- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 3259 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 82573
As per .gs tradition, it's time for the separate polling day/results thread.
Results are expected slightly earlier than previous years as there's no local elections at the same time.
|>>|| No. 82583
Surprisingly dejected now that it's the day. Even already postal voted.
It's the knowledge that nice things don't happen, combined with the outside possibility of surprise. I mean, theoretically we could have an exit poll showing a Lib-Dem government and then find ourselves with an SNP-Green-UKIP coalition thanks to the nature of secret ballots and the Westminster system. But we know that won't happen even though you can't know until the results are out. It's like standing at the gallows awaiting a reprieve. Surely someone will intervene, I'm innocent you know...
In truth I regret getting into politics, but it's a Pandora's box.
|>>|| No. 82584
>It's the knowledge that nice things don't happen
The final Guardian/ICM poll predicts a 2.5% swing to the Tories, a majority just shy of 100 seats.
Facebook is already in overdrive. I've lost count of the amount of posts I've seen along the lines of "if you have even a shred of intelligence or humanity, vote Labour" so far this morning.
|>>|| No. 82585
>if you have even a shred of intelligence or humanity
Why do people do this shit? I'm probably voting for Labour but insulting other people/talking down to them generally just makes them dig their heels in.
|>>|| No. 82586
Decision time. I've just moved out of a tight marginal seat into a safe one. Got polling cards for both.
When I signed up for the new place, I told them my old address. Am I criminal scum if I vote my old address this time? Is there now a note on the list that I've moved away?
|>>|| No. 82587
Whatever happens, we're seeing the end of neoliberalism, which is good. At the same time there s real possibility of real dolphin rape coming in.
|>>|| No. 82588
Er, yeah, it wouldn't happen because Greens wouldn't go onto coalition with UKIP. In fact we don't believe in coalitions, we prefer confidence and supply agreements.
|>>|| No. 82589
You just have to lower your expectations. I'm voting so that my candidate gets his deposit back.
You should come over to the dark-side just to teach them a lesson. Nobody has to find out, it's like your on holiday by yourself and you've bonded with a cute effeminate guy who seems a bit curious.
You have to get on your flight by 2200. It's now or never.
|>>|| No. 82590
>Whatever happens, we're seeing the end of neoliberalism
How do you deduce that?
May appears to be a continuation of neoliberalism, as opposed to some kind of fascist candidate who'd finally put an end to that nonsense even if doing so in a way that's really quite objectionable.
|>>|| No. 82592
May to win it by 75 is my prediction.
I'm going to vote later but I've heard a few people say the polling stations have been far busier than at previous elections.
|>>|| No. 82593
Seems like they are this year, ours down the road has definitely had a higher turnout than previous years. Maybe Brexit and Trump have encouraged people to get their voice heard.
|>>|| No. 82594
Muggins here only went and did a tick on the ballot paper instead of a cross. Hastily turned it into a cross, but it's so wonky it looks like someone with learning difficulties voted.
|>>|| No. 82597
>As per .gs tradition, it's time for the separate polling day/results thread.
No, by tradition the time for the results thread is when the polls are about to close, with some hint of the exit polls in the OP, but never mind.
>Results are expected slightly earlier than previous years as there's no local elections at the same time.
They changed the rules on this recently. It used to be that all of the ballots had to be separated and verified before any can be counted, but now as soon as a complete set of ballots have been verified they can be counted. Next time there are two elections on the same day (2018, 2019 or 2021), they will be verified separately.
|>>|| No. 82598
You can put a fuckin smiley face on it if you want mate.
I'm gonna have a fag and a shower and then go off to the count.
|>>|| No. 82599
I seem to recall someone drawing a willy in the box one time and it was counted for a vote.
|>>|| No. 82601
If it's a clear indication in favour of a candidate it's a vote.
Doubtful ones are decided by the returning officer, often with candidates agreement.
|>>|| No. 82603
WAYHEY IT IS ELECTION RESULTS NIGHT ONE OF MY HAPPY PLACES. THERESA WILL WIN BY ABOUT 105. CORBYN WILL LOSE LOADS BUT HANG ON. TIM FARRON IS FUCKING TOAST.
I'm here all night lads.
|>>|| No. 82604
For the 2015 election I turned up on the wrong day at the polling station which is a community centre for the deaf. It was morning so I just assumed that all the old people really do go out in force as I waited in line for the bingo with everyone around me giving weird looks.
Anyway I get to the desk and try to tell them my details only to get a confused expression. I try to show the old man my ballot card but he just points up and in deaf speak says 'upstairs' so I go there and have explained to me by the care staff that I had come on the wrong day in between their laughter. I had to go home and have a bit of a sit down after that.
It's a shame that we didn't get organized on this and have a ballot art thread.
|>>|| No. 82606
>Next time there are two elections on the same day (2018, 2019 or 2021), they will be verified separately.
Slight self-correction: There are by-elections to the Scottish Parliament and several local councils today. In those areas, as soon as the ballot papers are separated, the Westminster ballots can be verified and counted independently of the others. (Annoyingly, Britain Elects has taken to referring to them as "downballot" even though that's an American thing that comes from having multiple elections on the same ballot - pic related.)
|>>|| No. 82613
Probably a bit like an NUS conference. One person speaking for a long time, not saying very much, no cheering and jazz hands instead of applause.
|>>|| No. 82614
Lib Dem I think and I had voted quite a few times before but not at this polling station. I miss the coalition of chaos.
Surprisingly popular but you need a special ticket to play so I never got to see how they called out the numbers. They managed to fill out a big hall anyway so I guess deaf people all live in close proximity of one-another which is expected but at the same time was unnoticeable when I was living there.
It must be a unique micro-culture. I should learn sign language one of these days and see how they get on.
|>>|| No. 82615
It's weird seeing Dimbleby's legs. They're proportionately very slender.
|>>|| No. 82616
Main BBC programme picture appears to be fucked.
|>>|| No. 82618
The question here will be whether Labour are making gains in Scotland or whether the Tories are on the treadmill.
The more interesting part is that if that number is accurate, the "progressive alliance" is completely off the table, and the Tories might scrape a majority if both unionist parties in NI back them. Assuming Sinn Fein win 4 and with the Speaker out of the way, the target is 324.
|>>|| No. 82623
Exit poll meltdown is almost too good a bit of the story to be true. Let us look carefully at 3am.
|>>|| No. 82624
Reminder: Brexit negotiations formally open in 11 days' time. Government formation in 2010 took 5 days. The tighter the margins, the bigger the deals that will have to be made and the longer they may take.
Given the deep divisions between the parties, there's a Tory Death Zone at 310-320. Above this, and the unionist parties in NI will do it. Below this, and a rainbow alliance (whether coalition or confidence-and-supply) will do it. Within the Death Zone, both sides will have trouble forming a stable government.
|>>|| No. 82625
Alright, cracking open a bottle of wine or two(three) and settling in for the night. Here we go lads.
|>>|| No. 82628
Oh god we're going to have another election in the Autumn.
|>>|| No. 82630
I guess it's true what the Tories said about Labour taking us back to the past. Corbyn's gonna party like it's 1974.
|>>|| No. 82631
>Reminder: Brexit negotiations formally open in 11 days' time.
Can't we postpone it? I just assumed Theresa May picked a date so close to the general election as cynical opportunism by thinking it would focus people into voting for her.
|>>|| No. 82632
The exit poll value at 314 for the Conservatives includes around a dozen very close 50/50 calls against the SNP.
Best get the traditional election night Chinese ordered before they close (again).
|>>|| No. 82636
It was the other lot that picked that date, and AFAIK it's not been definitely confirmed on our end. Earlier this year they were talking up "not until at least June", so presumably she picked the date of the election to get in before that. I would expect that if there is uncertainty, we would not confirm that date but would indeed postpone, though no idea for how long. We certainly couldn't start if there was the prospect of another election. That would be a real dick move on the part of May for both sides, since it throws the opposition in at the deep end and leaves the EU in the position of the people they're negotiating with changing halfway through.
|>>|| No. 82637
>around a dozen very close 50/50 calls against the SNP.
If the Tories cling on I'm blaming Nicola Sturgeon for banging on and on about a second Indyref.
|>>|| No. 82639
Look on the bright side, with our government paralysed we don't have to worry about any new laws being made. No chance of us getting embroiled in any foreign adventures either.
At last we'll have a chance to relax and get on with our lives without worrying about invading Iran or whatever else is just around the corner in these interesting times we're living in. The news can just be about the weather.
|>>|| No. 82640
Makes a bit of a mockery of STRONG AND STABLE doesn't it?
|>>|| No. 82642
Looks like Newcastle has beaten Sunderland to the punch. Newcastle Central swing to Labour of 2%, Houghton & Sunderland South swing to Conservative of 3.5%. In both cases, more favourable to the Tories than the exit poll expected. Turnout looks to be a few points higher in both seats.
Given Theresa's fascination with STRONG AND STABLE in the face of the facts, she could well be coming out tomorrow morning with a majority of 10-20 declaring MASSIVE MANDATE.
|>>|| No. 82644
Sat here on the Tyskie.
I fucking love Election Nights.
|>>|| No. 82647
Rumours that Amber Rudd has been ousted in Hastings.
|>>|| No. 82653
I count 42 pizzas. That has to be at least £250 even with special offers.
|>>|| No. 82658
That SNP figure is bollocks isn't it?
Got a very sicky feeling though. Again, the bastards always want to give you hope.
(Actually, weirdly, I'm a Scottish Nat, but I'm very sick for Corbyn - or maybe just sick of May. Scottish politics has been so goddamn dull...)
Hope the Lib-Dems stay fucked in Scotland. Really do not like Jo Swinson.
Death zone is very tempting. I've a strong feeling of an upcoming recession that makes me weary of the political risks of actually taking power. (Although at the same time, there's that worry that if we get a Heath-Stays-On, voters just flock to the Conservatives again in our 1979...)
Ach fuck this you know the coo will be back in with a majority by tomorrow morning.
Even though I really do not want a majority, Tories returned with the exact same seat count would be a lark.
|>>|| No. 82659
Ruth Davidson for next Tory leader if Corbyn is the next PM.
|>>|| No. 82660
At midnight, Labour lead 4-1. David Dimbleby struggling to count at this point. "Three results, four results, no, five results so far."
|>>|| No. 82661
It's 20fucking17 and the BBC's election results page still doesn't fucking auto-update. I thought they had a load of hipster web devs working for them these days.
|>>|| No. 82662
These turnouts are looking pretty high lads, think that bodes well for ARE JEZ
|>>|| No. 82663
I had a look at the newspaper headlines when I was in the shop earlier on. Our press really isn't worth the paper it's printed on these days. Sooner the internet puts them out of business, the better.
Voted for the Coalition of Chaos myself. Sounds pretty badass.
|>>|| No. 82665
Reports that Gordon is tight and Wee Eck is at risk. I'm calling it now: If it happens, headlines of "Smoked Salmond" all round.
|>>|| No. 82666
Ben Gummer, architect of the Conservative manifesto, tipped to lose his seat in Ipswich.
Former ELP keyboard player and next MP for Boston and Skegness, Paul Nuttall, not likely to win in Boston and Skegness.
|>>|| No. 82669
Tories fail to gain Darlington, which according to the RO held their election on the 8th of May. Swing to the Conservatives smaller than Donald Trump's hands.
|>>|| No. 82670
Labour may well exceed what these exit polls have been predicting here lads
|>>|| No. 82671
15 results declared.
13 Kippers on the ballot.
12 have lost their deposits.
|>>|| No. 82672
Tories take massive SNP vote in Rutherglen & Hamilton West, Labour take it through the middle by 265.
|>>|| No. 82673
The Yougov model that had Tories on 302, Labour on 269 is holding up very well so far.
|>>|| No. 82676
16% swing to the Tories in Angus. 10k SNP majority overturned.
|>>|| No. 82678
Well this is getting interesting isn't it lads.
Whichever way it goes, it looks like May is doomed, which can only a be good thing wherever you stand politically.
And all those Blairite cunts who slated Are Jez have been definitively, how should I put it... Fucking TOLD.
|>>|| No. 82679
>And all those Blairite cunts who slated Are Jez have been definitively, how should I put it... Fucking TOLD.
Yep, definitely a result of Corbyn's genius. Absolutely nothing to do with May being useless in the late stages.
|>>|| No. 82680
Yeah I'm sure the increased labour-voting youth turnout will have had nothing to do with it.
|>>|| No. 82681
Yet when I say Blair's main victory was John Major making a tit of himself...
|>>|| No. 82682
Fuck me, lads. I'm glued to the screen. I wanted to be in bed two hours ago.
|>>|| No. 82683
Current swing from Tory to Labour: 0.9%. Massive shift innit. Given how she's handled this election, he should be crushing it.
... people quite rightly point out that you're full of shit, citing the vote totals as evidence.
|>>|| No. 82684
You mean the vote totals showing that turnout was already at a postwar low? 🤔
|>>|| No. 82686
Yes, those ones that show that in the face of a substantial drop in turnout Labour still gained two million votes on a 10% swing. That's not victory by default, it's a clear decisive result.
|>>|| No. 82687
So Scotland is going to prop up the Tories this time?
|>>|| No. 82688
I've never claimed it wasn't decisive. The thrust of it is that the swing was caused by the Tories being shit more than Labour's own appeal. (With the cascading effect of inevitability, etc, etc.)
Or basically just John Smith's alleged "Oppositions don't win elections, Government's lose them" outlook. (Even if the opposition can control the margins.)
|>>|| No. 82690
BBC have produced their first in-play forecast:
That would be the Tories out of the death zone, and the DUP have picked up one seat from the UUP, so that's potentially a combined majority as large as the one they have now. Which, as we know, in the crazy world of Theresa May is a resounding mandate.
In other news, the Tories take Southport from the Lib Dems, and Plaid Cymru have kept up their streak in Anglesey, having failed to regain it for the fourth time in a row.
|>>|| No. 82691
>I've never claimed it wasn't decisive.
"It wasn't them that won it, it was the others that lost it" implies it very heavily.
>The thrust of it is that the swing was caused by the Tories being shit more than Labour's own appeal.
Failing governments don't fall to a majority of 170. To get that requires a strong opposition as well.
|>>|| No. 82692
Is it just me or do they proper pull these numbers out of their arse? It's going all over the place where the results are coming in but they have still predicted CON doing better than exit polls, and LD to have... Well, anything, frankly...
|>>|| No. 82693
Like I said: It's the hope that kills you.
The uncertainty. The lies. You tell yourself: It's okay, I'm a depressive, I know nothing nice will happen. But then it stirs you up, you get caught up and you do something silly. You let the light in briefly, but all it can do is burn.
Take me out to the sea and let me go quietly into the deep.
|>>|| No. 82694
Jo Swinson comes back in Dunbartonshire East. It's only taken 4¾ hours but the Lib Dems are finally on the board.
Siobhan McDonagh brings up 100 for Labour in Mitcham and Morden.
Also, Clegg out in Sheffield.
|>>|| No. 82696
The Tories have held on with small majorities in some places while somehow making massive gains in Scotland. By any chance did they put "Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party candidate" on the ballot paper, I wonder?
|>>|| No. 82697
In other news, the Yewkips have lost £20k in deposits so far. I think a substantial part of the blame can be put down to their leader having to juggle the election campaign with his duties as an assistant coach for the Lions.
|>>|| No. 82700
Good news for the Tories in Northern Ireland. SDLP have lost Foyle to SF, which means that 322 might be enough for a majority of 1.
Massive swing from UKIP to Labour in Ipswich is enough to win it and kick out the lad in charge of the Tory manifesto.
Corbyn has held his own seat with 40k votes. Only one candidate reached that total in 2015. A special no-prize for anyone who can name them.
|>>|| No. 82701
150 Labour MPs returned.
60 UKIP deposits lost.
12 SNP incumbents ousted.
I need more popcorn and my local Tesco is closed, the cunts.
|>>|| No. 82702
May calling for a "period of stability" if the Tories win most votes and most seats. Subtle acknowledgement of hung parliament. Maybe hinting at yet another short term?
|>>|| No. 82703
Updated forecast: Tories on 318, though events in Northern Ireland (SF +1, DUP +2) means this might not be in the death zone after all.
|>>|| No. 82705
Tom Cruise's stunt double Paul Nuttall has won 7.7% in Boston and Skegness. Still, I guess that means he'll have more time for his duties as Supreme Primate of the Church in Kenya.
|>>|| No. 82706
Dimbleby: "Do you think you've hung on?"
Salmond: "We'll just have to wait and see."
He's definitely been smoked.
|>>|| No. 82707
Congratulations to the voters of North Devon, who have just inflicted UKIP's 80th lost deposit of the night. That's £40k of Aaron Banks' money to go towards local services for immigrants nationwide.
|>>|| No. 82708
The legendary Fermanagh & South Tyrone is the last result in Northern Ireland, apparently without the need for lawyers to get involved. Michelle Gildernew is back in Parliament. Or not.
In summary, in NI there will be 7 abstentions and 10 hard-bargaining friends for Mrs May. Sylvia Hermon may not be quite so easy, since the whole reason she split from the UUP was their alliance with the Conservatives in 2010.
|>>|| No. 82710
Following his election defeat, inventor of the hairdryer Paul Nuttall clarifies his earlier claims: he didn't actually instigate St George's day, but he did once meet a man named George on the campaign trail. To think this is the man who single-handedly ended the Libyan embassy siege.
|>>|| No. 82712
Forecast revised: Conservatives at 316. Events in Northern Ireland have moved the death zone to 306-316. Likely that even with DUP support the Tories can't match the majority they went in with.
In Ceredigion, the last Lib Dem in Wales is facing a second full recount. Plaid Cymru might actually make their first gain in seemingly forever.
A second recount has been called in Richmond Park.
Conservative Independent Conservative-again Zac Goldsmith might take this seat back after a matter of months.
Amber Rudd just survives in Hastings & Rye with a majority of around 300. If Theresa falls or is pushed on her sword, Rudd can rule out any chance of taking over.
The BBC's work experience lad is in the gallery again, pulling Chuka Umunna into split screen with an empty chair in Belfast.
|>>|| No. 82715
The point of the death zone is that neither side is able to form a working government.
|>>|| No. 82716
Wenger's already out. Paul Nuttall persuaded him to go last week.
This joke is never, ever going to get old.
|>>|| No. 82717
UKIP have lost £85k in deposits. 32 seats left to go, which means there's still £16k left on the board for them to lose. Who thinks they'll hit the ton?
|>>|| No. 82719
I guess, as it turns out... you CAN barrage the Saville.
|>>|| No. 82721
2016 called. Left a message, something about him giving up the leadership again.
|>>|| No. 82723
At 6am, Theresa May and the ConservativesTM have won 309 seats. Theresa May and the Conservatives. That's what all the campaign materials said. First Theresa May, then Theresa May and the Conservatives. The question now is whether she's going to step up and own this result given this campaign quite literally had her name all over it.
|>>|| No. 82724
>And all those Blairite cunts who slated Are Jez have been definitively, how should I put it... Fucking TOLD.
I doubt they've learnt any lessons. I'm in the Wakey constituency and I had at least three separate pieces of literature from Mary Creagh distancing herself from Corbyn and making a few sly digs about him.
>I guess, as it turns out... you CAN barrage the Saville.
Are Nige has said he'll be back if this leads to a second EU Referendum.
The SNP have held Fife North East with a majority of two votes over the Lib Dems.
|>>|| No. 82725
Caroline Lucas increases her majority to around 15k. Shame she's standing down as an MP next time.
Stephen Gethins holds Fife North East by two votes. That's the most marginal result since Mark Oaten's (voided) win in Winchester.
It looks as though the Tories will just escape the death zone, but to get a potential majority of 14 will have to make some hard bargains with the DUP, who reportedly prefer a much softer Brexit, what with the whole land border.
7 constituencies still to declare:
Cornwall North (Scott Mann CON 6621): Verification completed within the last hour; count has now begun.
Cornwall South East (Sheryll Murray CON 16995): Verification done two hours ago; count in progress.
Dudley North (Ian Austin LAB 4181): Recount under way with a current margin of 23.
Kensington (Victoria Borwick CON 7361): Recount in progress, though Labour activists look pretty upbeat.
Richmond Park (Sarah Olney LD 1872): Recount in progress. Zac Goldsmith has been sighted with some smiles on his face.
St Austell & Newquay (Steve Double CON 8173): Lib Dems were second last time, and it's looking like the Tories will take this one.
St Ives (Derek Thomas CON 2469): This result may come a bit earlier, as the new rules have meant that votes in Scilly could be counted in Scilly rather than being transported to the mainland. Lib Dem candidate Andrew George apparently does not believe he's won the seat back at this time.
|>>|| No. 82726
David Dimbleby running through the roster for the 7am shift change, talking about who's staying or going. Surprised nobody referred to it as remaining or leaving.
|>>|| No. 82728
"Frank Zacharias Robin Goldsmith, commonly known as Zac", wins Richmond Park by 45.
|>>|| No. 82730
Mr Lost UKIP Deposits is a bit behind, and is catching up. He's reached the S constituencies and as of Scunthorpe has reached £141k. In 2015 the Lib Dems lost £170k. Place your bets, you two.
|>>|| No. 82732
Meanwhile in Islington, while Corbyn was giving his speech the UKIP candidate kept it classy by mouthing "[daft militant wog] sympathiser" at the cameras.
|>>|| No. 82733
BBC have Andrew Marr discussing the finer points of coalition creation with GOD himself.
|>>|| No. 82734
So the denial begins. John Redwood saying the public clearly want a government with Theresa May and the ConservativesTM as the largest party.
Incidentally, "Theresa May and the Conservatives" sounds like a great name for a band. They could call their first album "Strong and Stable".
|>>|| No. 82737
Kensington count tellers sent home because it's still not right and the margin is that tight.
St Ives has been won on a majority of 312.
I've noticed that the margins are a fuckload tighter this time. Three-figure majorities all over the place. Never let anyone tell you that your vote won't count. I'd have to run the numbers to be sure, but just a few thousand votes in key seats would have been enough to keep the Conservatives under 300. Theresa May has had a very lucky escape today, and she's still not off the hook.
|>>|| No. 82741
Ah, the sweet smell of Troy tears.
Sage for nothing to add.
|>>|| No. 82742
Wonder where the "dear leader" guys have gone.
|>>|| No. 82743
I think Corbyn might, just might, find some kind of unholy alliance in certain business leaders desperate to avoid the blundering, disaster-thin of a Brexit May almost seemed to be gunning for.
|>>|| No. 82744
If you believe, as I do, that laughter is the best medicine, then they may well have been so unfunny as to poison themselves into a coma.
|>>|| No. 82748
It sounds like your guys will be forming the government. Are you DUP?
On that note I can imagine how the negotiations are going right now:
|>>|| No. 82749
The DUP have a mental plan in their manifesto to connect Ireland to Britain with a bridge to Scotland, I hope they make that a precondition.
|>>|| No. 82751
It's not a great distance. I've sailed around the Mull of Kintyre plenty of times and you can clearly see the coast on either side.
|>>|| No. 82753
It's not impossible (although the 300m deep trench full of bombs between Ireland and Scotland certainly poses a difficulty) it's just pointless.
|>>|| No. 82754
I find it hard to believe that the Conservatives really want to do something that would be so harmful not just to everyone's but their own pockets too. There must have been something in it for them behind closed doors.
|>>|| No. 82755
No... Scotland's lovely, and the whole time I was there I was thinking "boy, oh, boy, I just wish there was a smaller, angrier, less tolerant version of this I could drive to". Which, looking back, was strange, as I couldn't even drive at the time.
|>>|| No. 82757
I wasn't talking about the party, just business people. Also I meant to say "disaster-thon" not "-thin".
That's looking unlikely now as the DUP aren't UKIP-tier in their Brexit love though, and you can't rock the boat with a "majority" of two. Not least because your boat is more like the plank of wood from the end of Titanic.
|>>|| No. 82759
A 10% increase in vote share for Labour is massive, but just browsing through the constituencies it looks to me as though quite a lot of those former UKIP vote has gone to the Tories, not enough, but a hefty chunk. Labour should be united after this and I could see the Conservatives going the way of post-EU referendum Labour, to a degree at least.
|>>|| No. 82760
There was a lot of consolidation back to two-party politics. The UKIP vote collapsed and it looks like both main parties benefitted from this in terms of vote share. In Scotland, most of Labour's gains came by default through the Tories eating into the SNP vote. Between the big two, which is the part that matters, the swing is only around 2-3%, which isn't entirely unexpected when one leader is weak and the other isn't even trying.
Overall the numbers are all over the place so we'll have to wait for some of the post-poll analysis to understand what really happened yesterday.
|>>|| No. 82762
Kensington is still going. Just look at this massive count.
With only that seat outstanding, out of £188,500 of UKIP deposits, they've only got £7,000 back.
|>>|| No. 82779
Right, that's it. David Dimbleby has definitely been killed off and replaced with a robot. He's just pulled an all-nighter and now he's going to do QT later today.
Huw Edwards must be feeling like Prince Charles right now.
|>>|| No. 82781
Osbourne's acting curiously smug for a man who made almost the exact same blunder as May a year back.
|>>|| No. 82782
>Wonder where the "dear leader" guys have gone.
I'm still here. I've been laughing all day about how May has been able to throw it all away despite the hand she was dealt when she called the general election.
You've got to give Corbyn credit though, he knows how to run a campaign (albeit with a fantasy manifesto) and energise the youth. However he didn't win and he's not going to get an easier opponent than Theresa May. If the Tories get a competent leader and they aren't arrogant and complacent like they have been this time around, and they'll have almost certainly learned lessons from this, then I expect he won't be as successful next time. We'll see how he gets on once the dust settles and it's back to business as usual and whether he reverts to his indecisive, bumbling, dithering self.
|>>|| No. 82784
>You've got to give Corbyn credit though, he knows how to run a campaign (albeit with a fantasy manifesto) and energise the youth.
I'm not sure he does. Rather, the party knows how to run a campaign. He's been useless in the national spotlight so they've wisely kept him out of it. At the same time, he's very down-to-earth, approachable and personable, and leaves a positive impression when engaging with the voters face-to-face. From the leaflets I received, the Tory ones had May all over them (even the local one), while the Labour ones had no mention of Corbyn at all - neither his name nor his face appeared on any of them.
The party have done a good job over the past month of playing to his strengths. Fewer staged media events, more direct engagement.
In other news, this from Jimmy Evans (Con, Ribble Valley):
>The campaign was going swimmingly well until we launched our own manifesto.
|>>|| No. 82785
May went from a twenty point lead to losing her majority in a matter of weeks. This has to rank as one of biggest political blunders in British history. And I say this as Tory voter (for my sins) but I honestly thought she'd get a 40+ MP lead which would mitigate the hardcore Eurosceptics and let us have a stronger hand in EU negotiations. What an absolute fuck-up.
|>>|| No. 82788
>In other news, this from Jimmy Evans (Con, Ribble Valley):
>The campaign was going swimmingly well until we launched our own manifesto.
I think the lesson to take away from this election is that elderly home owners hold absolute power. No doubt the Tories will spend the next parliament on their knees groveling and promising all sorts of goodies to the Gerontocracy everyone else will have to pay for.
Surprisingly organized lot as well. They punished the Tories whilst still not letting the IRA lover into power.
|>>|| No. 82789
To be cerebral about this, we've seen the dramatic risk of playing personal, presidential style politics. May ran on a platform based entirely on herself but shirked debates and individual interviews, perceiving that that the Tory brand was less toxic than herself but her reticence to engage with people made her look aloof and disinterested. And in the end it cost her. I still think she was brave to ask pensioners to pay for their care costs out of their property value but it wasn't a vote winner unlike Jezza's 'you can have everything for free' manifesto'. But she took it for granted. Things are worse for every party, Labour will feel emboldened with a useless leader and the Tories will resort to their traditional infighting.
|>>|| No. 82792
>They punished the Tories whilst still not letting the IRA lover into power.
Yeah, old Tory voters prefer the UDA.
|>>|| No. 82793
Change.org petitions are for knobheads. You might want to cool it down a bit, lad.
|>>|| No. 82799
"I've been to the end of the world, and do you know what I saw in those dying moments? Millions of years and they still couldn't agree on who should be MP for Kensington."
|>>|| No. 82800
Is it unimaginably close or have they just decided it doesn't matter and left a lone sixth former to it?
|>>|| No. 82801
Apparently around 30 votes in it. Unconfirmed reports that the Conservative candidate's agent is requesting another recount.
|>>|| No. 82802
Shami Chakrabarti isn't good on QT, she needs benching.
|>>|| No. 82803
The representative from Tayyip Erdoğan's campaign HQ makes a very
good confusing and wrong headed point.
|>>|| No. 82804
Fourth recount in Kensington rejected; Labour win by 20.
So the final scores:
|>>|| No. 82805
Is there anything more unsettling than a young Tory?
|>>|| No. 82808
Well, the good news is Labour didn't win and scottish inependence is dead.
|>>|| No. 82809
I've just heard someone from the DUP on the news. Fuck me, I'd forgotten how grating the Norn Iron accent is. Why couldn't it have been the Welsh or some other region to prop up the Tories? I can't have five years of listening to this.
|>>|| No. 82812
Indeed, which is why I'm very sceptical that this arrangement can last for long.
Personally I'm looking forward to the vote of no confidence when the final Brexit deal comes in, demanding a £13.4 trillion "divorce" fee while remaining an EU member in all but name and influence.
|>>|| No. 82813
Don't worry. Just like in the last minority government they'll be drowned out and ignored.
Indeed. The Scots have given that bitch a firm slap in the face and that fat cunt Alex Salmond can finally go back to sitting on his favourite chair scoffing shortbreads and watching re-runs of Rab C. Nesbitt.
A young Communist is far more settling. Only because it shows how effective the education system is at stifling independent thought or research.
Honestly. It makes me shudder to think how many people in this country can't grasp Key Stage 2 maths.
|>>|| No. 82815
You're slagging off people's bloody maths and you manage to not use a single comma in that entire post, you utter spanner.
>The Scots have given that bitch a firm slap in the face
Oh yes, Sir is quite the savant, I see.
|>>|| No. 82816
There isn't, and as a professional edging near 30 I'm only just at the acceptable Tory age. Much as I respect William Hague for his intellect I still shudder at his teenage address to the Conservative party conference.
|>>|| No. 82820
>Ruth Davidson has been told by the prime minister that any Conservative deal with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) will not affect LGBTI rights.
>She told the BBC's Reporting Scotland programme that she had spoken about the issue with Theresa May on Friday evening.
>Ms Davidson said: "I was fairly straightforward with her and I told her that there were a number of things that count to me more than party. One of them is country, one of the others is LGBTI rights."
>The Scottish Tory leader said she had asked for, and received, a "categoric assurance" from Mrs May that any arrangement between the Conservatives and the DUP would see "absolutely no rescission of LGBTI rights in the rest of the UK".
Well if there were any worries about the DUP interfering with gay rights nationally I think Ruth has given a good answer.
|>>|| No. 82821
>One of them is country
The leader of the DUP, Ian Paisley, has said line dancing is sinful.
Mr Paisley, who is also the leader of the fundamentalist Free Presbyterian Church in Northern Ireland, issued a statement to be read to members of his congregation telling them it "clearly caters to the lust of the flesh". It continued: "The church regards the country and western style of dance "as sinful as any other type of dancing, with its sexual gestures and touching".
It'll never happen, but Ruth seems like the only credible candidate to lead the Tory party for her. She played a blinder against Wee Jimmy Krankie.
|>>|| No. 82822
I don't get the magic Jew cult in general, despite being brought up in it to se degree, but the whole anti music and dance things is beyond weird.
|>>|| No. 82823
That loser might believe May on this, but she's just sold all the LGBT people in NI down the river. Oh, well, putting on my cynical politicking hat for a moment, the Tory's best campaigner has just debased herself in front of the entire nation. I guess you can't really have principles and be a Tory.
|>>|| No. 82824
... cool it down? I did say in that post 'I don't know what good that is'. Are you blind?
|>>|| No. 82825
>It'll never happen
I wouldn't be so sure. There's a lot of chatter amongst the Tory wonks about the Scottish miracle. Nobody really understands how they gained 12 seats north of the border, but Davidson is getting much of the credit.
If Corbyn keeps gaining momentum (no pun intended), the Tories are probably going to have to move towards the centre and shake off the "nasty party" image. Davidson is the strongest candidate for that role - she doesn't look or sound like a typical Tory. She's largely untainted by the Brexit fallout and the subsequent backstabbing, unlike most of the other candidates for leader. As Tories go, she's warm, genuine and charming.
If it comes down to it, she could have any of the Labour front bench in a fist fight.
|>>|| No. 82826
Do keep up. The correct acronym these days is LGBTIQA+.
As a bisexual man I don't get why I have to be lumped in with all the gender benders as that has fuck all do with sexual orientation. I can only assume they're adding more and more letters on to show how old fashioned and out of touch everyone else is whilst making themselves part of the exclusive "in crowd" for getting it.
|>>|| No. 82827
Get with the programme granddad, all the cool kids are saying QUILTBAG.
>As a bisexual man I don't get why I have to be lumped in with all the gender benders
I think the categorical definition is essentially "anyone who would get their head kicked in at a provincial bus station for being a poofter".
|>>|| No. 82829
Mate, out here in the Provinces, it's the poofters who you leave well alone. See, it's survival of the fittest, and if they stayed in town, it's because they're hard as fuck.
You don't want to lose in a fight AND get bummed afterwards.
|>>|| No. 82831
>The leader of the DUP, Ian Paisley, has said line dancing is sinful.
Let's hope Labour picks up on this issue for the 2019 campaign. It'll give a whole new meaning to the term redneck.
>she's just sold all the LGBT people in NI down the river
I don't see how. Gay marriage is a regional issue and trying to do away with the NI applying sections of the Equality Act would see a Tory rebellion that however small would be enough to derail the bill.
|>>|| No. 82833
>Labour's election result should not be seen as a "famous victory" and was "not good enough", says former shadow chancellor Chris Leslie.
>The Labour MP, who has been a critic of leader Jeremy Corbyn, said he recognised the party ran an "effective campaign" but a Conservative prime minister currently sits in No 10. Questions should be asked about how the party can win a majority, he added.
>Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Leslie said: "We shouldn't pretend that this is a famous victory. It's good as far as it's gone, but it's not going to be good enough."
>Mr Leslie said Labour missed an "open goal" as he had "never known" a more beatable prime minister than Theresa May. He believes his party still has "more to do" and needs to learn lessons so it can go on to win a majority.
>The Labour MP for Nottingham East refused to say whether he thought Mr Corbyn was credible prime minister. "I will never apologise for my view which is, yes of course you've got to inspire people, and we haven't done that well enough in the past. But you've got to convince them of your credibility and that you can move from protesting about the government to being in government."
>Mr Leslie said Labour MPs were "working in this together" but he would not commit to serving in a shadow cabinet. He said he feared an issue would arise which would go against his principles and he would have to resign.
Nice to see the Blairites haven't learned anything.
In other news, one of May's chief advisers has just resigned. The right wing papers have tried deflecting all of the blame from May on to them.
|>>|| No. 82834
> The right wing papers have tried deflecting all of the blame from May on to them.
You must have been wilfully ignorant of the right wing papers since the election then.
In any case, they are largely responsible. The Conservative party was barely involved in this election, it was May and her advisers.
|>>|| No. 82836
>Gay marriage is a regional issue
Which passed in the regional parliament.
|>>|| No. 82838
I'm sure famed rabble rouser Yvette Cooper (Leslie's pick for leader) would have stormed to Number 10 on a raft of flipped safe seats, and down a river of Conservative tears.
|>>|| No. 82839
Under Sharia, a woman can only dance with their husband, or be seen dancing by her husband. Seeing as line dancing is a group dance, it would quite clearly be haram.
|>>|| No. 82840
I'm sure that indeed she would. Those missed victories with margins of a couple of hundred votes could instead have been maybe 280-290 seats, enough to prevent the Conservatives from forming a government. Importantly, we wouldn't have had that utter fucking shitshow on May 4 where the Tories made substantial gains in local authorities and won mayoral contests in areas with previously strong Labour support and represented by Labour MPs. I daresay she might even have kept a damn sight more than a measly two-thirds onside last June.
But no, he was handed the easiest election since Thatcher in 1983 and he falls around 10 seats short of the minimum where he needed to be to finish her off.
|>>|| No. 82844
Given a Labour candidate who actually liked the EU, the election could well have been fought on the "Do you want a proper Brexit, or an Eskimo for a neighbour?" angle that the Conservatives had wanted, leading to a Labour wipeout all the same.
Similarly iirc a few Scottish votes the other way and the Tories would've been in the death zone. (If narrow enough, as in Salmond's constituency, the Labour vote could've boosted the SNP above the Tories...)
|>>|| No. 82845
>Actually the Queen get's lost deposits
This is something I've seen twice now, and absolutely nothing to back it up. Also I'm pretty certain you're getting the Queen and the Crown confused.
|>>|| No. 82846
Honestly I think we've reached peak Corbyn. I don't see him being able to get more than he's already got, given he was up against the shittest campaign in living memory, and the more people you get out to vote the fewer there are to gain next time around.
The Tories completely failed to make the economic case against him. That's just one of the failings of many.
Who will be enthused by a Corbynite platform who haven't already?
|>>|| No. 82848
Corbyn was treated with derision and had a loser's stink going into this election, no matter how bad May's campaign got.
Coverage of him will now have to take him and his chances seriously, and he just proved himself a potential winner. So there's still reason to believe he has winnable ground to gain.
|>>|| No. 82851
Jeremy Corbyn vows to oust Theresa May 'within a matter of days' after spectacular election result
Fired-up Jeremy Corbyn today vows to finish what he started by getting rid of Theresa May within a matter of days. He plans to use the Queen’s Speech as his first opportunity to topple the floundering PM.
In an exclusive interview with the Sunday Mirror, Mr Corbyn is champing at the bit and buzzing with enthusiasm. And over a cappucino he says it is time for Mrs May to wake up and smell the coffee. The Labour leader says: “I can still be Prime Minister. This is still on. Absolutely. Theresa May has been to the Palace. She’s attempting to form a government.
“She’s then got to present a programme to Parliament. We will – obviously – amend the Queen’s Speech. There’s a possibility of voting it down it and we’re going to push that all the way. We have got a mandate to deal with issues of poverty, justice and inequality in Britain. We want to end austerity and invest in this country and that’s what we’re going to do. Nearly 13 million people voted for us to do it. That’s why I’m here.”
The election result saw Mrs May scramble to form a minority government to have any kind of Commons majority. And she enlisted the help of the hard-right DUP to get her over the line.
But Mr Corbyn believes there is enough opposition in the rest of the House – and on Mrs May’s own backbenches – to defeat the Government. That could trigger another election as the Tories would face a confidence challenge.
Is this actually doable? If everyone but the Tories and DUP oppose the programme they bring to parliament will it lead to another election?
|>>|| No. 82852
The Tories and the DUP have enough seats to pass legislation, but only just. A single rebel would be enough to stop the Queen's Speech and derail the May government. The Queen's Speech hasn't been defeated in parliament since 1924, but it's a possibility.
It has pretty much sod-all to do with Corbyn though - it depends on a Tory or DUP MP being prepared to sacrifice their career. All eyes will be on Ken Clarke. He is a staunch Remainer, he really doesn't like May, he has a track record of bold rebellion and he's planning on retiring at the end of this parliament. He might decide to stake it all on getting a cross-party agreement on Brexit.
|>>|| No. 82853
LAB: 45% (+5)
CON: 39% (-3)
LDEM: 7% (-)
UKIP: 3% (+1)
(via @Survation / 10 Jun)
Chgs. w/ GE2017
|>>|| No. 82855
I think it is a bit of a stretch even for Ken Clarke. If he does then all that happens is we go back to the polls for the same candidates barring UKIP and with a risk of Corbyn becoming PM of his own minority government (for about 5 minutes).
Nobody gains from it. Even Labour might want to be a little cautious given Nuttall could well be replaced by Saville who would claw back those UKIP votes and probably even gain a few seats given the frankly shite leaders he would be debating with.
|>>|| No. 82856
It's an ordinary vote, to be passed by simple majority on the day. One of the reasons why small majorities are difficult is that it requires people to turn up. Callaghan lost his confidence stand by a single vote. One MP was gravely ill, and it was suggested that he be brought to London where he could cast his vote from the back of an ambulance. (Had this happened, the vote would have been tied and the Speaker would have voted the motion down.)
Looking at the numbers, there are notionally 318 Tories and 10 DUP. That number includes John Bercow who, as Speaker, conventionally only votes to break a tie, so the government can rely on 327 votes. There are 322 other MPs. The 7 Sinn Fein MPs are not likely to break their habit and take their seats. There's also the North Down independent Sylvia Hermon. She doesn't like the DUP. She doesn't like allying with the Tories. She doesn't like Corbyn. It'll be difficult to call which way she'd go, other than to suggest that she'd probably do exactly the same if Labour were putting down a programme bill. So we can assume the massed opposition can rely on 314 votes.
327 on one side, 314 on the other, and one in the middle. Assuming the worst case of Hermon just voting against everything, that's a government majority of 12 and an opposition shortfall of 13.
That number assumes that everyone turns up and votes appropriately. In general, anyone in the party who is present in the chamber and doesn't vote the right way on a programme bill or a confidence motion is almost certainly going to get a personal visit from the whips (and not unlikely suffer physical injury in the process). If everyone turns up, that means 7 votes have to flip for the government to lose 321-320.
Here's the thing. Many MPs made clear that they would not write to the chair of the 1922 Committee requesting a leadership contest if May ditched her advisers, and she has. Many MPs will be acutely aware of their majorities. The median Tory majority this time was 13186. 127 have majorities below 10k, 67 below 5k, and 30 below 2k. They've come off the back of a short but brutal election campaign. They're not going to want to volunteer themselves for another, and they're especially not going to want to do so with the whips on their back.
Realistically, the only way that the Queen's Speech is not going to pass is if the DUP are somehow physically prevented from reaching the Palace of Westminster to cast their votes.
|>>|| No. 82857
i think that's a very long post regarding a government that won't last until october.
|>>|| No. 82860
Difficult to see a minority government led by PM who's just absolutely shattered her credibility and got backbenchers crying out for blood lasting.
|>>|| No. 82862
The government is obviously still going to break up for the summer holidays. Just like normal working people politicians need to take a month off to visit their chalets or go on motorbike tours of East Germany.
|>>|| No. 82863
>Many MPs made clear that they would not write to the chair of the 1922 Committee requesting a leadership contest if May ditched her advisers, and she has. Many MPs will be acutely aware of their majorities
This. They've also requested she appoints a Deputy PM to keep her in check so she actually consults her cabinet and wider party rather than solely relying on her advisers.
Her authority is shot. She wanted a coalition with the DUP but had to settle for a confidence and supply arrangement because too many MPs threatened to rebel due to their stance on gay rights, abortion, etc.
|>>|| No. 82864
>Theresa May’s plan for a loose alliance with the Democratic Unionists to prop up her government was thrown into confusion last night after the Northern Ireland party contradicted a No 10 announcement that a deal had been reached.
>A Downing Street statement on Saturday said a “confidence and supply” agreement had been reached with the DUP and would be put to the cabinet on Monday. But the DUP last night put the brakes on that announcement, saying talks were continuing, not finalised. The DUP leader, Arlene Foster, said “discussions will continue next week to work on the details and to reach agreement on arrangements for the new parliament”.
|>>|| No. 82865
>>Theresa May’s plan for a loose alliance with the Democratic Unionists to prop up her government was thrown into confusion last night after the Northern Ireland party contradicted a No 10 announcement that a deal had been reached.
I don't really see the contradiction at all other than a tiny detail in phrasing that the media is blowing out of proportion.
The first announcement by No.10 said a deal had been reached "in principle". You have to do a bit of mental gymnastics to equate that to "the deal is finalised."
|>>|| No. 82866
>DUP eyes Northern Ireland funding and veterans' rights as price for backing May - source
>The source said the DUP was likely to seek a role in Brexit negotiations but was likely to steer clear of social issues such as abortion and gay rights, where it disagrees with Conservative Party positions.
>It was also likely to seek to include Northern Ireland in the "Military Covenant", which ensures that veterans of the British armed forces receive priority medical treatment in the remainder of the United Kingdom. It may also ask for measures to protect British soldiers accused of historical crimes related to the conflict, in which 3,600 people were killed. Such a move would be strongly opposed by the Irish nationalists of Sinn Fein who share power in Belfast under a 1998 peace agreement that ended three decades of violence between nationalists and pro-British loyalists.
>Concessions on such issues would seriously damage efforts by the DUP to secure a deal with Sinn Fein to restore Northern Ireland's devolved government, which collapsed in January.
>Failure in the talks could lead to a return to direct rule from London for the first time in a decade, and fuel tensions that have in the recent past led to street violence and attacks by dissident nationalists. Sinn Fein says former nationalist guerrillas and military personnel must be treated equally, and has accused the DUP of attempting to give immunity to former British soldiers accused of torture.
>The DUP's demands are likely to be similar to a list it published before the 2015 general election, where the Conservatives ultimately secured a majority and did not need DUP support. That list included a demand for a cut in Northern Ireland's corporation tax rate to help it attract foreign investment.
>It also asked for "constitutional stability for Northern Ireland", an apparent reference to efforts by Irish nationalists to seek a referendum on splitting from the United Kingdom and joining the Irish Republic.
I don't think we will see a repeat of the troubles but for fucks sake. Even forgetting flag issues for a moment the cut in corporation tax is bound to piss off other poorer regions and I don't see it tying into the economic revival the region needs.
|>>|| No. 82869
Pretty hilarious that nothing will happen today with the DUP because they refuse to work Sundays. This won't end well.
|>>|| No. 82871
You never know, one of these days maybe Northern Ireland politics will finally drag itself forward into the 20th century.
|>>|| No. 82878
I think the only one she's sacked is Rudd, who was a lightweight promoted way ahead of her abilities anyway.
|>>|| No. 82882
No, as far as I've heard Amber Rudd is still in post. She's just shuffled a few of the smaller deckchairs. Damian Green has got the deputy spot that backbenchers were demanding, and Michael Gove is back, which at least makes it a bigger deal for him to knife her.
|>>|| No. 82885
Various Tories have come out to say that Theresa May has the full support and confidence of the party.
Translation: She'll be out by the end of the year.
|>>|| No. 82886
I have to say I am impressed, the Tory 'deficit' scam is still working well enough to get them elected.
It's a great scam because they first blame the deficit on Labour's overspending, so they can't be voted back in for fear of more 'deficit', and secondly since the deficit is so big, it's going to take a long while to pay off, so the Tories are going to have to be in power for a very long time to to make sure it's done properly (because they're nice like that). Tories are selfless, strong, virtuous and above all great with money. Seriously, the worst thing Theresa has done was run through a wheat field, that probably puts her in the top 100 of best behaved people on the planet, so credit where credit is due. I know she's not lying because she's a devout Christian.
But what exactly is the 'deficit' and why do we have to pay it? The public wasn't the one 'overspending', it's not our debt so you can fuck off with it as far as I'm concerned. We vote you in to work for us, we do not work for you - but that's how they trap you, once you believe the 'deficit' is actually real and needs to paid off by everyone, you are now working for the government/country as slaves. I know slaves is a strong word, and as far as being a slave goes it doesn't get much better, but we are paying off an imaginary debt that could be written off tomorrow and getting not only nothing for it, but worse than what we already have.
Atheists think they're logical and rational because they don't believe in the idea of a God existing but will happily believe the economy is an actual thing that exists that we need to follow and respect and all the rest of it. It's less about believing though I suppose, more just accepting it exists as an integral part of society that we'd be in trouble without. But we're also in trouble when we let ideas control us rather than us control the ideas maaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnn...
|>>|| No. 82887
I work with quite a few Tories. They've all said how Labour voters are naive or too young to remember the 70s because Corbyn will bankrupt the country.
|>>|| No. 82888
Ask them if they can remember who was in charge when the three day week came in.
|>>|| No. 82889
Of course all Conservatives are economic geniuses.
From what I've heard Conservative voters say, I'd say they're the naive ones. Not that you can tell them that, though.
|>>|| No. 82890
>But what exactly is the 'deficit' and why do we have to pay it?
You're confusing deficit with debt and trying to distance the public responsibility from the decisions made by its legitimate representatives. How the fuck does that even work anyway, are you trying to claim that somehow the public did not provide the power to borrow money in its name? Will your attitude be different if I was some money bags who refused to pay his fair share because I'm not a slave to society?
Anyway no we don't have to pay. That said I assure you that refusing to honour our debts will go very badly for us, you hate austerity now but wait until you see what kind of cuts will be made when our government can no longer borrow which we must do until revenue meets spending. Yes I'm sure calling everything you don't like in international society a meme is very comforting but this is a game we live off.
|>>|| No. 82891
The 1970s moaning is going to drive me insane sooner or later.
We're about to finish a decade without a real terms pay increase, where nobody can afford a house, where unemployment returning to 1970s levels (mostly off the back of precarious, shit jobs) is considered something to celebrate, and people are still bitching about the 1970s as something intolerably bad based on a tapestry of memes and misunderstandings.
It wasn't even the budget deficit that was doing us in during the 1970s, it was more the balance of trade and (frankly, unwarranted.) concerns over the value of the pound. I suppose it's to be accepted from a country that views the national debt as something to panic about but completely ignores high personal/household debt. Oh well, maybe the next recession will bash some sense into them [says increasingly nervous man for the third time.]
My one hope is that I don't make the same mistake as James Callaghan: I'm a young man, so I'd better hurry up and emigrate.
|>>|| No. 82894
>Orange Order asks DUP to put Drumcree march on wishlist in May talks
Don't they know it's June already?
|>>|| No. 82895
>British Prime Minister Theresa May could be under pressure to give extreme Eurosceptic Jimmy Saville a key role in Brexit negotiations if she strikes an alliance deal with Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), according to new reports.
>Senior figures in the DUP have told May that she should keep Saville close and allow him to contribute to EU talks in an effort to prevent him from returning to the helm of UKIP, the party he once led, and launching a counter-campaign against her Conservative party, sources told the Sunday Times.
>The figures have also suggested that Saville's suspected return to UKIP could be abated with the promise of a peerage. Saville is said to have been in talks with Arron Banks, one of the party's biggest donors, on Friday to discuss the future of UKIP, one of the Conservative's closest competitors.
Arise, Lord Jimmy.
|>>|| No. 82897
I don't know if I can trust anything the press is saying about this. First they claimed Boris was plotting, then Ruth and now I'm supposed to believe the DUP are demanding Saville come on as trusted party advisor.
How about this one: My reports tell me that the deal was hammered out long ago and has been going on in secret for years. The current 'discussion' going on is actually focused on Stormont politics and trying to save face for the DUP while the Tories want to avoid Northern Ireland politics tainting their image in Great Britain.
|>>|| No. 82899
>How about this one: My reports tell me that the deal was hammered out long ago and has been going on in secret for years. The current 'discussion' going on is actually focused on Stormont politics and trying to save face for the DUP while the Tories want to avoid Northern Ireland politics tainting their image in Great Britain.
You mean the Tories negotiated a hypothetical deal years before it was needed, that would hinge upon the Tories having the precise number of MPs that would create the need for it?
If that is the case then the Tories probably have a whole filing cabinet full of deals with different parties ready to cover every plausible outcome of an election.
|>>|| No. 82900
Possibly the best speech never delivered was the one written for Nixon in the event that Armstrong and Aldrin were stuck on the moon.
CCHQ almost certainly had plans for a wide range of outcomes, with a wide range of options. They probably already knew that they didn't want a formal coalition with the DUP so would seek confidence-and-supply. Similarly, I'd bet that they had a contingency for a Tory majority of less than 20 which involved May resigning.
|>>|| No. 82901
>You're confusing deficit with debt and trying to distance the public responsibility from the decisions made by its legitimate representatives.
>Anyway no we don't have to pay. That said I assure you that refusing to honour our debts will go very badly for us, you hate austerity now but wait until you see what kind of cuts will be made when our government can no longer borrow which we must do until revenue meets spending. Yes I'm sure calling everything you don't like in international society a meme is very comforting but this is a game we live off.
There's also a public responsibility not to be taken for complete fools. The ideas governing our society have become so big and messy and complicated that most of us have given up trying to understand them and just leave the politicians to it. To the point where some even feel obligated to pay for not only the irresponsible borrowing undertaken by government, but also the irresponsible betting of money by financial "elites" - are they our legitimate representatives as well? How about funding a 'war on terror' with tax money, which has only resulted in more terror, both here and abroad. Do you take responsibility for the civilians our bombs killed in the countries we and America (illegally) invaded? This isn't some left wing hippy snowflake bullshit, this is fact. If the government does something illegal, will you go to prison for them?
The reason these scam master bastards get away with it is because the public just take it. We are ruled by fear of both the government and the economy, when it should be the other way around. There's nothing wrong following ideas if they are good ones, but "public debts" is not a good one. It means government and financial institutions can fuck around, have their fun pissing money up the wall and they are not worried one bit because the public will pay for it, and if we don't then the big bad economy will smite us. You see, as children we would make shit up with our imagination, but we would never take it seriously. As adults, we still make shit up, only now we take it seriously. We are actually scared of an idea, that exists in our heads...
If these parasites were thrown in prison and their "public debts" laughed at for the utter joke they are then maybe we'd be taken a little more seriously. Oh... but they control the laws too? Ah well never mind then.
|>>|| No. 82904
The best part is how we are in difficult times and face so many cuts to our public services, but we somehow found enough money to fuck up Libya and arm daft militant wogs in Syria.
|>>|| No. 82907
The fact that wheat field runner sold weapons to the Saudis is not the biggest story of this election says everything. The Saudis are the biggest funders of terrorism, no more needs to be said. How on earth does that not get her immediately imprisoned? Even fucking America does a, well sometimes does a mental health check on the people they are selling weapons to. Theresa will sell you a shit load and you know what? No mental health check needed because she's nice like that. She's a vicars daughter did you hear? Moral, kind, upstanding, caring and compassionate, with a fuck off gun collection that she needs to shift. If she couldn't shift them to the Saudis she was thinking of trying the urban areas of London because there is definitely a demand for it - her advisers agreed at first but after some debate concluded against it due to noise concerns.
|>>|| No. 82908
>How on earth does that not get her immediately imprisoned?
For what exactly?
Arming and funding odious regimes and organisations to secure foreign policy objectives isn't exactly a novel policy. It's how the world works and has worked for quite some time.
|>>|| No. 82909
Arms sales to Saudi Arabia are nothing new. They've been our best customers for decades. The Yanks have sold billions of dollars worth of arms to the Saudis. Like it or not, the western world regards Saudi Arabia as an ally.
|>>|| No. 82914
>but we somehow found enough money to fuck up Libya and arm daft militant wogs in Syria.
Have you ever worked in the public sector? Quite often your budget for the year is based on what you've spent in the preceding one, so it isn't uncommon for departments to waste money in order to protect their budget for future years. Let's say you work in the armed forces and you have a budget of 4million shekels, but you've only spent 3.2million shekels; spend the shortfall of 0.8million shekels blowing up some sand people and you're protecting your jobs.
|>>|| No. 82915
Certainly does for the BAE lads who so generously take our parliamentarians to lavish dinners and give them nice little lobbying jobs once they leave westminster.
|>>|| No. 82916
>You mean the Tories negotiated a hypothetical deal years before it was needed, that would hinge upon the Tories having the precise number of MPs that would create the need for it?
The Tories and DUP have been working together since at least the last government. Of course they have an alliance to bring through difficult legislation and the only change now is it has been made public which complicates things.
>If the government does something illegal, will you go to prison for them?
No. Polity works in a similar fashion to corporate personhood, personal responsibility is removed but collective responsibility does exist and will be accounted for in punishment by the international system. The principles are quite easy to grasp.
Both the bailouts and the war on terror are accounted for in the powers we have conferred to the state. If we don't want the government to interfere by economic necessity or to make war then collectively we need to change how the system comes to operate (although I'd hazard to guess most wouldn't want such changes).
>It means government and financial institutions can fuck around, have their fun pissing money up the wall
It also means we can fund social projects that you might well think are worth taking on debt. Your problem seems to be where the money is spent which is why your are railing against austerity despite in the big picture cutting down on the debt you will have to pay.
I mean sit and have a think about this. You don't like debt so okay the government will stop paying back and step borrowing, now how are we going to pay teachers, doctors and school lunches? This is the dependence that emerges with running a deficit.
>The fact that wheat field runner sold weapons to the Saudis is not the biggest story of this election says everything.
It tells that the public doesn't give a fuck about dead Yemenis.
|>>|| No. 82917
>despite in the big picture cutting down on the debt you will have to pay.
This isn't strictly true though. Borrowing costs were until recently at historic lows. By not borrowing now (when it's cheap) and underinvesting, it's highly possible that we're just driving up long term costs when we later have to borrow when it's expensive to try and rush investment that should've started 10 years ago, leading to outdated infrastructure 20 years late, significantly overbudget, and probably with 3 switches of contractor before the government finally killed the PPP and brought it in-house... I mean, that's British tradition.
But then I'm of the Steve Keen school of "shut up about government debt, it's nothing, private debt will kill us all" anyway, so it doesn't really matter what I say or think. All that matters is that I get to have the smuggest grin in the entire dole queue when I lose my job during the next recession.
|>>|| No. 82918
I'm well aware this is one of our great traditions, and long may it continue. Makes you proud to be British doesn't it?
>No. Polity works in a similar fashion to corporate personhood, personal responsibility is removed but collective responsibility does exist and will be accounted for in punishment by the international system. The principles are quite easy to grasp.
The principles are easy to grasp, it's whether they're barking fucking mad that's the issue.
>It also means we can fund social projects that you might well think are worth taking on debt. Your problem seems to be where the money is spent which is why your are railing against austerity despite in the big picture cutting down on the debt you will have to pay.
Can't we just use something like kickstarter instead?
>I mean sit and have a think about this. You don't like debt so okay the government will stop paying back and step borrowing, now how are we going to pay teachers, doctors and school lunches? This is the dependence that emerges with running a deficit.
How about writing the debt off and trying a different approach? Who is benefiting from this debt exactly?
|>>|| No. 82919
>Who is benefiting from this debt exactly?
You are if you want to be able to save. Government deficits are private surpluses. If the government isn't accruing debt, we are.
|>>|| No. 82920
Well I don't think anyone would deny that Gideon is a lunatic. That said neither form of debt can be viewed of as fine or existing in a vacuum. For example if the government goes on a borrowing splurge then it diverts capital from personal lending markets leading to more onerous lending terms and more people who can't for example borrow for their business idea.
My point was that if you hate the very idea of national debt then railing against austerity is rather counter-productive. Of course it is more nuanced than that but on a basic level debt = bad just as we could sit here and agree that PFI = bad.
Civilization is barking fucking mad but I'm not sure how to turn it off. Anyway a number of points:
>Can't we just use something like kickstarter instead?
I don't see that going well. For starters the public are tight bastards who can't exactly be relied upon to fund the welfare state directly even if it is rational on the macro level.
>How about writing the debt off and trying a different approach? Who is benefiting from this debt exactly?
I've already told you what impact writing off the debt would have. The second question is more interesting because last time I looked the biggest owners of government debt were pensions and insurance - because it's strong and stable but not exactly profitable.
|>>|| No. 82921
>I don't see that going well. For starters the public are tight bastards who can't exactly be relied upon to fund the welfare state directly even if it is rational on the macro level.
The tight bastards are those that are wealthiest, harder to be wealthy otherwise. Wealthy people can be very generous in rare moments, but the obscenely wealthy love to siphon off money out of our economy and stick it in tax free havens. Even our holy celebrities are doing it, but because he can kick a ball about and scored a great goal against those fucking Argies in 2009 we'll forget about it.
>I've already told you what impact writing off the debt would have. The second question is more interesting because last time I looked the biggest owners of government debt were pensions and insurance - because it's strong and stable but not exactly profitable.
Why does writing off the debt have to have that impact? The debt is imaginary when it comes down to it. I know that sounds airy fairy and all the rest of it, but it's true. It doesn't have feelings, it won't be offended if we all tell it to fuck off (the debt won't at least).
The government (and other nefarious groups) benefit from this "debt" and so it's important we go along with it. It's great for the government because they can be both the debt creator, and the debt collector - a constant cycle that helps legitimise their need to exist as an institution.
What this also means is that we owe money to ourselves - this is logically absurd, which is why what we call "ourselves" must be separated into the Bank of England, the government, and the public. Now it doesn't feel so weird that we are actually borrowing and paying back ourselves.
|>>|| No. 82923
>Why does writing off the debt have to have that impact? The debt is imaginary when it comes down to it.
Except it isn't imaginary. We borrowed real money from real people that we spent on schools and hospitals and bombing the fuck out of brown-eyed people. There's basically nothing stopping us from defaulting on that debt, but people will become very reluctant to lend us money in future. At best, our borrowing costs will skyrocket and it'll cost us a lot more to build schools and hospitals and turn brown-eyed people into pink mist.
A government can of course print money; banknotes are effectively a sort of indefinite IOU. There's nothing stopping you from repaying debt with freshly-printed money. Done well, this is a perfectly healthy practice that is of benefit to both the government and the economy in general. Done to excess, the consequences are disastrous - nobody trusts your money any more and the value of it collapses.
|>>|| No. 82929
>We borrowed real money from real people
You might want to go and read up on how quantitative easing and fractional reserve banking work.
|>>|| No. 82930
QE is a textbook example of my second paragraph - paying off debt with freshly-printed money. Fractional reserve banking has nothing to do with the "realness" of debt and very little to do with the national debt. Leverage is not a novel concept and is not confined to fractional reserve banking.
|>>|| No. 82937
Not him, but leverage is literally magicking money (and with it debt) out of nothing.
|>>|| No. 82938
This term, "printing money" is dangerously disingenuous. It implies the money is simply given away, which it is not- it is leant, at interest. It also borrows a sense of physicality which money does not deserve. Calling it "fudging the numbers" would be more accurate.
|>>|| No. 82939
If it's leant at a below-inflation interest rate, you're still basically giving it away.
One wonders, off-the-cuff, if moderate (by modern standards, high, perhaps nearing 10%?) inflation wouldn't do society a bundle of good if interest rates were also artificially held down.
Or maybe it'd just exacerbate everything by making mortgaging a house even more attractive.
|>>|| No. 82941
Lending is the normal way for a modern economy to create new money. And there has to be a steady supply of new money to allow for growth.
Governments can create new money directly, but it's generally frowned upon by the global markets.
|>>|| No. 82943
My apologies for being a bit thick. It's 6pm on a Thursday and I've still got one more day left.
|>>|| No. 82945
Let me put it this way, if everyone but you died tomorrow, would you still pay the "national debt" off? Would you pay the deficit a visit and discuss payment plans? How's the stock market doing? It's all imaginary.
Would you still need to eat food? Would you still need to wank? These are the real things.
All they need to call it is the "national debt" and we now accept it as "ours". Are you called nation? Do you feel you are a nation? How the fuck can a concept be owed and paid back a debt? There's a reason we're never told the names of the people who are owed the money.
|>>|| No. 82946
It's annoying that this sounds tinfoil hatty because it's a completely accurate perception.
|>>|| No. 82948
Arguably the 'need' to eat food or have a wank are just as imaginary as the debt. We only 'need' to do these things if we want to go in living the best way we can. We could refuse to pay it and we could let ourselves starve to death with an erection.
|>>|| No. 82949
Your scenario is specious - everyone isn't going to die tomorrow and therefore the debtors will always still exist.
|>>|| No. 82950
The fascinating thing for me is still negative real interest rates. The option to get paid to borrow is out there and not really being taken up. The only hypothesis I can possibly fire off is that it's being put off until there's another recession and we really need to borrow to get out of it, hoping that - with everything else on fire - real interest rates will get even negativer.
That, or a political preference for reducing state expenditure, regardless of the option for short-mid-term "cost-free" largesse.
|>>|| No. 82951
The problem is credit agencies - you need to be a perfect person/company to get those super low rates. Normal people just can't access those.
|>>|| No. 82952
I don't know much about the economy, but does negative interest mean that I will have to pay the bank for keeping my savings in the bank?
|>>|| No. 82954
>How the fuck can a concept be owed and paid back a debt?
Because the "concept" has a government. Governments can borrow money.
You're being extraordinarily silly.
>There's a reason we're never told the names of the people who are owed the money.
Because they aren't by and large people with names. They're the BoE, pension funds, foreign governments etc. etc.
|>>|| No. 82955
>Arguably the 'need' to eat food or have a wank are just as imaginary as the debt. We only 'need' to do these things if we want to go in living the best way we can. We could refuse to pay it and we could let ourselves starve to death with an erection.
True, if the deficit finds out we aren't paying it off any more it will destroy all our food. What a spoil sport. We'd just have to accept the consequences like a terminally ill cancer patient, absolutely nothing we could do about it. Not like the deficit was invented by humans in the first place. What a hopeless species we are.
>Your scenario is specious - everyone isn't going to die tomorrow and therefore the debtors will always still exist.
And that proves debt isn't imaginary?
>Because the "concept" has a government. Governments can borrow money.
>You're being extraordinarily silly.
The concept has a concept called the government? Well that legitimises it then.
>Because they aren't by and large people with names. They're the BoE, pension funds, foreign governments etc. etc.
So they are magical entities that exist separately to the individual people that populate and control them? Move along, nothing to see here...
|>>|| No. 82956
You should volunteer as a knife thrower's assistant, I've never seen someone miss so many points at once.
|>>|| No. 82957
Please turn me into a knife thrower that can hit all the points and explain where I'm going wrong.
|>>|| No. 82958
All 'needs' are imaginary, they only exist to the degree in which you want something. For example, you don't need to eat, unless you want to stay alive. The need to eat is imaginary. Similarly, the debt is imaginary. We don't need to do anything about it, unless we want to continue to take part in the equally imaginary yet consensual global economic system.
Your employer's obligation to pay you is imaginary too, but you might get upset if they just decided one day that they don't need to pay you.
|>>|| No. 82959
I understand what you're trying to say, but there is a fundamental difference between the need to eat, and the need to pay a "national" debt. If you stop consuming food, you will die, this applies to everyone and it cannot be prevented. You may feel you don't have a need to eat and that it is imaginary, but you will die regardless.
If we all stop paying the "national" debt tomorrow, we don't have to die if we don't want to. It is completely preventable because it is entirely self-inflicted by ourselves, on ourselves, knowingly or not.
|>>|| No. 82960
We don't all pay the national debt, the government does. But yes, the government could decide to not issue gilts and refuse to meet its obligation to its debtors. You've yet to explain why it should though.
Profound though it may be to point out that countries and governments and debts are all just in our mind maaan, the reality is that we have collectively agreed to give these institutions meaning and legitimacy and power. I don't think you're going to convince anyone that we shouldn't if you're not able to even begin to develop your case.
>So they are magical entities that exist separately to the individual people that populate and control them?
I think a large part of your problem is that you think everything that isn't a rock or something is magic.
|>>|| No. 82961
I'm not saying we'll die, it's an analogy. If we stop partaking in the system of which the debt is a part, then there will be non-imaginary repercussions.
|>>|| No. 82962
But governments do have access to that facility, ours doesn't seem to 'really' be making use of it. (Obviously they benefit from lower lending costs on the money borrowed to finance the present deficit, but the policy is to eliminate the deficit, instead of "ignoring" it to pursue other goals with cheap cash.)
|>>|| No. 82963
There's a perfectly legitimate argument that we should have pursued a policy of Keynesian stimulus since the 2008 crash. My only real qualm is with the argument that debt and deficit are irrelevant, the Modern Monetary Theory argument that a sovereign government has effectively unlimited spending power. It may well be possible to spend your way out of recession, but there are clear risks to both austerity and stimulus, particularly when taken to extremes.
|>>|| No. 83015
>We don't all pay the national debt, the government does. But yes, the government could decide to not issue gilts and refuse to meet its obligation to its debtors.
Government is supposed to be our representative. If the government is in debt, that ultimately means we are too.
>You've yet to explain why it should though.
Because it is stifling human development and benefiting the most power hungry.
>Profound though it may be to point out that countries and governments and debts are all just in our mind maaan, the reality is that we have collectively agreed to give these institutions meaning and legitimacy and power. I don't think you're going to convince anyone that we shouldn't if you're not able to even begin to develop your case.
Less collectively agreed and more just accepted without question how things are or put up with because no alternative is provided.
It's not just the institutions themselves that are the problem though, it's also the people who are given the power to run them (not always elected either). Government offers a type of power that attracts a high percentage of sociopaths/psychopaths/narcissists and all the rest of it.
I think if you want to be in government, you will need to go through a rigorous psychological examination before anything else among other things. Perhaps make them work at a care home for a year on minimum wage, but most importantly they should be physically attractive. We are giving power away far too easily and that's why we get shit in return.
The current application process to become an elected politician requires nothing more than the ability to sell yourself to potential customers/voters using marketing, slogans, logos and your own gift of the gab. And we wonder why politicians are notorious liars?
>I think a large part of your problem is that you think everything that isn't a rock or something is magic.
I don't think ideas are magic, but that doesn't stop them being extremely good at tricking the mind into thinking they're as real as a rock.
|>>|| No. 83016
Apparently there's going to be a legal challenge over whether this breaches the Good Friday agreement, so the double trouble may not bubble.
|>>|| No. 83017
Electing people in government isn't always a good idea. Just look at the USA for a good example of this. I don't want public officials afraid of doing the right thing for fear of losing their bid for re-election. It's bad enough they've got us electing police commissioners, but just look at this sample ballot. The majority of the positions there have no business being on it. Elected officials end up wanting to consolidate power, which means either pandering to the voters or working to disenfranchise them, rather than carrying out one's duties without fear or favour.
|>>|| No. 83018
Elections are far from ideal, if they ever could be.
But I think they could be much improved. Who fucking came up with the current rules for elections in the first place? Can they be changed? Who can change them? If no one has the power to, are we stuck with them forever?
Our current political system reinforces the false dichotomy of left/right politics which turns it into a nauseatingly predictable battle between the "loony left" and the "fascist right", the side that will fuck me over a bit more, or the side that will fuck me over a bit less, depending on the social class I identify with.
It's always funny when politicians talk about "a country that works for all" when the class system our country operates in requires the very opposite to be true.
|>>|| No. 83019
We had an AV referendum about this and the public gave it a resounding "no". Similarly the general public overwhelmingly vote tactically rather than on conviction which is further why the overwhelming trend over the past three decades has been the fight for the centre ground.
>It's always funny when politicians talk about "a country that works for all" when the class system our country operates in requires the very opposite to be true.
While class conciousness still exists but it is and in a way always has been a divided sentiment since the time the working class were given the vote. One-nationism is a direct expression of this and a key to landslide elections.
|>>|| No. 83020
That's insanity. How they hell are people expected to keep up with nearly twenty different electoral candidates all running at once? It's impossible; three Jeremy Vine's on a holodeck couldn't manage it.
|>>|| No. 83022
>We had an AV referendum about this and the public gave it a resounding "no". Similarly the general public overwhelmingly vote tactically rather than on conviction which is further why the overwhelming trend over the past three decades has been the fight for the centre ground.
I'm not talking about the method of voting itself. I'm saying that it should be much harder to become a political candidate in the first place. Blabbering tired, cliche platitudes is a pathetic way of judging the quality of someone who wants power.
If you want power over people's lives then you should fucking well earn it. The application process should be extremely rigorous, otherwise we deserve what we get in return.
>While class conciousness still exists but it is and in a way always has been a divided sentiment since the time the working class were given the vote. One-nationism is a direct expression of this and a key to landslide elections.
Absolutely. Maintaining identities such as working/middle/upper class also makes it much easier to appeal to a large chunk of the population without having to do much work, because you already know what appeals to them.
They've done a very clever thing with immigration too. They know the class system will create resentment, particularly for the working class who are essentially considered the least valuable by those of a higher class. To keep this resentment away from the higher classes, a new class of people for the working class to feel superior about has been created. Immigrants are now considered a class below the white working class. So not only are the working class focused on a class below them, they will value anyone who is white British more than someone who isn't. The higher classes are now not an enemy to the working class because they are white and British, as long as you are that, you are a friend. It's very clever indeed.
|>>|| No. 83024
>The application process should be extremely rigorous, otherwise we deserve what we get in return.
I get the point you're trying to make her - but why? Why should we put barriers in place as to who are elected representatives are? The whole point of democracy is that anyone can have a go and its up to the rest of us to put them in power. We absolutely get the leaders we deserve.
|>>|| No. 83025
>I'm saying that it should be much harder to become a political candidate in the first place.
What you're suggesting is that the state should exert increasing control over who the voters can pick effectively nullifying democracy and creating a system of gatekeepers like the Republic of Iran. That stinks to me not least because how the hell do we create a system of political competence evaluation that doesn't select ideological purity? Momentum certainly won't be happy and nor will anyone the gatekeepers won't tolerate.
Political office should instead remain open to citizens who want a go and likewise it is the responsibility of citizens to do their own vetting at the ballot box and who then have to live with their choices. It might fuck up but anything else is to say the public cannot be trusted to vote properly which sends the whole edifice crumbling down.
I recommend checking out a podcast Dan Carlin did with James Burke by the way as it goes into this topic in some detail following Trump and Brexit: https://goo.gl/dYSBFv
>Absolutely. Maintaining identities such as working/middle/upper class also makes it much easier to appeal to a large chunk of the population without having to do much work, because you already know what appeals to them.
I committed a typo there so maybe you misunderstood me. What I meant is that looking at society strictly in terms of class is inherently reductionist and gives the impression that class identities vote along rigid party lines when nothing could be further from the truth and indeed parties rely upon it (consider that middle class people don't all vote Liberal).
Keep in mind as well that class identity in British politics is not something confined to wealth or power metrics but instead comes from multiple sources like geography and associations. Your theory that the working class have been brainwashed into hating immigrants is a fallacy both because it assumes that anti-immigrant sentiment is confined to the working class and that it is something that is kept alive artificially when as Marx himself admitted of the Irish:
>But the English bourgeoisie has also much more important interests in the present economy of Ireland. Owing to the constantly increasing concentration of leaseholds, Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labour market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class.
(he of course then quickly ignores this point to talk some more about the bourgeois bogeyman like you can just ignore this material impact)
It evidently is. If someone says they are working class then that is an identity.
|>>|| No. 83026
>What you're suggesting is that the state should exert increasing control over who the voters can pick effectively nullifying democracy
Not him, but yeah, that's one way you could twist that argument into some nonsense that nobody suggested.
>It might fuck up but anything else is to say the public cannot be trusted to vote properly which sends the whole edifice crumbling down.
Sometimes the truth hurts.
|>>|| No. 83027
>It evidently is. If someone says they are working class then that is an identity.
No, class is a position, determined by one's relation to capital. You can identify as whatever you want, but that won't change your class.
|>>|| No. 83028
Are you sure? It's just as much an identity as "being British".
Using that logic we might as well not put barriers on anything at all.
>What you're suggesting is that the state should exert increasing control over who the voters can pick effectively nullifying democracy and creating a system of gatekeepers like the Republic of Iran.
Would you be okay with a psychopath as prime minister? Psychopaths are superficially charming. The political system suits them to a T. It offers power and money. Why do you consider it a bad thing to filter people like that out? You probably don't have an issue stopping 9 year olds from being politicians do you?
>I committed a typo there so maybe you misunderstood me. What I meant is that looking at society strictly in terms of class is inherently reductionist and gives the impression that class identities vote along rigid party lines when nothing could be further from the truth and indeed parties rely upon it (consider that middle class people don't all vote Liberal).
It would be silly to look at society purely in terms of class, but that is sort of my point. Humans are not black and white, which is why it is important for those in control to try and force black and white identities like class. It's not going neatly categorise the entire population, but it's still a very important ally.
>Keep in mind as well that class identity in British politics is not something confined to wealth or power metrics but instead comes from multiple sources like geography and associations. Your theory that the working class have been brainwashed into hating immigrants is a fallacy both because it assumes that anti-immigrant sentiment is confined to the working class and that it is something that is kept alive artificially when as Marx himself admitted of the Irish
Of course anti-immigration isn't confined to the working classes. Those of a higher class have the luxury of disliking all classes lower than them. The point is that immigrants are a class that the working class can look down upon as well. It provides a sense of value because there's no fucking chance the higher classes are going to make them feel valued.
I will check the Dan Carlin podcast out, heard a lot of good things about it.
|>>|| No. 83031
It is true that you can quantify social class by an objective economic materialism but we are talking about class as a socio-political identity which repels neat objectivity. Don't be fooled by the rocks J-Lo's got she's still Jenny from the block.
Yes I suppose you can sexually identify as an Attack Helicopter for the purposes of what we're talking about.
Well firstly a 'psychopath' is not some neatly defined thing but on the surface no, I do not have a problem with someone suffering a mental disorder running for office or even winning a democratic election. If I judge their actions and beliefs as against my own convictions then I will vote for someone else and have faith the public will adopt a similar position but I not will deny someone their political rights from prejudice.
Anyway we're heading into the field of psychology which is interesting given the history of political abuse. This would be the primary reason for my objection and why I'm emphasising the power this hands to the state.
>You probably don't have an issue stopping 9 year olds from being politicians do you?
That would effectively be representation without taxation and a question not of removing a right held (as with mental illness) but when a right is conferred.
>The point is that immigrants are a class that the working class can look down upon as well. It provides a sense of value because there's no fucking chance the higher classes are going to make them feel valued.
No I think you are still falling into reductionism on this only in the opposite way. There are a host of reasons someone might dislike immigrants whether it be a fear of someones surroundings are changing (taken over), economic competition or as you seem to suggest just because they are bullies.
Thing is though that working class culture also provides a value of its own just as family and nation do. Indeed the working class can also in their own way be snobby of the toffs which is hardly helpful for social control by the establishment.
|>>|| No. 83032
>The whole point of democracy is that anyone can have a go and its up to the rest of us to put them in power
I mean, this point is already highly compromised by our party-system.
There's a difference between Class in marxist terms and the British class system.
One is a relationship to the means of production, the other is a social position.
Anyway, an idea on controlling who gets to be elected and that: Fuck around with the rules on broadcasting, etc, to disadvantage certain types of people.
This doesn't even have to be totalitarian, you can just get the broadcasters to agree to stuff. For example in a great book on the 1979 election, it noted that lots of news people were suggesting the networks should all agree to deny coverage to political events staged purely for TV cameras. They sadly don't appear to have done this - but consider, for example, if we were spared the strategically filmed pictures of Theresa May addressing a crowd of 50 through the narrowest lens possible (Look how crowded that aircraft hanger looks!) - if the cameramen said "No, look, we're showing them you're as popular as Cancer or we're using the timeslot to talk about gardening in East Timor."
Plus we could impose my pet project: Politicians must wear shock collars. Whenever they trail off into a party strapline ("Strong and Stable", "Stronger for Scotland", "If you value it, Vote for it.") or egregiously try to dodge the question they get shocked. This can be broadened as is necessary to ensure political debate never becomes tedious.
|>>|| No. 83036
>That would effectively be representation without taxation
Yet we still let benefit scroungers vote.
|>>|| No. 83041
If we want better candidates, we need to pay MPs more and stop treating them like shit.
The vast majority of parliamentarians could be earning far more in the private sector. The base salary for an MP is about the same as that for the headmaster of a mid-sized secondary school. Most MPs have an utterly nightmarish commute. The hours are ridiculously long and you've got to deal with an endless procession of cunts. On top of that, you're pretty much guaranteed to be utterly vilified by half the public, regardless of what you do. The best you can hope for is a cozy post-politics rehabilitation via some kind of reality programme, but you'll probably be remembered as some cunt who cut something/put my taxes up/got mauled by Paxman/forgot a number.
Of course we get venal, power-hungry lunatics. Nobody in their right mind who is remotely qualified would willingly take the job. It's an unremitting slog, for which the only real perk is a shabby kind of c-list fame. You'd be better off going on Big Brother and sticking a bottle up your fanny.
The good Miliband has fucked off to America to be a Thunderbird. The baby of the house can't stand the place. Nearly all of the non-cunty MPs have been in Westminster for so long that they're institutionalised, like an old lag who keeps getting nicked so he can go back home - Ken Clarke, Paul Flynn, Frank Dobson et al.
|>>|| No. 83042
The idea of qualification seems a bit concerning. I can't help but read it as a euphemism for "Think-Tank centrist" - maybe because of the idea there's a good Miliband. (If there is a good one of the weirdo bunch, it's surely Ed in his true calling as a Radio presenter.)
Not to say I'm against paying MPs more (If I thought it would definitely mean "Ed out, IEA in" then I'd want them on poverty wages.) by default, I'm just skeptical of the qualification argument. (It would also seem to overlook any ideological aims in parliament. I mean, I'd endure shit conditions if I thought it'd actually meaningfully change the way things were run.)
I wonder if there's any good data on the SNP crop from 2015 that could be looked at for this. I bet that in their scramble for candidates, they had a good mix of people trained through the ranks (Councillor > MSP > MP or such.), people qualified in various sectors, people from in dodgy think-tanks, and random crazies plucked off the street because the polls said that even an Englishman in a yellow rosette could take a seat.
Maybe not, though.
|>>|| No. 83067
>Well firstly a 'psychopath' is not some neatly defined thing but on the surface no, I do not have a problem with someone suffering a mental disorder running for office or even winning a democratic election. If I judge their actions and beliefs as against my own convictions then I will vote for someone else and have faith the public will adopt a similar position but I not will deny someone their political rights from prejudice.
I admire the sentiment, and it would be nice not to have to filter people out because no doubt that could be abused too, but some common sense needs to be applied at the same time. Let me ask, would you like to know if a politician has a mental health issue of the kind that can fuel the need for power? They can still run and be voted for, but would you be against it being compulsory to disclose it?
And anyway the whole process of voting for one person/party is inherently prejudicial, which is amplified by the party/left/right political system.
>That would effectively be representation without taxation and a question not of removing a right held (as with mental illness) but when a right is conferred.
So the 9 year old part isn't a problem too?
>No I think you are still falling into reductionism on this only in the opposite way. There are a host of reasons someone might dislike immigrants whether it be a fear of someones surroundings are changing (taken over), economic competition or as you seem to suggest just because they are bullies.
All these reasons you suggest are based on the perception that immigrants are of a lower class/social standing and do not deserve the life that the working and upper classes supposedly deserve. It's not so much bullying, more just the preservation of identity fuelled by fear. The British identity is one of the only identities they have left to cling on to that doesn't automatically turn them into worthless shite that can be mocked and laughed at.
>Thing is though that working class culture also provides a value of its own just as family and nation do.
It certainly does, but it's not a value the higher classes give a shit about.
>Indeed the working class can also in their own way be snobby of the toffs which is hardly helpful for social control by the establishment.
I think they can handle it.
|>>|| No. 83069
>Let me ask, would you like to know if a politician has a mental health issue of the kind that can fuel the need for power? They can still run and be voted for, but would you be against it being compulsory to disclose it?
No I do not feel like this should be something subject to public disclosure because as you are demonstrating it opens the door to all manner of prejudice. If you truly think that people with the disorders associated with psychopathy can only be evil then why don't we just lock them up and throw away the key? Why give the pretense that they are sentient beings at all when unlike everyone else they can be judged not by their words and actions but by a black mark on a medical record?
Without wanting to repeat myself I can understand why you might like this idea, volumes have been written on diagnosing historical bogeymen with whatever illness is in fashion and it is comforting to neatly sort them into some other rather than a face what lurks in all of us. The thing is good and bad are not so neatly sorted when it comes to real people, you can talk of risk factors all you want but what you really suggest is the ability to judge innocent men and women as guilty almost from birth. This isn't a rigorous competence evaluation it is a witch-hunt.
I hope you liked my Captain Picard impression, I watched The Drumhead earlier.
>So the 9 year old part isn't a problem too?
If 9 year olds had all the bullshit that comes with being an adult citizen (and weren't in compulsory education) then I would be hard pressed to argue against it. This is a slippery slope because the real issue we're going to hit is one of mental competence but I don't look good enough in all black to start stripping the mentally handicapped of their fundamental rights.
>All these reasons you suggest are based on the perception that immigrants are of a lower class/social standing and do not deserve the life that the working and upper classes supposedly deserve.
Well yes, they are not citizens. Unless you are going to go full abolish all borders a national society has the right to control who comes into it and people have a right to complain if immigration is eroding (economically) social contract or erasing local culture rather than enriching.
>It certainly does, but it's not a value the higher classes give a shit about.
I'd say the higher classes have given a shit about working class culture since at least the time of Chartism if not before by risk and imitated with some affection the working class in phenomena such as Britpop.
|>>|| No. 83070
>Why give the pretense that they are sentient beings at all when unlike everyone else they can be judged not by their words and actions but by a black mark on a medical record?
That'll be because, unlike everyone else, their words and actions cannot be trusted. Even addicts can be trusted - you know that their words will be hollow and their actions treacherous.
>Well yes, they are not citizens.
Everyone's a citizen of somewhere. Borders are arbitrary lines on the ground, and citizenship is an accident of birth. Being born on the wrong side of some made-up boundary doesn't make you any less of a person and shouldn't entitle you to any less favourable treatment.
>people have a right to complain if immigration is eroding (economically) social contract or erasing local culture rather than enriching.
Only if this is actually happening, rather than being the figment of their imagination (which it is almost every time).
|>>|| No. 83071
While we're talking about borders can I just say what a bastard it is that having a British passport doesn't immediately entitle you to permanent residency in the white commonwealth?
Because it's a bastard. And I don't like it. And it isn't good. And other similar statements.
|>>|| No. 83072
>Borders are arbitrary
They most certainly aren't. Do you know what arbitrary means?
|>>|| No. 83076
>Well yes, they are not citizens. Unless you are going to go full abolish all borders a national society has the right to control who comes into it and people have a right to complain if immigration is eroding (economically) social contract or erasing local culture rather than enriching.
In the same episode you quoted Picard talks about how any kind of prejudice or curtailing of freedom, no matter how minor or seemingly justified, is the first link in the chain which binds us all irrevocably. He chastised the entire court (and Worf) for being ready to "extinguish a man because he carries the blood of a current enemy", hardly gels with your anti-immigrant rhetoric.
In later episodes he would argue that a culture of one was just as valid as a culture of one billion, warn a man torturing him in the Cardassian equivalent of Guantanamo Bay that once children learn to devalue others they can devalue anyone and even offer asylum to a member of the borg.
|>>|| No. 83077
>Fine. Third world borders are arbitrary because of white people.
The Marxist infection is strong in this one.
|>>|| No. 83078
Do all students talk with such tepid cuntery or are they all just dribbly bellends.
|>>|| No. 83079
A surprisingly large number of disproportionately successful and influential people take Star Trek very seriously (rightly in my opinion, but it doesn't even matter). Just providing some context. No need to get arsey.
|>>|| No. 83080
>A surprisingly large number of disproportionately successful and influential people take Star Trek very seriously
|>>|| No. 83083
>That'll be because, unlike everyone else, their words and actions cannot be trusted.
Look I've dropped the hint a few times now and you still haven't picked up on it, psychopathy is not a disorder recognised by mainstream psychiatry and with good reason as it shows a cluster of conditions. A psychopath is a cultural label subjectively defined by television and spread by the gutter press to give a simple narrative for the plebs.
Again though, why don't we just lock these undesirables up under our flimsy understanding of the human mind? Better yet why don't we instead maintain and improve our system of checks and balances because people in general cannot be trusted with power?
>Everyone's a citizen of somewhere. Borders are arbitrary lines on the ground, and citizenship is an accident of birth. Being born on the wrong side of some made-up boundary doesn't make you any less of a person and shouldn't entitle you to any less favourable treatment.
The vast VAST majority of international custom, law, society and theory says otherwise. Citizenship is a thing we own in common that arguably forms the basis of our system of government, one that comes with responsibilities as well as privileges and almost by definition a society has every right to restrict its membership just as I can't walk into your home and start smoking all your weed.
I mean ask yourself, how exactly is democracy going to work if the right to vote in any election is open to all?
>Only if this is actually happening, rather than being the figment of their imagination (which it is almost every time).
No we can see the impact of immigration on the labour market just as we can see immigrant communities coming to dominate local areas. I think I pointed out to you a few days ago that even Marx accepted the way immigration was used by the bourgeoisie to undermine local workers.
Perhaps this could change if we had strong labour rights and some Singapore style quota system but then that opens up its own myriad problems.
Actually the accused was a Federation citizen, this was a trial for treason and Picard accepted that his Starfleet career was over even though he lied to get around some rule (I think, Trek society was always a little ambiguous). The episode concerns more fundamental principles of jurisprudence in criminal law just as the Data trial was about
human sentient rights centering around bodily sovereignty.
Not that I'm sure you can use Picard as some model, I merely brought him up to excuse my pompous speech. Picard was also willing to ethnically cleanse Native Americans, enforced rigid rules on Feddie membership and all that post-Vietnam non-intervention nonsense that bled into the series so a species couldn't be told they were smoking space-crack.
The attempts to browbeat with assumed ethical superiority over facts points more to far-left circles that exclude outside opinion. Academia tends to be more selective unless you go to some circus like Brighton.
|>>|| No. 83084
>Again though, why don't we just lock these undesirables up under our flimsy understanding of the human mind?
We don't need to lock them up. We just need to prevent them from getting into a position where they can do harm to others.
>Better yet why don't we instead maintain and improve our system of checks and balances
Because then we'd never get anything done. Everything would be tied up in knots in legislative and judicial procedure.
>because people in general cannot be trusted with power?
Not people in general, just certain classes of people, the well-documented and plentifully-evident existence of which you insist on denying.
>The vast VAST majority of international custom, law, society and theory says otherwise
Do go on. I'd love to hear more on your theory of how international law says that people who happen to be born on the wrong side of a completely made-up line in the sand are somehow subhuman scum. Yes, that is in fact what you've just said.
>I mean ask yourself, how exactly is democracy going to work if the right to vote in any election is open to all?
Erm, more or less exactly the same way it works right now. Remember that whole "no taxation without representation" thing?
>No we can see the impact of immigration on the labour market
Namely, almost bugger all. There is no evidence whatsoever of any significant detrimental impact on the labour market or on wages. "Waaaah I can't get a job cuz all dem forriners" is not evidence of anything.
|>>|| No. 83085
>psychopathy is not a disorder recognised by mainstream psychiatry
We just renamed it as antisocial personality disorder. The DSM and ICD criteria for ASPD align very closely with the popular understanding of psychopathy. A lot of entirely legitimate researchers and clinicians use the term "psychopathy" as a synonym for or a category distinct from ASPD.
|>>|| No. 83088
>We don't need to lock them up. We just need to prevent them from getting into a position where they can do harm to others.
I'm sure you are aware that being out in the public is a position where you can do harm to others, this is half the reason someone can end up sectioned. The point is in your mind that such people cannot be trusted so why are you trusting them...
>Not people in general, just certain classes of people, the well-documented and plentifully-evident existence of which you insist on denying.
Oh right, I'm trying not to jump to conclusions here but am I correct in thinking that this test for psychopathy or whatever you want would-be MPs put through would include questions that are of a certain political bent. Specifically whether they conform to your ethics?
Moving on we already have checks and balances within our system through Parliament and some nations go much further without getting themselves tied into knots. We have this because historical experience generally shows that vesting absolute power in the hands of one man is an incredibly naive idea with a perfect example in the kings of Rome or more local from Charles I to the Glorious Revolution.
>Do go on. I'd love to hear more on your theory of how international law says that people who happen to be born on the wrong side of a completely made-up line in the sand are somehow subhuman scum. Yes, that is in fact what you've just said.
No I did not, calm yourself. Anyway the principles of jus soli (right by soil) and jus sanguinis (right by blood) are rather definitive on this and serve as the starting points of nationality law which barring a few exceptions is an internal affair covered by national sovereignty.
Once this citizenship is conferred you hold the rights as a citizen including the right to run or vote for someone who wishes to raise barriers for aliens seeking to acquire citizenship. Aliens I need to point out (for some reason) don't hold the right to vote in national elections and who are not covered by representation rights because its context under the Bill of Rights 1689 is specifically referring to Englishmen i.e. citizens.
>There is no evidence whatsoever of any significant detrimental impact on the labour market or on wages.
"The static results suggest that the statistically significant negative effects of immigration on wages are concentrated among skilled production workers, and semi/unskilled service workers. In the latter cases, the coefficients indicates that a 10 percentage point rise in the proportion of immigrants working in semi/unskilled services — that is, in care homes, bars, shops, restaurants, cleaning, for example — leads to a 1.88 percent reduction in pay."
10 seconds on google.
>We just renamed it as antisocial personality disorder.
No they differ diagnostically for reasons I have outlined that psychopathy is open to subjectivity and furthermore ASPD operates on a spectrum. That someone is advocating denying someone the right to stand for office based on a criteria they clearly don't understand it is significant.
|>>|| No. 83089
>I'm sure you are aware that being out in the public is a position where you can do harm to others
Yes, but then I'm sure you are aware that you're taking the piss, since we're talking specifically about being in a position of power.
>No I did not, calm yourself
Actually, yes, you did. The exact word with which you disagreed were "doesn't make you any less of a person". By disagreeing, you are, in fact, saying that it does make you less of a person.
>10 seconds on google.
No, that report is not evidence of "significant detrimental impact". It even says so right there in the abstract.
|>>|| No. 83168
Vesting power in a small group of people is better is it?
Did you know that the supposed democracy we have in this country is actually a vote to give away democracy for 4 years?
From time to time you get some bullshit referendum like leaving the EU - it was amazing how many people were suddenly experts on the EU and knew exactly what was going to happen. No one fucking knows! Why are we suddenly voting for these extremely complicated and abstract ideas? Because you're not allowed to vote on anything you truly understand or want. Where's the referendum to erase all debt?
The public can vote for reality TV stars on Big Brother, or for performers on Britain's Got Talent - these programmes provide enough illusion of democracy and power to satisfy the public and keep them apathetic.
>"The static results suggest that the statistically significant negative effects of immigration on wages are concentrated among skilled production workers, and semi/unskilled service workers. In the latter cases, the coefficients indicates that a 10 percentage point rise in the proportion of immigrants working in semi/unskilled services — that is, in care homes, bars, shops, restaurants, cleaning, for example — leads to a 1.88 percent reduction in pay."
Does this mean immigration is bad, or the people who employ and take advantage of immigrants are bad?
>No they differ diagnostically for reasons I have outlined that psychopathy is open to subjectivity and furthermore ASPD operates on a spectrum. That someone is advocating denying someone the right to stand for office based on a criteria they clearly don't understand it is significant.
You can label the condition what you want, it's the behaviour that matters. The brain can suffer problems just like any other organ, that doesn't mean they are a bad person or incurable, but if there is a problem I want to know about it. If someone running for prime minister had cancer, I would want to know that too.
All I know about Theresa May is that she's an apparent devout Christian married to a banker, and the worst thing she's ever done is run through a wheat field despite selling a load of killing machines to a country like Saudi Arabia that likes killing things. Can the public section Mrs May?
|>>|| No. 83169
>Does this mean immigration is bad, or the people who employ and take advantage of immigrants are bad?
It means >>83088 apparently can't do maths.
|>>|| No. 83173
>Actually, yes, you did. The exact word with which you disagreed were "doesn't make you any less of a person". By disagreeing, you are, in fact, saying that it does make you less of a person.
Is there really any point in talking to you when your position is automatically "anyone or anything that disagrees with me is racist" including widely recognised concepts like borders and nationality?
I mean I did just assume we were wasting our time here but here we go and the thread is back up.
>No, that report is not evidence of "significant detrimental impact". It even says so right there in the abstract.
Read the quote then do a Ctrl+f and understand the context. Abstract browsers are on par with people who try and bullshit you on what footnotes say.
>Vesting power in a small group of people is better is it?
I wouldn't call the checks and balances we have in modern society small. Certainly it could be bigger in some areas but if cabinet tried to pass some nonsense today you can imagine the uphill battle they would face against backbenchers, the media, potential protests, facebook memes etc.
The rest just seems like some mental rant about people being thick or whatever which while I agree with I'm not entirely sure if it is relevant or that you understand what checks and balances mean.
>Does this mean immigration is bad, or the people who employ and take advantage of immigrants are bad?
It means workers in certain industries have a valid argument that immigration is in fact bad for their socioeconomic conditions.
>You can label the condition what you want, it's the behaviour that matters. The brain can suffer problems just like any other organ, that doesn't mean they are a bad person or incurable, but if there is a problem I want to know about it. If someone running for prime minister had cancer, I would want to know that too.
You see you start off well enough that yes, we must judge people for who they are not who they were born but then you start talking about how we should publish MPs medical records because they might be hiding cancer...
|>>|| No. 83174
>Is there really any point in talking to you when your position is automatically "anyone or anything that disagrees with me is racist" including widely recognised concepts like borders and nationality?
Put that straw man away, lad. My position is "anyone or anything that disagrees with me does not agree with me".
>Read the quote then do a Ctrl+f and understand the context
It's your argument. Chapter and verse to support your claim that the report claims "substantial detrimental impact". I suspect you can't provide one because either the report doesn't say what you think it says or you just can't add up.
|>>|| No. 83209
>I wouldn't call the checks and balances we have in modern society small. Certainly it could be bigger in some areas but if cabinet tried to pass some nonsense today you can imagine the uphill battle they would face against backbenchers, the media, potential protests, facebook memes etc.
They pass nonsense all the time, with the help of the media of course. Protests and facebook memes are laughable and change nothing.
>The rest just seems like some mental rant about people being thick or whatever which while I agree with I'm not entirely sure if it is relevant or that you understand what checks and balances mean.
It's not just that people have been conditioned to be thick, people have also been conditioned (by the media they consume) to think they know what's going on and what the correct decision is to be made on things like "Brexit".
>You see you start off well enough that yes, we must judge people for who they are not who they were born but then you start talking about how we should publish MPs medical records because they might be hiding cancer...
I'm struggling to see what the issue is with knowing an MP's medical record? I don't give a shit if they had gonorrhoea 20 years ago, but there are certain things which are important to know if they want to be in charge of a country.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]