 pm
81227 spacer
Idea (not a suggestion, just an idea): if people shut up and stopped whinging about Corbyn, he'd be fucked. As it stands one is driven to support him simply on the basis of those who don't support him.

Blair endorsed Corbyn tomorrow and he'd be gone by Christmas.
>> No. 81228 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 5:48 pm
81228 spacer
>>81227

What a ridiculous line of thinking that is.

'The transport minister is doing a terrible job.'
'Shut the fuck up if we just ignore him he'll get the sack!'
>> No. 81229 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 6:07 pm
81229 spacer
>>81228
But being ignored is the normal state of being for the transport minister.
>> No. 81230 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 6:22 pm
81230 spacer
>>81229

Really? I think transport is probably one of the most, if not the most boring brief, yet I can't stop hearing about Chris Grayling.
>> No. 81231 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 6:45 pm
81231 spacer
>>81228
I'd keep a transport minister on if it'd piss off Tony Blair.

Though I think you failed to detect the slight presence of a tongue in the general vicinity of my cheek. An understandable mistake since you don't have access to my senses, but nonetheless not one I forgive while Tony Blair remains silent on you. If Blair were to say you were a cunt, however, forgiveness would be immediate.
>> No. 81232 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 6:58 pm
81232 spacer

screen shot 2016-09-08 at 16.20.44.png
812328123281232
>>81227
>As it stands one is driven to support him simply on the basis of those who don't support him.

Er, lad.

Although, to be fair, that would explain why Corbyn has gone awfully quiet and doesn't appear to be doing anything.
>> No. 81233 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 7:00 pm
81233 spacer
>>81232
I am actually surprised at the Lab +16 for him.
>> No. 81234 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 7:09 pm
81234 spacer

approval ratings.png
812348123481234
>>81233
In April 2015, amongst Labour voters, Special Ed was polled as doing well by 81% and doing badly by 14%.
>> No. 81235 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 7:27 pm
81235 spacer
>>81232

Wow, minus 40 is quite something although not entirely unexpected. One has to ask if the man cares so much about working people why he doesn't step down and make way for somebody more electable who actually has a chance of implementing policies that improve their lives.

Other than that, I don't really get this. I don't agree with what Tim has to say but I think he's done pretty well with the Lib Dems so that greatly surprises me.

They've gone from a party destroyed and struggling to be taken seriously to a party with a passionate vision and a real fight in them. Again, not that I agree with the way he's angling but I think he's done well.
>> No. 81236 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 7:33 pm
81236 spacer
>>81232
In terms of Labour party leadership contests, naturally.
I don't give a toss if he takes the party with him, so long as Blair and Mandelson scream all the way down. If the Lib-Dems could come second I would regard that as setting right the skulduggery of the 1983 election. ( http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/07/a-good-week-for-hypocrisy-and-humbug-plus-how-margaret-thatcher-saved-the-labour-party.html )

>>81235
Men (I'm including women because I'm lazy) who are more electable: 231
>who actually has a chance of implementing policies that improve their lives.
0.
>> No. 81237 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 7:47 pm
81237 spacer
>>81233
16% net support means no more than 58% in total, assuming nobody fell in between, which almost certainly wasn't the case. That means that at least 42% of people who actually voted Labour won't commit to approving of him. Fuck the party membership, the voters are the ones who get you elected.
>> No. 81239 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 8:16 pm
81239 spacer
>>81233
>>81237
To correct myself, that's not actual voters but voting intention. Which means it excludes those who have already jumped ship and decided to vote for someone else.

Also, apparently ICM asked people earlier this month how they'd vote if Ed Balls were in charge instead of Corbyn. The result on the gross numbers was a swing of around 2%, which might work out to around 3-4% when adjusted to take out the don't-knows. That would be enough to make the vote in 2020 closer than it was in 2015. Of course, that's assuming the Conservatives don't manage to push through their gerrymander before then.
>> No. 81240 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 8:25 pm
81240 spacer
>>81239
Shhh... don't mention Ed Balls on here, you know what'll happen.
>> No. 81242 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 8:39 pm
81242 spacer

CqD2giVW8AEZ7Nv.jpg
812428124281242
>>81237
In August polling by Ipsos MORI found that Labour supporters were more satisfied with Theresa May than Corbyn.
>> No. 81261 Anonymous
23rd December 2016
Friday 2:00 pm
81261 spacer
>>81242
Let's be accurate, the question was about how they are doing their job, so they are more satisfied with May's performance as PM than they are with Corbyn's performance as opposition leader. Still, very poor result for him and doesn't translate into decent election results at all.
>> No. 81263 Anonymous
23rd December 2016
Friday 2:30 pm
81263 spacer
>>81261
Similar polls at the time asked which of them would they prefer as PM, and Theresa May got something like 40% of Labour voters. I daresay some other pollsters have asked the same question more recently, and were it not Christmas Eve Eve I'd probably spend some time digging some up, but I'm going to guess the position hasn't changed substantially in that time.
>> No. 81265 Anonymous
23rd December 2016
Friday 3:31 pm
81265 spacer
>>81263
This poses an interesting question that goes beyond Corbyn and his crew of unscrupulous scallywags. Why has party membership among ordinary voters gotten to the stage where national parties can be hijacked by a few thousand people?

I mean if most labour voters are switching to Tory we can see something has gone very wrong with party politics. Maybe it is just a case that most people don't know they can do these things for a few pounds a month, perhaps they need to be shamed in a fashion that plays to their insecurities or need to see that they can influence policy with party membership. Just thinking aloud about how the Labour party can unfuck itself.
>> No. 81266 Anonymous
23rd December 2016
Friday 3:47 pm
81266 spacer
>>81263
>I daresay some other pollsters have asked the same question more recently

The most recent ICM poll found the Tories ahead of Labour in every single socioeconomic group and every age group bar 18-24 year olds.

>>81265
>Why has party membership among ordinary voters gotten to the stage where national parties can be hijacked by a few thousand people?

Miliband's legacy.
>> No. 81267 Anonymous
23rd December 2016
Friday 4:06 pm
81267 spacer
Labour MPs must isolate themselves from Jeremy Corbyn, says report

Damning internal Labour party research reveals swing voters believe the party lacks leadership, direction or any strong message under Jeremy Corbyn, prompting calls for moderate Labour MPs in the north to be offered a “lifeboat strategy” to protect them from association with the leader.

The research seen by the Guardian, which has been circulated among a selected group of moderate MPs, includes a string of highly damaging focus-group results and says Ukip-leaning Labour voters have “no reason to vote Labour beyond habit and social norm”.

It suggests MPs must develop their own electoral strategy of “how to run locally in a challenging context and isolate from Jeremy without increasing perception of division”.

The December report was written by James Morris, formerly the top polling adviser to Ed Miliband, and based on the findings from focus groups with Ukip-leaning Labour voters held over a number of months.

It suggests moderate Labour MPs should develop their own lines on controversial issues, such as freedom of movement, a narrative which has emerged in recent weeks among some former Miliband shadow cabinet ministers including Chuka Umunna, Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham. “Ensure hard left is not the only well organised grouping inside the Labour party,” it says.

67% of people answered 'don't know' when asked what was the main thing that Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party were saying at the moment

However, the conclusions of the report, also say that further public division in the party is unlikely to help. “Infighting”, “joke” and “total mess” are some of the first words that voters came up with when asked to describe Labour.

Crucially, the report says the wider public does not perceive Corbyn as being a break from Labour’s past, with many suggesting they would prefer a new generation of leader.

Corbyn is not perceived as being independent-minded or passionate, the research suggests. “The only thing that stands out is he’s got his little spin doctors around him that tell you this and tell you that, like a sheep,” one person said.

Another said: “If you listen to what he says, he’s just like that white noise in the background, because he hasn’t got any passion, he’s got no presence, really.”

Voters are not aware of many Labour policies apart from on the Trident nuclear programme, the report said. Labour’s campaign slogan against grammar schools - “Education not segregation” – was simply not understood, it said.

The focus groups repeatedly said they perceived that Labour “put others before the interests of British citizens”.

The report acknowledges that this is not new criticism, and has dated back to the Iraq war and perceptions of Tony Blair as “George Bush’s poodle”, but it says this is particularly important because Brexit voters saw the referendum as primarily about immigration, and research showed 56% of remain voters also wanted more control of borders.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/23/labour-mps-must-isolate-themselves-from-jeremy-corbyn-says-report
>> No. 81268 Anonymous
23rd December 2016
Friday 6:39 pm
81268 spacer
Hope Labour lose the Copeland by-election and Corbyn is turfed out. He's being propped up by the £3 membership allowing Trots and students to ensure he has a mandate, despite him polling terribly amongst the general electorate. He's too much of a basketcase to provide strong opposition, and definitely too offputting to stand a chance as PM. I had such high hopes for him, thinking he could make some real change, but turns out he's just an oddball who can't stop fucking up. Sad.
>> No. 81275 Anonymous
23rd December 2016
Friday 9:16 pm
81275 spacer

paul_calf-students.jpg
812758127581275
>>81268

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jessie-thompson/left-wing-people_b_4941582.html
>> No. 81277 Anonymous
23rd December 2016
Friday 9:31 pm
81277 spacer
>>81275
That's reminded me of when some of my friends got involved in animal rights protesting. What a shower of bastards that crowd was; at one point they started protesting about wildlife centres that specialised in rescuing animals kept in appalling conditions, mainly from circuses and other wildlife centres and zoos, because it was still keeping them in captivity.
>> No. 81292 Anonymous
24th December 2016
Saturday 12:37 am
81292 spacer
>>81277
Animals should be given a choice of whether they want to be locked up or not.
>> No. 81293 Anonymous
24th December 2016
Saturday 12:53 am
81293 spacer
>>81275
That's pretty spot on. I was on the committee for my uni's feminist society, and the hand over meeting was literally going through a list of friends and enemies, it was fucking mental.
>> No. 81310 Anonymous
24th December 2016
Saturday 7:37 am
81310 spacer
>>81265
Party membership is in the shit because the Labour "movement" isn't a movement and probably never will be because nobody is competent enough to bust through the neoliberal illusion and make notionally-individual workers (like every self-employed sap who works for deliveroo) realize they've still got a collective interest in making everything less shit.

I mean, err... Never should've changed the rules that elect people to make it one-man-one-vote. (I've been told that they thought this would lead to US-style primaries and a stronger right-wing in the party which is hilariously wishful thinking after that right wing oversaw a 12% crash in turnout in 2001.)
Political engagement is a spook.

>>81267
>Ukip-leaning Labour voters have “no reason to vote Labour beyond habit and social norm”.
Any new findings in the report? If things carry on the way they've been going, that's plenty for Labour. :^)
Honestly I've started to find the idea of UKIP displacing Labour very appealing. Possibly because I've gone nuts, possibly out of spite, and almost certainly because I've forgotten how annoying Paul Nutall really is. Labour however is very annoying, and still in my face.
>> No. 81314 Anonymous
24th December 2016
Saturday 1:09 pm
81314 spacer
>>81310
Better to be merely annoying than... well, you know.
>> No. 81316 Anonymous
24th December 2016
Saturday 2:06 pm
81316 spacer
>>81266
>>81310
It seems you've both missed that party membership is in steep decline generally not just within the Labour party.
>> No. 81317 Anonymous
24th December 2016
Saturday 2:50 pm
81317 spacer
>>81316
Ho ho, not within the Labour party anymore.

They're strangely unamused to be what - the biggest party in Europe?
>> No. 81325 Anonymous
27th December 2016
Tuesday 5:23 pm
81325 spacer
>Millions of people may be disenfranchised by the government’s plans to trial asking for ID in order to vote, Labour has said.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/27/minister-disputes-livingstone-claim-that-voter-crackdown-will-hit-poorest

Read: By piloting a scheme in places such as Birmingham and Bradford, with large Bangladeshi and laplanderstani populations, we're worried that we'll end up losing votes.
>> No. 81326 Anonymous
27th December 2016
Tuesday 7:19 pm
81326 spacer
>>81325
Outside of NI, voter ID requirements are a solution in search of a problem. I can't recall any incident in recent times on the mainland where they'd have prevented it. They can't do anything about granny farming or postal fraud, which have been the methods attempted almost exclusively in recent years. NI has special circumstances which justify asking for ID.
>> No. 81327 Anonymous
28th December 2016
Wednesday 1:19 pm
81327 spacer
>>81325
I was concerned about fraud at the European referendum so I asked the polling station officers what they did to prevent it. They told me you only need to give a registered name and address to vote, and if someone comes along and gives a name already crossed off, they are given a special pink ballot to vote. So I guess the potential fraud is acknowledged/recorded but nothing is really done about it unless a lot of it becomes evident. They also said something about every ballot being numbered so if it was necessary it would be possible to search through the box and match the ballots to the names, but I wasn't clear on the technical details of this process.

It has just occurred to me that, as the big parties have polling day operations that record who has voted and who has not, couldn't they potentially get their own supporters to cast fraudulent ballots at the last minute using people they know not to have bothered to vote yet?
>> No. 81328 Anonymous
28th December 2016
Wednesday 1:26 pm
81328 spacer
>>81327
>It has just occurred to me that, as the big parties have polling day operations that record who has voted and who has not, couldn't they potentially get their own supporters to cast fraudulent ballots at the last minute using people they know not to have bothered to vote yet?

I don't think most of the parties would be competent enough to pull this off.
>> No. 81329 Anonymous
28th December 2016
Wednesday 3:35 pm
81329 spacer
>>81327
>So I guess the potential fraud is acknowledged/recorded but nothing is really done about it unless a lot of it becomes evident.
Most of the time it simply doesn't matter. Sometimes it'll happen because personation is involved. Sometimes it'll happen because of an error at the polling station. Sometimes it'll happen because someone requested a postal ballot and didn't return it. Sometimes it'll even happen because someone requested a postal ballot and did return it (and occasionally the ballots are for different candidates). Requiring identification only really does anything for the first two cases, and in the grand scheme of things they don't really happen all that often. In 2015, only three seats had a majority in double-digits. The tightest of these was the Tories taking Gower by 29 votes. Given that sort of result isn't predictable, it's not really feasible to just flip 29 votes and steal the result. You'd need hundreds of ballots to do it per seat. You could have one person cast multiple ballots, but they'd need to do only one at each polling station to be sure. How many polling stations in the constituency? How many can your stooge reasonably get to within 15 hours? For the same reason that just doing a handful of ballots wouldn't be enough to be sure, just running this scam in a handful of constituencies wouldn't do either. In all, you'd probably need hundreds, if not thousands, of accomplices to pull this off in such a way as to give you a decent chance of rigging the result with any certainty.

The frauds that requiring ID would prevent simply don't happen on a large enough scale to have any effect. In particular, it wouldn't have stopped what is supposed to have happened in the case of Lutfur Rahman. That case involved voters being bribed and intimidated - situations where legal ballots are cast by those entitled to cast them.
>> No. 81330 Anonymous
28th December 2016
Wednesday 7:30 pm
81330 spacer
>>81329

At the 2015 elections, only 26 allegations of personation at polling stations were reported to the police.

At best, requiring ID to vote is a waste of time. At worst, it's a systematic effort to disenfranchise poor voters.

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/198533/Fraud-allegations-data-report-2015.pdf
>> No. 81331 Anonymous
28th December 2016
Wednesday 7:36 pm
81331 spacer
Letting voters use their polling card as ID would be a decent enough solution. Everyone will have one, and it's no less reliable as a form of ID than a utility bill.
>> No. 81332 Anonymous
28th December 2016
Wednesday 11:44 pm
81332 spacer
>>81331
Yes, I think the best way to approach this is just let almost anything be acceptable proof of ID. Polling card, utility bill, bank card - just bring something with your name on that isn't scribbled on the back of an envelope and you can vote.
>> No. 81333 Anonymous
29th December 2016
Thursday 1:55 am
81333 spacer
>>81332
An even better approach would be to acknowledge that the system isn't broken and not waste taxpayers' money trying to "fix" it.
>> No. 81334 Anonymous
29th December 2016
Thursday 2:05 am
81334 spacer
>>81333
Shh lad, we've moved on from that now.
>> No. 81340 Anonymous
1st January 2017
Sunday 5:54 pm
81340 spacer
Labour members must resist attempts planned for 2017 to radically redraw party rules to give leftwing candidates a higher chance of success in future leadership contests, the director of a pressure group has said.

Richard Angell, of the centrist Progress group closely associated with the New Labour years, said it was his new year’s resolution to stop an amendment supported by the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, which would lower the number of supportive MPs needed to qualify as a leadership candidate.

Currently, would-be candidates need the support of 15% of their parliamentary colleagues for their name to be added to the ballot. However, the Labour conference this year will vote on whether to lower the threshold to 5% of MPs.

The move is favoured by supporters of Jeremy Corbyn because it is viewed as an avenue to allow a continuity leftwing candidate to succeed him whenever he chooses to resign.

The amendment was put forward by a local constituency group and does not need the formal backing of Labour’s national executive committee to be put to conference.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/01/labour-members-urged-to-reject-plan-for-lower-leadership-threshold
>> No. 81342 Anonymous
1st January 2017
Sunday 11:35 pm
81342 spacer
>>81340
Wot no snarky comment underneath? I'm disappointed in you .gs.
>> No. 81343 Anonymous
2nd January 2017
Monday 2:24 am
81343 spacer
>>81342
"Dear Leader is delegating power to the wider party membership at the expense of officials, just like in North Korea"
>> No. 81344 Anonymous
2nd January 2017
Monday 10:00 am
81344 spacer

crapping.jpg
813448134481344
>>81343
That's more like it.
>> No. 81349 Anonymous
2nd January 2017
Monday 6:33 pm
81349 spacer
>>81342
It's getting to the stage with Corbyn where none is needed anymore.
>> No. 81352 Anonymous
2nd January 2017
Monday 8:45 pm
81352 spacer
>>81340
You'd think they will have realised at this point that the only option is to splinter into another party. Corbyn may be a twat but when your strategy becomes something so explicitly anti-democratic I think its time to have a word with yourself.

I mean is Richard Angell really that heavily invested in the window and brick industry that this is all working out for him?
>> No. 81353 Anonymous
2nd January 2017
Monday 8:54 pm
81353 spacer
>>81352
Exactly what about it is "explicitly anti-democratic"? How is it "anti-democratic" to require that the leader you elect be at least somewhat qualified? If you can't even get 15% of MPs to back you, you have no business being party leader.
>> No. 81354 Anonymous
2nd January 2017
Monday 9:08 pm
81354 spacer
>>81353
>How is it "anti-democratic" to require that the leader you elect be at least somewhat qualified

Erm...
>> No. 81355 Anonymous
2nd January 2017
Monday 9:47 pm
81355 spacer
>>81354
Go on. I hope you're not going to suggest that imposing some threshold on candidacy is inherently anti-democratic, or something similarly retarded. After all, if it is "explicitly anti-democratic", why not just remove it completely and just open the contest to anyone who fancies a go?
>> No. 81356 Anonymous
2nd January 2017
Monday 10:06 pm
81356 spacer
>>81355
Why not indeed?
>> No. 81357 Anonymous
2nd January 2017
Monday 10:09 pm
81357 spacer
>>81356
Go on, put yourself forward. You couldn't possibly do any worse than the current postholder.
>> No. 81358 Anonymous
2nd January 2017
Monday 10:15 pm
81358 spacer
>>81357
I can't as I'm a member of aanother political party. In which I could easily run for leader, as it only requires the signatures of twenty other members for you to be a leadership candidate. I was actually one of the nominees for our current deputy leader.
>> No. 81359 Anonymous
2nd January 2017
Monday 10:33 pm
81359 spacer
>>81358
>I can't as I'm a member of aanother political party.
If we're going to consider requiring the support of MPs "anti-democratic" I don't see why barring people from other parties wouldn't also be so.
>> No. 81363 Anonymous
3rd January 2017
Tuesday 12:34 am
81363 spacer
>>81355
>I hope you're not going to suggest that imposing some threshold on candidacy is inherently anti-democratic

It is. Democracy works on a sliding scale, the more hoops you put the less democratic it becomes.

What I'm referring to however is the clear intention Richard Angell holds for the PLP to wrest party control back once Corbyn is gone by blocking anyone they find too left-wing from getting on the ballot. There are good arguments to have thresholds of course but 'our members support the wrong faction' isn't one of them.

>>81358
I imagine that must be a bit of a bastard if you lived rural. Do Green party members also sign forms online even if they've never met the guy?
>> No. 81364 Anonymous
3rd January 2017
Tuesday 1:04 am
81364 spacer
>>81363
>It is. Democracy works on a sliding scale, the more hoops you put the less democratic it becomes.
If you're not being facetious, just wait until you discover how awfully anti-democratic Parliament is. Not only do you have the completely arbitrary barriers of having to be 18 years old and in possession of a certain nationality, if you want to stand for the thing you have to put up a deposit. How annoyingly and explicitly anti-democratic of them.

>What I'm referring to however is the clear intention Richard Angell holds for the PLP to wrest party control back once Corbyn is gone by blocking anyone they find too left-wing from getting on the ballot.
Yeah, those jumped up MPs trying to interfere in the party election process. Who elected them, anyway?
>> No. 81365 Anonymous
3rd January 2017
Tuesday 1:16 am
81365 spacer
>>81364

Are you seriously trying to pretend that Parliament is democratic? I can scarcely imagine anything more superficially democratic and genuinely autocratic.
>> No. 81368 Anonymous
3rd January 2017
Tuesday 1:30 am
81368 spacer
>>81365
You must have a really shit imagination.
>> No. 81370 Anonymous
3rd January 2017
Tuesday 1:56 am
81370 spacer
>>81364
>If you're not being facetious, just wait until you discover how awfully anti-democratic Parliament is. Not only do you have the completely arbitrary barriers of having to be 18 years old and in possession of a certain nationality, if you want to stand for the thing you have to put up a deposit. How annoyingly and explicitly anti-democratic of them.

Your arse seems to have been just set ablaze by the term 'anti-democratic' than anything else I've said. How about we address this, would you prefer instead a flowery term like 'restrictivist' or perhaps we can tickle classical historians and use optimate?

>Yeah, those jumped up MPs trying to interfere in the party election process. Who elected them, anyway?

You seem unaware that an act can be both legitimate yet also wrong.
>> No. 81371 Anonymous
3rd January 2017
Tuesday 2:02 am
81371 spacer
>>81363
She's a woman and I know her personally. She sidled up to me with nomination form in hand as we were sitting on Westminster grass during a rally. I say, this political stuff is all terribly exciting isn't it.
>> No. 81372 Anonymous
3rd January 2017
Tuesday 5:44 am
81372 spacer
Labour may get as little as 20% of the vote at the next general election and win fewer than 150 seats, according to an analysis of the challenges the party faces.

Buffeted by difficulties including plotting a course on Brexit and a continued lack of support in Scotland, as well as Jeremy Corbyn’s unpopularity, Labour has virtually no chance of winning outright in the next election, the Fabian Society report concludes.

Based on analysis of existing poll data and historical trends, the study predicts that the next election, whether held imminently or in 2020, is very likely to see Labour win fewer than 200 seats for the first time since 1935, possibly falling to about 140.

However, it cautions against the idea that Labour could be imminently replaced as the main opposition, saying the electoral system will act as a “firebreak” against a calamitous collapse in the number of seats.

The report says Labour’s general election vote over the past 40 years has tended to be almost eight percentage points lower than its poll rating in the second year of the preceding parliament. If this happens in 2020, the Labour vote could fall to 20% or less.

But using projections based on recent polls, it says that even if either Ukip or the Lib Dems could tie with Labour on 20%, the electoral system would mean neither would win more than 20 seats, with Labour remaining at 140 to 150.

Such a scenario would see the Conservatives win more than 400 seats, giving Theresa May a vast Commons majority.

The report stresses that its gloomy conclusions are based less on the immediate issue of Corbyn’s leadership than on long-term issues such as the impact of Brexit, the collapse of support in Scotland and electoral mathematics.

Andrew Harrop, the Fabians’ general secretary, who wrote the report, said Corbyn and his team appeared to have little idea how to respond to such challenges or how to win back the 4 million voters who supported Labour in 2015 but say they would not do so now.

After Corbyn triumphed against Owen Smith in a leadership challenge, his team had produced “no roadmap” for overcoming Labour’s plight, Harrop wrote, while the wider parliamentary Labour party had become “barely audible”.

“In place of the sound and fury of Jeremy Corbyn’s first 12 months, there is quietude, passivity and resignation,” he said. “And on Brexit, the greatest political question for two generations, the party’s position is muffled and inconsistent. This is the calm of stalemate, of insignificance, even of looming death.”


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/02/labour-election-jeremy-corbyn-fabian-society
>> No. 81376 Anonymous
3rd January 2017
Tuesday 8:46 pm
81376 spacer
>>81372
Two things shock me about this.

1. They don't blame Corbyn immediately, though they later pile on that he's useless at responding to the problem. (Fair enough, that's true.)
>The report stresses that its gloomy conclusions are based less on the immediate issue of Corbyn’s leadership than on long-term issues such as the impact of Brexit, the collapse of support in Scotland and electoral mathematics.
2. They propose a "Progressive Alliance" sort of thing with the Liberals and the SNP. This is the most shocking thing to me.
>The thinktank argues Labour should seek ways to win power with the support of parties such as the Liberal Democrats and Scottish National party, arguing this is the only feasible route into government for now.

Especially because it's from the Fabians. What on earth is going on here? What happened to the Labour party I knew and... well, loved to loathe, really. The one that would sooner merge with UKIP or the CPGB than smile at Salmond in the division lobby?

Assuming good faith: The penny has dropped that they're well and truly fucked. (But why did it take so long to recognize that?)
Assuming bad faith: They want to use this as another 1983 to flush out shitty ideas, including the "progressive alliance"
>> No. 81377 Anonymous
4th January 2017
Wednesday 7:03 am
81377 spacer
>>81376
>They don't blame Corbyn immediately, though they later pile on that he's useless at responding to the problem. (Fair enough, that's true.)

Labour would certainly be in trouble regardless of who was the leader. They've taken too many votes for granted for too long but they're no longer able to rely on "I'm voting Labour, just like me Dad." Scotland is evidence enough that if people think there's another credible alternative to the Tories then they'll drop Labour in a heartbeat.

Someone said on Newsnight last night that Labour are utterly irrelevant at this moment in time. They have absolutely nothing to say worth listening to.

>They propose a "Progressive Alliance" sort of thing with the Liberals and the SNP. This is the most shocking thing to me.

By "Progressive Alliance" Labour mean "other parties propping us up in power when it suits" rather than wanting to cooperate with them out of the goodness of their hearts.
>> No. 81379 Anonymous
5th January 2017
Thursday 4:04 pm
81379 spacer
Is there a site anywhere where you can check the minimum swing necessary for certain political outcomes?
i.e. while a uniform swing of 8% may be necessary for a labour government, if you perfectly targeted all the marginals and won them maybe it'd only be 2% or something. (Random figures.)

I remember reading that 1,247 votes were between Kinnock and a chance at power (assuming the most marginal Tory seats went Lab or Lib), and more recently the Conservatives got a majority on only a 0.8% swing, so it's an interesting hypothetical, though I fear it may give me some unwarranted confidence in 2020. (I've some doubts Labour could run an effective enough targeting campaign, both for tactical and funding reasons, given the whole Tory election-fraud thing, but nonetheless...)
>> No. 81380 Anonymous
5th January 2017
Thursday 5:40 pm
81380 spacer
>>81379
So, just the sum of half the difference in the (650/2)-Lab seats where Labour came closest second?

Probably only abut a hundred thousand in a apocalyptic disaster perfect scenario.
>> No. 81381 Anonymous
5th January 2017
Thursday 6:43 pm
81381 spacer
>>81379

This calculator allows you to play around with the uniform swing model:

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/userregpoll.html

See also this list of parliamentary constituencies sorted by majority size:

http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/mps-maj.htm
>> No. 81382 Anonymous
5th January 2017
Thursday 7:45 pm
81382 spacer
>>81376
>Especially because it's from the Fabians
Why, are they supposed to be just as, if not more, tribal than any other Labour think-tank?
>> No. 81383 Anonymous
6th January 2017
Friday 1:31 am
81383 spacer
>>81382
The impression I get is that they don't like Corbyn and that they'd traditionally write off any progressive-alliance style thing as wishful thinking nonsense that isn't in line with the responsible centrist image Blair would've wanted.
>> No. 81386 Anonymous
8th January 2017
Sunday 1:30 am
81386 spacer
Manginerism is cancer
>> No. 81387 Anonymous
8th January 2017
Sunday 1:43 am
81387 spacer
>>81386
I did a search for that word and the only results were from what appears to be a Men's Rights Activist website. Can you explain what you mean?
>> No. 81388 Anonymous
8th January 2017
Sunday 2:28 am
81388 spacer
>>81387

Feminism is cancer, manginas

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BW2raNlIOQg

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 81389 Anonymous
9th January 2017
Monday 11:15 pm
81389 spacer
Jeremy Corbyn will use his first speech of 2017 to claim that Britain can be better off outside the EU and insist that the Labour party has no principled objection to ending the free movement of European workers in the UK.

Setting out his party’s pitch on Brexit in the year that Theresa May will trigger article 50, the Labour leader will also reach for the language of leave campaigners by promising to deliver on a pledge to spend millions of pounds extra on the NHS every week.

He will say Labour’s priority in EU negotiations will remain full access to the European single market, but that his party wants “managed migration” and to repatriate powers from Brussels that would allow governments to intervene in struggling industries such as steel. Sources suggested that the economic demands were about tariff-free access to the single market, rather than membership that they argued did not exist.

Corbyn’s speech and planned media appearances represent the first example of a new anti-establishment drive designed by strategists to emphasise and spread his image as a leftwing populist to a new set of voters. They hope the revamp will help overturn poor poll ratings across the country, particularly with a looming byelection in Copeland, Cumbria.

Speaking in Peterborough, chosen because it is a marginal Labour seat that voted heavily in favour of Brexit, Corbyn will lay into May’s failure to reveal any Brexit planning, and say that Labour will not give the government a free pass in the negotiations.

After comparing the prime minister’s refusal to offer MPs a vote on the final Brexit deal to the behaviour of Henry VIII in a Guardian interview, Corbyn will say: “Not since the second world war has Britain’s ruling elite so recklessly put the country in such an exposed position without a plan.”

“Labour is not wedded to freedom of movement for EU citizens as a point of principle. But nor can we afford to lose full access to the European single market on which so many British businesses and jobs depend. Changes to the way migration rules operate from the EU will be part of the negotiations,” he will say.

“Labour supports fair rules and reasonably managed migration as part of the post-Brexit relationship with the EU.”

Corbyn will also say, however, that there will be no “false promises on immigration” and that his party will not echo the Conservatives by promising to bring the numbers down to the tens of thousands.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/09/jeremy-corbyn-uk-is-better-off-out-of-eu-with-managed-migration

I can see this alienating more people than it appeals to.
>> No. 81390 Anonymous
10th January 2017
Tuesday 12:37 am
81390 spacer
>>81389
>I can see this alienating more people than it appeals to.

I'd agree with you but who knows when it comes to the labour party we have now. Even the Guardian comments section looks divided on this.

Whilst we're here:
>his party wants [...] to repatriate powers from Brussels that would allow governments to intervene in struggling industries such as steel.

This claim is ridiculous given it was Britain that vetoed EU efforts to halt Chinese steel dumping and its fundamentally at odds with market access. Its a shameful attempt at winning over redundant steel workers with pretences that the government gives a damn about steel now that we're not in the 1950s.

Although I guess Brexit proved the proles are easily misled
>> No. 81391 Anonymous
10th January 2017
Tuesday 2:16 am
81391 spacer
>>81389
I've always hated this trend of saying what a speech will be before the actual speech is there.
If I were a leader, I'd pre-brief everyone that I was going to give some really interesting speech laying out the provisions to turn the UK into a space-fairing communist dictatorship, then when everyone showed up I'd start reading the bible in Latin or something.
Those who didn't understand (i.e. all the hacks who showed up) would be instructed by the press-secretaries and what have you that what I'd set out really was a very clever plan for the future of mankind, perfectly costed.

Or, if I were a leader who could win, I'd slip all my nasty policies under the radar using similar manipulation. (But I bet they do that already.)

On the change in direction itself, I wondered earlier when Momentum did that "Europeans are scamming us on Rail" advert if this might actually be a chance to save Labour in their heartlands.

Of all the huge assumptions I'm willing to make to let this slide the most important is finding someone in Labour who's less of a weirdo than Theresa May to replace Corbyn in 2018-19. Even if they set out the perfect policy platform, they're fucked without that. I suppose with herculean effort you could make Corbyn look less weird (I mean leather trousers, fuck sakes.) but it doesn't seem practical. I can believe that Momentum could be drilled into an effective campaign on the doorstep, but not that we can spin Jeremy into John Major.

I suppose we should wait and see how this change of direction will poll first, before getting ahead of ourselves.
>> No. 81392 Anonymous
10th January 2017
Tuesday 7:22 am
81392 spacer
>>81391

I'd vote for you m8.
>> No. 81393 Anonymous
10th January 2017
Tuesday 7:32 am
81393 spacer
>>81391
>I suppose we should wait and see how this change of direction will poll first, before getting ahead of ourselves.

Almost everywhere is reporting it negatively, even The Mirror and they're usually the strongest Labour supporters. The Lib Dems are already trying to capitalise, with Farron calling them Tory cheerleaders and still no clearer on immigration.

>Corbyn bows to pressure with immigration about-turn

https://www.ft.com/content/7c6eeacc-d699-11e6-944b-e7eb37a6aa8e

>Jeremy Corbyn WON'T back heavy curbs on immigration after Brexit in a relaunch speech aimed at turning around his dire ratings

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4102260/Jeremy-Corbyn-WON-T-heavy-curbs-immigration-Brexit-relaunch-speech-aimed-turning-dire-ratings.html

>Jeremy Corbyn refuses to back clampdown on immigration despite growing pressure from Labour party

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-refuses-back-clampdown-9586477

>Jeremy Corbyn has abandoned his outright support for the continued free movement of EU citizens, saying he now wants “reasonably managed migration”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-free-movement-eu-brexit-keir-starmer-immigration-a7518231.html

>Jeremy Corbyn says he is not 'wedded' to EU free movement but refuses to limit migrant numbers

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/10/jeremy-corbyn-says-not-wedded-eu-free-movement-refuses-limit/

>Jeremy Corbyn is to attempt to end confusion over Labour policy on immigration after his deputy Tom Watson struggled to explain it in a Sky News interview.

>It is claimed the new strategy is part of a "let Corbyn be Corbyn" approach in which he will play to his two main strengths: that he says what he thinks and is perceived as a man of integrity.

http://news.sky.com/story/corbyn-to-say-labour-is-not-wedded-to-free-movement-10723613

>JEREMY Corbyn is set to ditch his lifelong commitment to open borders in an desperate attempt to rebrand as a “populist”.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2573658/jeremy-corbyn-set-to-ditch-his-lifelong-commitment-to-freedom-of-movement-in-an-attempt-to-rebrand-as-populist/

>‘Britain CAN be better off after Brexit’ Jeremy Corbyn makes dramatic Labour U-turn on EU

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/752163/EU-Brexit-Jeremy-Corbyn-Labour-U-turn/
>> No. 81394 Anonymous
10th January 2017
Tuesday 10:27 am
81394 spacer
>>81391
Trump did exactly this when he said there was going to be a big announcement and everyone drew the conclusion it was going to be something regarding Obama's birth certificate. In the end he just made a show of how much he loves veterans if I recall correctly, and all the media turned up to see.

>>81393
This is the nearest Corbyn's got to being right on something.
>> No. 81395 Anonymous
10th January 2017
Tuesday 12:39 pm
81395 spacer
IT'S HAPPENED LADS, HE'S FINALLY LOST IT. THE ABSOLUTE MADMAN HAS ONLY GONE AND SUGGESTED A MAXIMUM EARNINGS CAP. NO DOUBT HE'D SET IT HIGHER THAN HIS OWN GENEROUS SALARY.
>> No. 81396 Anonymous
10th January 2017
Tuesday 1:39 pm
81396 spacer
>>81395

Yeah his whole Vrexit wank was bad enough. Labour are dead.
>> No. 81397 Anonymous
10th January 2017
Tuesday 2:50 pm
81397 spacer
>>81395
It's kind of irritating how this has been spun to be honest.
>Asked if there should be a law to limit income, he said: "let's look at it...I've got a view on it, I'm not wedded to a figure....I would like to see a maximum earnings limit quite honestly because I think that would be a fairer thing to do.
Seems more along the lines of musing than outright calling for it. (Along the general trend of "You can want something without it being policy" a-la Trident.) which seems pedantic and silly, but is a little bit more nuanced than the way the headline truncates it.

But we're not here to defend Corbyn, he can dig his own grave without me helping. We're here because I noticed this in the Independent article on what he said, and it's quite interesting:
>Sam Bowman, Executive Director of the Adam Smith Institute, said this morning: "A maximum salary cap would be completely bananas and hurt British business and ultimately ordinary British workers.
Ah, the Adam-Smith Institute. Well, Adam Smith was a pretty moderate bloke for his time wasn't he? They must just be sort of moderate capitalis--
>The Adam Smith Institute (ASI) is a neoliberal (formerly libertarian) think tank and lobbying group based in the United Kingdom, named after Adam Smith, a Scottish moral philosopher and classical economist. The libertarian label was officially changed to neoliberal on Oct 10, 2016... The President of the ASI, Madsen Pirie, has sought to describe the activity of the organisation as "We propose things which people regard as being on the edge of lunacy. The next thing you know, they're on the edge of policy".
Oh, they're a neoliberal shill group, not some kind of neutral research organisation.
>Dr. Madsen Pirie, and brothers Eamonn and Stuart Butler were students together at the University of St Andrews in Scotland. Pirie left in 1974 to work for the Republican Study Committee in Washington DC, and then took up a professorship in Philosophy at Hillsdale College. He was joined there by Stuart Butler, while Eamonn Butler went to work with Edwin Feulner, who became co-founder and director of the free-market think tank The Heritage Foundation. After their US experience, they returned to the UK in 1977 to found their own think tank, the Adam Smith Institute.
Who have nothing to do with Adam Smith.
>The Thatcher era saw the think tank movement come of age and achieve influence, and with the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) and the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS), the ASI was one of three relied upon by the Thatcher government for policy...Madsen Pirie was the architect of much of the privatisation policy...The Institute published Douglas Mason's recommendation that local government rates (the local government tax) should be replaced by a per-capita charge
HA!

They got Corbyn to say something nuts, then cited someone who - dare I say it is even worse because people might take him seriously to rebut it. If I were a more paranoid man I might suggest someone has an agenda, but truth be told the press are probably just lazy. Still, it's telling.

Adam Curtis has a jolly good bit on this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/fdb484c8-99a1-32a3-83be-20108374b985
The IEA in particular wasn't founded to think, just to muddle the figures to change the opinion of the opinion formers against Keynesianism because some nuts thought it'd lead to dictatorship. Most "think tanks" are doubtless the same. (The Adam Smith Group, Heritage Foundation and IFS - Which was partially founded out of arsehurt at Corporation & Capital Gains tax being introduced - all come to mind.)

Labour could do with founding a few IEAs of their own, just to drag the debate left again. (Hey, that's an idea I'd already had for the SNP given how often the press cited the IIFS [the first "I" is for "Independent", which you'd think was part of the official title for how often they said it.] for Scotland in 2014. My proposal was the "Institute for Independent Fiscal Studies")
>> No. 81398 Anonymous
10th January 2017
Tuesday 3:28 pm
81398 spacer
>>81397
Owen Jones has a series of fairly interesting interviews with people in and around the Adam Smith Institute - and yeah, it's pretty much as you have said. They used to call themselves Outriders or some such (haven't got the book at hand), and they come off as a bunch of yuppie chancers that lucked out fantastically. They would propose policies so ludicrous that it was almost funny, only to find that Tory MPs would be taking them quite seriously, and it wasn't long before the wonk jobs followed the dinner invitations.

It's a shame Jones is such a bad writer, I would've loved to see what a Christopher Hitchens or Alexander Cockburn would've done with the material.
>> No. 81399 Anonymous
10th January 2017
Tuesday 5:26 pm
81399 spacer
>>81393
>>It is claimed the new strategy is part of a "let Corbyn be Corbyn" approach in which he will play to his two main strengths: that he says what he thinks and is perceived as a man of integrity.

He's a straight talking maverick! He's a loose cannon! Today he has announced:-

• He's not wedded to the idea of free movement of people from the EU.

• He's not ruling out keeping it.

• He doesn't think the level of migration to this country is high.

• He doesn't have the competency to bring a discussion back to what he wants to talk about, so on the day he wants to discuss immigration the headlines are about how he wants to establish a maximum salary cap.

Corbyn unleashed to dither freely is bound to have people rushing to vote Labour in droves.
>> No. 81400 Anonymous
10th January 2017
Tuesday 7:37 pm
81400 spacer
>>81399
I think Corbyn perhaps has the same problem I've got when it comes to arguing, where he'll easily get sidelined into a hypothetical discussion to the detriment of his wider point if you give him anything resembling a chance. It would go some to explaining why - while accepting his tactical error - I can never hold it against him. All he vaguely said was that we should look at the idea of a salary cap because it's one possible policy option for reducing inequality in this country, which is on the whole fair enough when you look at the words themselves without regard for context - it's just a massive tactical error.

They should exclusively talk to Corbyn using the internet. Usually the other person takes an extra post to realize you're going totally off track and steers you right by accident, instead of actively trying to de-rail you like the press do. (Until he starts to drive a point home, at which point they'll move and he'll slip with them if he's not careful.)

The soundbyte-y managed sort of nature of politics, where you repeat one message ad-absurdum (Long term economic plan!) instead of having any sort of nuanced discussion is tiring. In some ways I think we'd be better off had we never introduced cameras to the house of commons.
Not that I crave extra Corbyns, I want more Michael Foots (feet?).
>> No. 81401 Anonymous
10th January 2017
Tuesday 8:04 pm
81401 spacer
>>81399
I'm a member of Labour and joined Momentum in its early days, but I realise now that I'm more aligned with the Lib Dems (key issues: Civil liberties, the EU, anti-populism). Sorry comrades, but yelling socialistic cliche ain't the way to deal with aggressive nationalism and the "alt-right". The left needs to hold the moral ground, build upon internationalist institutions like the EU, and not hand over ever greater powers to the nation state I.e. Snoopers Charter (does Corbyn's lot imagine a dereformed - because this is what all their efforts are spent on - Labour Party will just sweep to power? The whole project is based on faith.)

I might join the Lib Dems if I survive the next few weeks.
>> No. 81402 Anonymous
10th January 2017
Tuesday 8:20 pm
81402 spacer
>>81400
It wasn't just the one remark on Radio 4. He later went on Sky and was banging on about footballers salaries and he's also fleshed it out a bit to say any firm that gets a government contract can't pay its boss more than 20 times its lowest paid worker.

To be fair, it may be a good thing that this eclipses his non-statement that he may or may not support continued free movement of EU folk, which has provided fuck all in the way of clarity or coherence.
>> No. 81403 Anonymous
10th January 2017
Tuesday 9:17 pm
81403 spacer
>>81401
You joined Momentum but have realised that you are more aligned with the Lib Dems, eh?

So how do you feel about austerity? The welfare state? The privatisation of public services? The conditions that unions must satisfy to organise and strike?
>> No. 81404 Anonymous
10th January 2017
Tuesday 9:45 pm
81404 spacer

Neoliberal-3.jpg
814048140481404
>>81401
The EU isn't so much internationalist as it is globalist. It's about money and trade far more than it's about people (admittedly in large part our fault as America's lapdog in Europe, trying to stave off unification. De Gaulle was right to tell us to fuck off.) despite everything.

Yada Yada Yada. I thought I had a point. Really, I'm just typing words to stave off the suicidal ideation that comes from reading of New Zealand's "rogernomics" and realizing around the anglosphere the story is the same, and we're never going to break free of neoliberalism. Even the Hard-Brexit crowd only want us to leave the EU entirely so we can whore ourselves out to every two bit shithole offering a free-trade deal.

The bad guys have won. Go back to your constituencies and drown your sorrows in whisky. Brexit or no Brexit, international capital lives on. They have staged the greatest coup in global history and beaten back the counter-revolutionaries, and you can't fight it because of simplistic narratives of politics and economics - not just in one nation, but in all western nations. To beat back free-flowing capital you'd need multilateral controls, but 2008 was our last chance and - well - Brown said we shouldn't roll back globalisation so that's that.


It's a shame the alt-right is so impotent and powerless. I'm becoming increasingly desperate to see the stranglehold of neoliberalism broken, but the more you look the more hopeless you realize it all is. At this stage it's a toss-up between a resource crash or a third-world-war. Either or both, just end this sordid tale.

P.S. If you join the Lib-Dems and someone tells you he's an orange booker, bonk him on the nose. Blair had a pseudo-excuse, orange bookers are just wankers.
>> No. 81405 Anonymous
10th January 2017
Tuesday 11:22 pm
81405 spacer
>>81403
Why do you care how I feel? As a general rule I think it unwise to base one's politics on feelings.

>>81404
Overall I agree with you, although, again (I'm pretty sure you're the same lad), I am concerned with your passion to see neoliberalism crumble at any cost. I have to admit the prospect of a Trump-dominated Washington makes me look at the status quo with far less animus.
>> No. 81406 Anonymous
10th January 2017
Tuesday 11:29 pm
81406 spacer
>>81405
Don't play cuntish games, you know exactly what I mean. I'm asking your opinion on these issues. You could simply say 'good' or 'bad' if you think it's too much trouble for you otherwise.
>> No. 81407 Anonymous
11th January 2017
Wednesday 12:03 am
81407 spacer

Angry Nick Clegg.jpg
814078140781407
>>81401
>I'm a member of Labour and joined Momentum in its early days, but I realise now that I'm more aligned with the Lib Dems

Oh no you bloody don't. The Lib Dems have enough trouble with your brand of right-on politics, you ruined the labour party and you can deal with the consequences while we poach the more lucid members to make a middle class movement.

>>81404
>It's about money and trade far more than it's about people

Yes its about trade but its about the kind of regulation towards an equal playing field that wider globalization lacks. Case in point McDonald's Europe is now moving its HQ from Luxembourg to London as a response to the EU cracking down on its shady tax practices.
>> No. 81408 Anonymous
11th January 2017
Wednesday 12:35 am
81408 spacer
>>81404
>about people
Businesses are our most important citizens.
>> No. 81409 Anonymous
11th January 2017
Wednesday 1:51 am
81409 spacer
>>81407
Yep, a malaise of 'right-on politics' was the reason Lib Dem membership and vote share collapsed after 2010.
>> No. 81410 Anonymous
11th January 2017
Wednesday 7:17 am
81410 spacer

inequality.jpg
814108141081410
Income inequality is at its lowest level since the height of Thatcherism, according to official figures published on Tuesday, with jobs growth and low inflation in 2015-16 boosting poorer households’ living standards while earnings for the richest fell.

The figures, which show inequality at its lowest since 1986, highlight the difference between perceptions that the wage gap between the richest and poorest is growing and the data.

The figures are the most up-to-date income inequality statistics and the first to provide evidence on 2015-16, with a history of more than 50 years. In June, figures based on a larger survey will be published. In the past these have also shown gradually decreasing income inequality in recent years.

Average household incomes for four-fifths of the population outside the richest 20 per cent were all higher in 2015-16 than before the financial crisis after taking inflation into account. Incomes of the households in the poorest 20 per cent were 13 per cent higher than in 2007-08, while those in the middle of the income distribution were about 5 per cent higher. For the richest 20 per cent of households, incomes were 3 per cent lower on average than before the crisis.

This pattern of bigger rises in incomes for poorer households and drops among richer households has shown up in measures of inequality. The gini coefficient — a summary measure that has a value of 0 if there is total equality and 1 if one household has all the UK’s income — has declined steadily since it peaked in the early 1990s.

Measuring private sources of income alone — wages, self employment income, investment income and private pensions — inequality of “original incomes” was 0.49 in 2015-16, 8 per cent lower than its 1993 peak.

Household disposable incomes are distributed much more equally after the deduction of taxes and addition of cash benefits and tax credits with a gini coefficient of 0.32 in 2015-16. The ONS calculated that inequality of disposable income fell in 2015-16 to its lowest level since 1986, 14 per cent below its 1993 peak.


https://www.ft.com/content/394b82da-d74f-11e6-944b-e7eb37a6aa8e

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2016

Absolutely perfect timing for Corbyn to moot a maximum wage cap, on the day the ONS confirm income inequality is at its lowest for 30 years and that the gap has been steadily declining for 20 years.
>> No. 81411 Anonymous
11th January 2017
Wednesday 11:19 am
81411 spacer
>>81410
Apparently the surveys they use for this make it hard to properly gauge the state of the top 1%.. It's also worth noting that wealth inequality has been rising steadily over this time, with the exception of a significant drop around the time of the GFC, reflective of the fact that it hit the values of assets more likely to be held by the wealthiest in society.
>> No. 81412 Anonymous
11th January 2017
Wednesday 12:17 pm
81412 spacer
>>81411
The High Sparrow was only on about a gimmick for those on high PAYE salaries. Not wealth. Not those with a high investment or rental income, it's the fat cats and the footballers that Corbyn has his sights on. Maybe someone showed him that footballers vs. soldiers image
>> No. 81413 Anonymous
11th January 2017
Wednesday 3:02 pm
81413 spacer
>>81412
>High Sparrow

Is that you DearLeaderlad?
>> No. 81414 Anonymous
11th January 2017
Wednesday 3:59 pm
81414 spacer
>>81413

Keep your personal drama on Bebo, will you, pal?
>> No. 81415 Anonymous
11th January 2017
Wednesday 4:13 pm
81415 spacer
>>81414
>pal

Whatever you say, buddy.
>> No. 81416 Anonymous
11th January 2017
Wednesday 5:03 pm
81416 spacer

regional GDP per head crash.png
814168141681416
>>81410
Average nationwide inequality, in a country with significant regional inequalities.
Furthermore "lowest for 30 years" means fuck all when the 30 year figure was already high. (Before I go looking for any statistical buggery at play.)

I'd initially bought the "1970s were a trough, all the rich people fucked off artificially lowering inequality without helping anyone" meme, but GINI remained consistent-ish until the 80s.
>> No. 81417 Anonymous
11th January 2017
Wednesday 5:29 pm
81417 spacer
>>81416
>(Before I go looking for any statistical buggery at play.)
Why bother posting if you're going to make it clear you'll dismiss it outright regardless?
>> No. 81418 Anonymous
11th January 2017
Wednesday 5:45 pm
81418 spacer
>>81417
You're bloody annoying.
>> No. 81419 Anonymous
11th January 2017
Wednesday 6:15 pm
81419 spacer
>>81416
Disposable income rising on average 5.1% last year for the poorest 20% is still disposable income rising on average 5.1% for the poorest 20%, regardless of regional variations.

Besides, it's all relative. I was able to afford a mortgage on a fairly large 4 bedroom house in Yorkshire when I was earning £22k. If I was earning that much in London or elsewhere down South I wouldn't have a pot to piss in.
>> No. 81420 Anonymous
11th January 2017
Wednesday 6:22 pm
81420 spacer
>>81419
>If I was earning that much in London or elsewhere down South I wouldn't have a pot to piss in.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKHFZBUTA4k
>> No. 81421 Anonymous
11th January 2017
Wednesday 9:26 pm
81421 spacer
>>81419
>Disposable income rising on average 5.1% last year for the poorest 20% is still disposable income rising on average 5.1% for the poorest 20%, regardless of regional variations.
I like how you emphasised that as if it meant anything. In other news, Brexit means Brexit.
>> No. 81422 Anonymous
11th January 2017
Wednesday 9:37 pm
81422 spacer
>>81421
What could be clearer? And didn't you hear May expand further in her Churchillian sticking-it-to-the-traitorous-left "Red White and Blue Brexit" speech?

Or is you one of those metropolitan elite types I've been 'earing about?
>> No. 81423 Anonymous
11th January 2017
Wednesday 9:49 pm
81423 spacer
>>81416

I think that this regional inequality is the big story. The national statistics look OK, but economic growth is disproportionately concentrated in London, the south east and a handful of major cities.

Many parts of Britain seem catastrophically, irrevocably fucked. If you live in Burnley or Blackpool, a news story about economic growth could only lead you to two conclusions - either you're being lied to, or your community is being left behind. It's a recipe for disaffection and distrust.
>> No. 81424 Anonymous
11th January 2017
Wednesday 9:54 pm
81424 spacer
The shadow defence secretary, Nia Griffith, was said by sources to be “absolutely furious” on Wednesday night after a spokesman for Jeremy Corbyn appeared to question the recent decision to send British troops to Estonia.

Asked whether Labour supported the government’s decision to send 800 troops to Estonia as part of a Nato taskforce, he said: “Jeremy has expressed concerns about that being one of the escalations of tensions that have taken place.”

Griffith, who has visited the troops in Estonia and had earlier used an interview with Forces TV to express staunch support for Nato, was said to be “absolutely furious” about the remarks. In Griffith’s interview, given hours earlier, she said: “I think it’s very, very, important that we now play a very strong role in Nato, particularly as we are leaving the European union. I think it’s very important for Nato to be absolutely clear, following what has happened in Ukraine, that we are standing together as Nato nations and there is no way that we would tolerate any attack on any one of our member states.”

The spokesman also appeared to reopen an argument about whether Corbyn believed Nato members were bound to offer military support if a fellow member were attacked. Asked what would happen if, for example, Russia invaded Estonia, the spokesman said the appropriate response could fall short of military action.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/11/labour-in-turmoil-as-corbyn-briefing-clashes-with-defence-position

Sounds like Seumas strikes again. Corbyn won't have many left in the shadow cabinet if he keeps undermining them by going over their heads.
>> No. 81425 Anonymous
11th January 2017
Wednesday 10:22 pm
81425 spacer
>>81422
But some people didn't want a Red White and Blue Brexit but a purple and Yellow Brexit. What has she got to say to those people?
>> No. 81426 Anonymous
12th January 2017
Thursday 12:21 am
81426 spacer
>>81425
Personally I want a green and burnt umber Brexit. That's what I voted for and what I don't think these politicians understand.
>> No. 81427 Anonymous
13th January 2017
Friday 5:44 pm
81427 spacer
Sandhill (Sunderland) result:
LDEM: 45.0% (+41.5)
LAB: 25.0% (-29.9)
UKIP: 18.7% (-7.2)
CON: 10.0% (-5.7)
GRN: 1.3% (+1.3)

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/environment/lib-dems-take-seat-in-sunderland-s-sandhill-ward-by-election-1-8332436

If they end up losing Tristram's seat to UKIP then they are even more fucked than I imagined.
>> No. 81428 Anonymous
13th January 2017
Friday 7:48 pm
81428 spacer
>>81427
>+41.5

I've actually been getting emails from the Lib Dems asking me if I want to run for things. Maybe one of our dole-lads should give it a go given the jobs are in the bag, just tell them you like the EU and weed.
>> No. 81429 Anonymous
13th January 2017
Friday 9:33 pm
81429 spacer
>>81428
It's not as exciting as it sounds, it means they want you to be a candidate in a local government election that they have little to no chance of winning just so people have the option of voting Lib Dem.
>> No. 81430 Anonymous
13th January 2017
Friday 10:38 pm
81430 spacer
>>81428

Yeah but they'd have to be a Lib Dem. Can't imagine how boring that is.
>> No. 81431 Anonymous
14th January 2017
Saturday 12:40 am
81431 spacer
>>81428
>On the whole sort of wish I could swallow my pride and be a Lib-Dem just so I can ride the coattails of this kind of thing and try to frustrate the right of the party (Truthfully, my passion is arguing more than it is politics.)
>Scottish, and therefore a completely different political dynamic and the induction of a constitutional question where the Lib-Dems aren't Lib or Dem enough to take seriously.

I bet Nick Clegg did this.
>> No. 81432 Anonymous
16th January 2017
Monday 9:24 pm
81432 spacer

cr2.png
814328143281432
More people believe Theresa May and the Conservatives would do a better job than Labour managing the NHS this winter despite many agreeing with the description of the health service facing a “humanitarian crisis”, a new poll suggests.

The ComRes poll for The Independent comes as the Prime Minister faces calls to apologise after “scapegoating” GPs and warning they should offer extended opening hours, amid intensifying pressure on the NHS hospital services.

But despite Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, suggesting the NHS is Labour’s “comfort zone” at a speech in London on Saturday, 43 per cent of respondents agreed with the statement: “Theresa May and the Conservatives would do a better job than Jeremy Corbyn and Labour managing the NHS this winter”. Around 30 per cent agreed that Mr Corbyn and Labour would do a better job than the Tories, while 26 per cent responded “don’t know”.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-and-tories-will-do-better-job-than-labour-with-nhs-this-winter-poll-a7527551.html

The Tories under May more trusted with the NHS than Labour under Corbyn. Fucking hell.
>> No. 81433 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 1:11 am
81433 spacer
>>81432
I trust the Tories more with the NHS because they recognise it's not fit for purpose.
>> No. 81434 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 1:28 am
81434 spacer
>>81432
However when leaders' names are omitted polls show people trust Labour more. Which is telling.

>>81433
You fuck off. To a privatised healthcare paradise like America.
>> No. 81435 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 3:02 am
81435 spacer
>>81434
Have a teary mate.
>> No. 81436 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 4:27 am
81436 spacer
>>81434

>You fuck off. To a privatised healthcare paradise like America.

I can't stand this argument. It's directly equivalent to an American saying "If you don't like it here, go back to North Korea" when challenged about their meagre welfare state.

The NHS and the American system are not the only two options. Most European countries have primarily privatised healthcare systems that work extremely well and provide universal coverage. The American system is uniquely dysfunctional and is not something that any sane person would wish to emulate.

The NHS is ruthlessly efficient, for better and for worse. We spend 8.5% of GDP on healthcare, compared to the EU-14 average of 10.1%. We get excellent health outcomes because of the efficiency of the NHS, but the costs of that efficiency are borne by the patient - long waiting times, cancelled appointments, the lack of surplus beds that precipitated the current crisis.

No-one is seriously arguing that the NHS should manufacture its own bandages or install its own broadband lines. The NHS has always spent a large proportion of its budget on the procurement of goods and services from the private sector. Framing the debate as an ideological battle between the private and public sector doesn't help anyone.

We need to seriously examine the extent to which clinical services could be provided in a more efficient and flexible manner by private contractors. GP commissioning and the "any qualified provider" system have the potential to improve the quality of care, reduce waiting times and improve patient choice.
>> No. 81437 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 6:59 am
81437 spacer
>>81436
>They've got higher spending and use private contracting
>I know, let's bring across the private contracting!

The absolute state.
>> No. 81438 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 8:20 am
81438 spacer
>>81437
Just no, lad. We don't greentext like that Herr.
>> No. 81439 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 9:20 am
81439 spacer
>>81436
I think if you made it easier to get private health insurance then there'd be a hell of a lot more money in healthcare and less strain on the publically provided service. Nobody in this country really thinks about getting private insurance - if we operate a health card scheme like some European nations whereby people opt to pay premiums for better insurance levels with the NHS being the default then there'd be no less money incoming for the government but fewer people using the service. There'd be other issues surrounding it, i.e. private firms poaching trained NHS employees, but that wouldn't end it.

I don't understand people who are ideologically opposed to private healthcare. It makes no sense to me whatsoever, all you end up doing is making public healthcare worse.
>> No. 81440 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 9:44 am
81440 spacer
>>81439
>all you end up doing is making public healthcare worse
Yes, that's what happens when you introduce private involvement in delivering care. It's literally happened every time it's been tried here.
>> No. 81444 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 3:07 pm
81444 spacer
>>81440
I had the NHS pay for Marie Stopes to give me the old two bricks treatment and the whole thing was remarkably efficient.
>> No. 81447 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 3:21 pm
81447 spacer
>>81444
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Marie Stopes third sector rather than private sector?
>> No. 81477 Anonymous
18th January 2017
Wednesday 6:00 pm
81477 spacer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUEI7zwQN-M

The Irony Lady. Corbyn's team have clearly been working on their zingers.