I'll believe it when I see it.

>>84896
Are Nige's Brexit party were officially recognised by the Electoral Commission.

>>84897
That's not particularly difficult, is it? Don't think you even need a deposit until you start standing, and that listing shows they're not currently doing so.
Ah, £150. Even Jimmy can probably rustle that up.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/107680/intro-registration-rp.pdf
Mildly interesting that two out of his three logos seem to have NI maps on.

>>84900

You inspired me to look through the list of registered political parties these are the two best comedy votes.
http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP843

http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP39

Also which one of you fuckers did this?
http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP504

>>84901 iswydt. Nowt wrong with Militant Elvis.

>>84901
Mirth. Also:

>Putting Mansfield Residents First
>Putting Warsop Residents First

Well which is it?

>>84914
They're the splitters from the 'Massive.

>>84916
It's treason then.

Chuka and a few others are expected to leave Labour today.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/18/chuka-umunna-and-other-mps-set-to-quit-labour-party

>>84921
Is there a single word that embodies both complete hopelessness and thrashing, violent, pitiless rage?

Chuka Umunna, Luciana Berger, Chris Leslie, Angela Smith, Mike Gapes, Gavin Shuker and Ann Coffey have all resigned but have said they aren't forming a new party.

I'm going fucking guffaw with laughter when these wormy, idiotic, fucking cretins are tabled at the next election, blasted into oblivion like a skid-mark getting hit with a stream of piss.

Surely they'll form a new party 'once the public ask them to'?
Drag in a few from other parties - and then get wiped out by the usual FPTP shitshow?
Have they said anything about this brexit thing, or is it all 'nasty Jezza and his lack of love for the jews'?

>>84925
Shut up, you cunt.

>>84926
you seem troubled.

>>84927
Yeah, I am. I'm troubled because the only party advocating real change in how this country operates has just been undermined by seven morons in perfectly safe seats, I'm troubled because that change is needed to stop this country slip-sliding into economic regression and I'm troubled because phrases like "his lack of love for the jews" are about as helpful as a barbed wire jockstrap.

>>84928

Learn context cues, lad

>>84930
No.

What now?

>>84928

Corbyn has fucked it. His approval ratings have been in continual decline since becoming party leader. We have the weakest government in living memory, but they're on target to gain a majority at the next election. Blame the media, blame the splitters, blame the Blairites, but the basic fact is that Corbyn couldn't win a meat raffle.

My local party has lost the vast majority of long-standing members - the people who have been out doorstepping at every election for thirty years, the people who were out leafleting every night for weeks before the referendum, the people who fought to win back our council from the Lib Dems. They've been pushed out by an angry, nasty mob of Momentum supporters who have done the square root of fuck all for the party. I've been hearing the same thing from Labour members across the country - they've slogged their guts out for the party for decades, but now they've been explicitly told that they're not welcome any more. Their long record of hard work counts for nothing, because a bunch of people who joined the party in the last couple of years have decided that they're a melt.

Anti-semitism is just a symptom of a wider problem. The Labour party has been hijacked by an inexperienced and rather unpleasant Facebook mob whose loyalty is to Corbyn rather than the party and who tolerate no dissent. They're actively sabotaging the grassroots infrastructure that Labour has relied upon to fight and win elections, all for some misguided sense of ideological purity. Corbyn is doing precisely nothing to unify the party and retain those experienced campaigners.

The Labour party should be running away with the opinion polls, they should be preparing for government, but they're completely rudderless and staring down the barrel of a humiliation in 2022. Corbyn has had three years to show some progress, but he is only moving backwards. Currently, the SNP are doing more to oppose the government than the official opposition; that's an untenable state of affairs. I don't endorse the split, but Labour desperately needs competent leadership and the country desperately needs a competent opposition.

>>84922
Languor? Ennui? Melancholy?

All I know is that all the Telegraph members who joined the Labour party to vote Corbyn into power must be absolutely pissing themselves right now. It's all they could of ever dreamed of and more.

>>84932
There are no sufficiently competent MPs.
Corbyn may be utterly incompetent, but at least he doesn't think a good dose of 90s LARPing is all Labour needs to get back on top. For all his massive flaws, Corbyn has broken the party from the recent past. You can be snide if you want and go "oh, the past where they won elections???" but it's worth remembering after the 2015 election there was serious discussion of the terminal decline of the Labour party after losing Scotland to the SNP and UKIP's performance in so much of their heartlands. That discussion has now ended. I could give my whole manifesto on how Labour needs actual new thinking rooted in actual social democratic thought (read: too left wing for Blairites, inherently distrusted by Corbynites.) but honestly I don't see the point. Even if I was given single-handed control of party policy, I severely doubt any of the sitting MPs could be assembled into a functional front-bench. Definitely, there's not a leader amongst them. Christ, I couldn't find one in all of parliament - probably not in all of the party - or indeed the country.

Forget the losers who ran off to make their own clubhouse with d-ream being racist on television for some reason, forget the Blairites who stayed, forget our gutter press, the problem is the country. This country is sick to the core and beyond salvation. No other country is both so arrogant and yet so utterly gutless, cowardly and craven. No other European nation has screwed up their postcolonial transition as badly as we have. No other country on earth is so singlehandedly capable of producing so many utterly unsympathetic and often utterly uninteresting people and elevating them to positions of power and prominence. Everything else is symptomatic of the fact that at the end of the day we're a global disgrace.
Sometimes when I go to bed at night, I think that if I were a young man I would emigrate. But when I wake up in the morning, I ask myself whether there is any place else I would prefer to go.

>>84934

I think you're confusing politics with the symptoms of clinical depression.

>>84934
Christ. I attempted suicide recently but thank God I'm not you.

>>84935
>>84936
You'd be surprised to learn I'm pretty cheerful and optimistic. I just have no time for incompetence, especially not incompetence with a pretence to maturity and reasonableness. The country's never going to improve if we sit around and pretend everything is actually going as well as it could be and just one change of party leader or one more coalition balanced out by the Lib-Dems will be enough to offset the accrued mistakes of the past 75 years.
Perhaps it's because I am a comparatively young man. There's no reason to let the tragicomic failure of one country get you down. Perhaps I'm wrong, and actually there's some hidden optimistic future, maybe from some startup executives who were drawn in to politics at the next election by the fresh old ideas of The Independent Group. (no not the newspaper.) You'll forgive me if I keep checking up on visa requirements though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v14Y0Cvf10U

>>84937

Mate, some of us remember Kinnock.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V58dOl84MaI

>>84937
Honestly you just sound like a vile knobhead.

>>84932
The infighting, propagated by the likes of the seven who've done one today is one of the big reasons for Labour's struggling in the polls. They've been lighting fires since Corbyn became leader and chastising him for not putting them out fast enough. I don't think Corbyn is some manner of Wunderkind, infalable and indefatigable in equal measure, but what these, frankly, bastards have done today is unforgivably selfish, stupid and short-sighted. The fact that these leaderless, mealy-mouthed, scoundrals think anyone would vote for them on their own non-existent merits is laughable, and that's exactly what I'll do when they lose their seats. Sadly, their vote splitting ways will quite possibly leave their seats open to Tories, which is a betrayal I can't begin to rationalise.

I'm sorry people are mean to them on Twitter, and any kind of Jew-hating nonsense is vile and it repulses me in the strongest terms possible, but unless they expect Jack Dorsey to give Corbyn and McDonnell admin priviledges there is a limit to what can be done.

I know this might be hard to believe after everything I've just written, but I don't like hating politicians. There are those I do hate, but for fine and specific reasons. However, I cringe when people call even the likes of Theresa May a "bitch" or slag off her jewelry or what have you, but I'm genuinelly fuming at these actions today. That's one, if not the sole, reason why it took me six hours to type something not totally unreadable in reply to your post.

>>84938
>“It’s going to be so divided … The Conservatives are going to win”

Sage words from the sweary man on the BBC.

And what kind of a fucking name is "Gapes" anyway!?

So what will the Lib Dems be called next?

>>84944

I dunno, Jewish liberation front?

>>84945
How about the Liberation front of Jews.

>>84940
Some of us realise history extends beyond 1979-1997

>>84941
The truth is vile. Name a potential Labour PM in parliament, give me a laugh.

First day, first gaffe.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMqJOJ0ejqk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbEg6YmTRBs

>>84948
How has she managed to post an actually square video?

>>84948
Jesus Christ we need younger people in politics.

Do Berger's tits sag all the way down past her elbows?

>>84947
>Name a potential Labour PM in parliament, give me a laugh

Not him but I think there is a consensus here that we'd vote for Liz Kendall. She seems fun.

We just talk about the same things over and over again with opinions never changing don't we? Hardcore labour-lad would defend Corbyn if he cut in a queue and otherlad talks about how his local labour party (proper door-knockers!) is dead now.

>>84951

She's heavily pregnant, you meff.

>>84954
Baby belly is where her hands should be.

>>84953
In a heartbeat - if she joins this lot I might actually put leaflets through doors for them.

>>84948
>>84949
She is literally stuck in the year 1997. Also I'm really starting to fancy "I'm literally a Communist".

>>84956
Isn't that supposed to end with "IYKWIM"?

>>84952
I had to do some googling to find who that was. She reminded me of Claire Forlani from Mallrats.

>>84958

I'd eat her chocolate covered pretzel IYKWIM

help me please im just so fucking tired

Is there anything to this or is it just shenanigans, or a non-issue? Is Panama just where websites are or something? It's doing the rounds on Twitter, but if it's not doctored photos or made up quotes I can't prove it one way or another.

>>84958
She's not even the most searched Angela Smith in Westminster, which could be why she erred racist on her first day on the frontlines?

>>84959
Mirth. .gs needs a chill-out room.

>>84960

Isn't the point that Panama is where everyone hides all their money these days ever since the Swiss were forced into playing ball with the international authorities?

>>84961

That doesn't particularly have any relevance to where someone's domain registrar is located. If I'm reading this correctly, they've used a service called WhoIsGuard to hide the name and address of the person who registered it (common and not odd, I do the same) and people are freaking out about that? It's essentially the equivalent of going ex-directory.

It's possible I've misunderstood though.

>>84960
It's completely normal - it's just a domain name privacy service, tons of them exist.

>>84962

As far as I can tell that's not the registrar country, it's the country of who registered the domain. The registrar is namecheap.com which is hosted at:

network:Street-Address:55, Marieta "34 Peachtree ST, Suite 400
network:City:Atlanta
network:State:GA
network:Postal-Code:30303/3030
network:Country-Code:US

Which is not Panama at all.

>>84960
Nice "9/11 truther"-tier screenshot, mate.

>>84964
My Namecheap domains are listed in Panama as well, despite them having my very British home address. Give up the PI lark.

>>84964

Fair, but then it's WhoIsGuard's location, no?

http://www.whoisguard.com/contact-us.asp

>>84953
A derisory option in a world where Julia Gillard exists tbh.

[spoiler]yeah. Nobody in politics has *good* fresh ideas, why should we be held to higher standards?[spoiler]

>>84960

It's a total non-issue.

The Independent Group bought a domain name from NameCheap, a US-based domain registrar. The ICANN rules governing domain names require that contact details for the domain name owner are published through the WHOIS system. NameCheap provide a free privacy service to all their customers; the registrant can be contacted via the privacy service, but their personal details are not made public. This is offered by the vast majority of domain registrars either by default or as an option, because it reduces the risk of spam and identity theft.

NameCheap (and many other registrars) use a registered office in Panama to provide this service, primarily because Panama has very strict privacy laws. Tax dodgers like Panama for the same reason, but it's obviously a sensible idea to base a privacy service in a country that respects privacy. Panamanian privacy laws have protected a great number of website owners against spurious libel lawsuits or attempts by governments to shut them down.

Personal data is currently unavailable through WHOIS due to an ongoing legal dispute between ICANN and the German data protection regulator, hence the "REDACTED FOR PRIVACY" entries; in normal circumstances, you'd see the contact details for the domain privacy service.

> Give up the PI lark.
Mirth.

>>84969
> NameCheap (and many other registrars) use a registered office in Panama to provide this service, primarily because Panama has very strict privacy laws.

That makes a lot of sense. It's slightly odd that everything except PA/Panama has been redacted (even in domaincheap's whois record)

>>84967

Makes sense. There are two whois records for the IP that domaincheap's website is registered at, the other one being in Los Angeles:

OrgName: Namecheap, Inc.
OrgId: NAMEC-4
Address: 11400 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 200
City: Los Angeles
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 90064
Country: US
RegDate: 2011-01-28
Updated: 2017-01-28
Ref: https://rdap.arin.net/registry/entity/NAMEC-4


Either way, >>84969 has called it right. Using a registered office in Panama for your domain privacy service makes complete sense and makes this a non issue.

I like the "I agree" option being the only option, which I don't think really makes it an option. I could nitpick some of these statements from their site, but I'm very tired so I'm just going to have to disappoint you all.

Here's the link if there are any other verbose pricks around at this hour: https://www.theindependent.group/statement

>>84969
I see, I see. The Twittersphere is implying it's some kind of backdoor for dark money, but that seemed a like a leap in my opinion. And I "hate" these sods so, yeah, just Twitter fluff.

>>84965
Oh, it's not mine, so... shut up, idiot-face.

>>84942
>these leaderless, mealy-mouthed, scoundrals
Wait, do you mean the splitters or the Labour front bench?

>>84960
>Is there anything to this or is it just shenanigans, or a non-issue?

It's the typical thing of people not understanding what they're on about, deciding it's sinister and jumping to conclusions.

Similar things happened with fracking. There's plenty of valid reasons to oppose it, but the simpletons went heavy on talking about the chemicals used in the process. It's the same chemicals used to clean car engines!

>>84971
It's good to see that the writer of the EdStone is still finding work.

They're already more popular than the Lib Dems.

>>84977
Not exacatly the highest bar in the world. That said, UKIP can't even manage that. Given it's been a few weeks, aren't they overdue a new leader already?

>>84977

Not surprising that the brand new party currently making headline news is gaining popularity. I'd be more interested to see where they stand in a couple of months.

Not saying I'm predicting they'll be up or down - just that this is far too early be finding anything usefully interesting in an opinion poll.

Do these prats honestly think any Tories are going to join them? And when Umunna tells people "time we dumped this country’s old-fashioned politics” does he realise that's what the election of Corbyn the Labour leadership, and the affimitive vote on leaving the EU were? Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it isn't happening, it's just that this lot are "old fashioned".

>>84975
Gosh, that was awfully clever. No you, lad. No you.

>>84979
>Not saying I'm predicting they'll be up or down - just that this is far too early be finding anything usefully interesting in an opinion poll.

It's just an excuse to take the piss out of the Lib Dems. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

>>84980
>does he realise that's what the election of Corbyn the Labour leadership, and the affimitive vote on leaving the EU were?
I think he realises that both of those things have been utter shitshows. (Cries of "sabotaged by the Establishment!" in 5, 4, ...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCLs47jjUcY
This mostly seems like sensible statements of a reasonable man trying to keep Labour remotely together and electable


But I'm a bit out of the loop- what's with the anti-Semitic references?

>>84984
Did Tom Watson always look like that? He's transformed into a hybrid between Colin Firth and Jim Broadbent.

>>84985
He was quite tubby and developed diabetes, so he lost a shit load of weight in a very short amount of time and reversed the diabetes.

>>84982
>(Cries of "sabotaged by the Establishment!" in 5, 4, ...)

Oh, clear off. I've never done that once, but if you don't think having a sizable number of the PLP shitting all over the leadership hasn't hurt Labour's polling numbers you're thicker than two short planks. Corbyn has been undermined constantly and repeatedly from "centrists" who are either so old they're still scared of Militant or so stupid they think Blair was electoral gold dust who won his elections through political brilliance alone.

The economy needs to change, in the long term it is seizing up and slowing down, people don't want to run the country that way anymore because they can see it in the their day-to-day lives. That is why Corbyn's leadership and Brexit have taken place, and covering your ears and trying wish yourself back to the early-noughties won't help anyone, not even yourself or the seven silly sods who achieved nothing but helping the Conservatives yesterday.

Being called a "Trot" or some other such ancient, out-of-touch, nonsense aspersion in 5, 4, 3, 2, NEVER because you've been schooled and nay-nayed so many times you're just going to go back to nodding at Twitter posts and Times Thonk Pieces so you don't have to consider that the world is different now from how it was twenty-five years ago. Yes I'm projecting traits you probably don't adhere to, but I'm having fun, so, there. And you started it!

We need to break away from the old politics which are unfit for the 21st century by adopting the shiny new politics of the latter half of the 1990s. In your heart you know things can only get better

>>84977
Pretty depressing compared to the SDP really.

Luciana Berger is very attractive. I'd definitely follow her lead.

>>84989
She looks like the Jewish version of Jayda from Britain First.

>>84987
You're right. Dear Leader's poll numbers are poor because of the evil centrist bastards shitting all over him. That's definitely what it is.

>>84991
Nice one, you dodged that critical thinking like the pro you are. Hey, how short does a statement need to be before you can't abridge it into something it didn't say? "Dear Leader", deary fucking me, you pointless, nothing, of a person.

>>84992
You sound upset. No need to have a teary, m9.

>abridge it into something it didn't say
If you say so, Donald.

>>84992
>Hey, how short does a statement need to be before you can't abridge it into something it didn't say?

*ahem*

>if you don't think having a sizable number of the PLP shitting all over the leadership hasn't hurt Labour's polling numbers you're thicker than two short planks. Corbyn has been undermined constantly and repeatedly from "centrists"

>>84994
>>84993
Do you not think that's had a effect? Or does only stuff you pick and choose matter? Is everything else just ephemeral and unimportant, because reality doesn't work that way.

I'd like to reintroduce the idea that the entirety of British politics is unfit for purpose to the discussion.
Because it is, you know. Completely, Completely unfit for purpose. (Yes, that includes you Scotland.)

>>84995

This is the equivalent of the socialism never had a fair chance argument, so we don't know what it really is like.

If something is truly going to work in politics it does it regardless of the best efforts of naysayers. No one complains that Blair didn't get a fair chance despite large parts of the party hating him. The issue isn't that people shouldn't be critical of dear leader and should give him a fair chance the issue is he hasn't persuaded them to.

>>84996
I was wondering if the fistfuckfest that brexit is proving would shake some life into uk politics, but no, it seems that everyone's reasonably happy with the status quo. It's odd.

Third way Neoliberalism I can stomach, but I can't abide Blairism. The Blair government was the least interesting, least radical, least long-term positive centre-left tribute act in the history of the Commonwealth and I can prove it mathematically.
(centrist dad, centrist dad, these things aren't just black and white lad...)

>>84997
No, no it isn't the equivalent of that at all. But again, wonderful job just diverting towards something I never said here or anywhere else to make your job much easier.

What I'm saying, in no uncertain terms, is that some Labour MPs are ideologically opposed to Jeremy Corbyn and that they've frequently fostered attempts to weaken or unseat him for ideological reasons. From the post-Brexit referendum leadership battle to yesterday's split, there have been numerous deliberate measures to seriously undermine him. In turn, this has had a negative effect on polling numbers as it has lead to a Labour Party in a near constant state of civil war. The agressors in these bouts of insurrection have overwhelmingly been the Centrist, Blairite, whatever you want to call them, Labour MPs, like the ones who left on Monday. They left, they called for leadership election to be rerun and I hold them responsible for much of Labour's struggling in the polls. The constant fear of a "hard left" takeover never materialised, no one was deslected, and it was only in recent weeks or the last couple of months, after years of intransigence and outright hostility towards the leadership, that these MPs began to lose no confidence votes of their own. Votes which they dismissed on the basis of not liking the results.

Despite your inane and constant "Dear Leader" jibes, Corbyn is not a sacred cow, he isn't beyond reproach and he isn't my third nan. However, I maintain that he is the best potential PM for this country given the long term economic change his government could lead to, and some whinging MPs who haven't realised what a shithole of a website Twitter is, and are frightened of being booted out by their frustrated local members shouldn't be undermining that.

>>85000
>some Labour MPs are ideologically opposed to Jeremy Corbyn and that they've frequently fostered attempts to weaken or unseat him for ideological reasons.
This is called "being party leader". It comes with the territory. An effective leader rises above this and inspires the loyalists to stay onside.

Another one bites the dust.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47300832

>>85002
I think they have some Momentum now...

>>85002
That's Angela Smith, you moron, pay attention.

>>85001
Yeah, and if I fill your shoes with bits of glass and douse your socks with vinegar you could still play 90 minutes of football, but I don't see you scoring any goals or marking anyone out of the game. It's called being hobbled, and as I stated earlier there are serious ideological divides that are insurmountable for certain, former and current, PLP members to overcome. That's their damned problem and if they had decency or sense they wouldn't have stood again in 2017 on a Corbyn/McDonnell manifesto. It goes far deeper than Brexit and it's about the very basis of what the Labour Party is and they, the Blairtristinas oh... I'm giving people silly names too now! Whatcha' gonna' do?!, are the ones who are against Labour, not the post-2015 members, not the leadership and not me, they are.

I wish there had been a purge. There, I said it. The biggest mistake Corbyn has made is thinking these wormy creeps had any kind of backbone or desire for plurality. They're the ones who've been dictating and demanding, but apparently it only counts as a bad thing if you're left-wing. And if you're one of the Indefinable Eight then kicking yourself out of the party if more democratic than letting your local members do it, because... erm... oh, I actually have literally no idea how any of this is justifiable or appropriate.

I'm occasionally sympathetic to a Labour purge not for ideologically left-wing reasons, but because i'm genuinely convinced it's the only hope of getting some new blood and talent into the party and indeed into our party system. Roll the dice again and see where they fall.
>>85004
The ironic thing is that by going full-on into a purge Corbyn would've shown leadership, but that would be a hell of a monkey's paw to pull on the kind of people who can rationalise calling him dear leader while decrying his failure to impose his will on the party one way or another.

>What I'm saying, in no uncertain terms, is that some Labour MPs are ideologically opposed to Jeremy Corbyn and that they've frequently fostered attempts to weaken or unseat him for ideological reasons. From the post-Brexit referendum leadership battle to yesterday's split, there have been numerous deliberate measures to seriously undermine him.

Well they have left the party now, you must be as happy as a pig in shit.

>>85007
"Centerists"
fuck sakes dad go to bed

>>85005
>I'm genuinely convinced it's the only hope of getting some new blood and talent into the party and indeed into our party system.

Shame you're just getting crusty cunts like Derek Hatton instead.

>>85007>>85009
Are you capable of writing more than a single line shitpost about this? You're impossibly boring.

>>85010
He says whilst writing a short dull reply. Talk about hoisting yourself by your own petard, you retard.

Three Tory MPs have resigned from party over its "shift to the right".

Anna Soubry, Sarah Wollaston and Heidi Allen wrote a joint letter to Theresa May to confirm their departure

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47306022

>>85012
Career suicide for Soubry. She's loathed in her constituency for being a remoaner as well as being totally out of touch with those she represents. Next time she's up for election she's out.

>>85013
Won't most of them get wiped out at an election anyway? They come across as self-serving careerists.

Has Umunna had a stroke? Every image of him I've seen in the last few days has made him look half-cut.

>>85014
>self-serving careerists

Thank God they have something to distinguish them from the rest of parliament!

>>85016
Yes, but they could at least have kept up the pretence that they're not.

>>85018
>it's being in the middle that wins you elections because that's where most people are, and that's okay.
this is bollocks though. there's a reason the liberals haven't been a serious contender since before the second world war.
Labour weren't in the middle in 1974, Thatcher was basically never in the middle - nice moderate people always preferred the SDP. Brexit was never the moderate position. You can't reduce politics down to a stupid little axiom that doesn't actually hold. Let alone if we go abroad and look at the radicalism of say New Zealand Labour circa 1984/7.

World history exists beyond 1979-2010. Read a fucking book.

>>85019
Go home m8, you're drunk. And at 4:30 in the afternoon, no less.

>>85014

>Won't most of them get wiped out at an election anyway? They come across as self-serving careerists.

You can't have it both ways m8. Either they've taken a massive gamble on losing their seats in 2022, or they're self-serving careerists. They can't be both.

>>85015

That's the face of a man who sincerely does not give a fuck any more.

Heidi Allen is properly fit though.

>>85021
>Either they've taken a massive gamble on losing their seats in 2022, or they're self-serving careerists. They can't be both.

They're playing the long game. They're waiting until Corbyn is ousted so they can return to the fold. They believe this action has made them look principled.

>>85024

Most of their colleagues have taken the low-risk option - lurk on the back benches, avoid the media and just wait in obscurity for the death of Magic Granddad. If this is a careerist move, then it's an exceedingly stupid one.

>>85021
>They can't be both.
It's quite easy to make them both if they believed they were facing de-selection by their constituencies before the next election. Can't be a careerist without a seat. If you've got a 90% chance of losing your seat as an independent and a 95% chance of being deselected, the careerist move is to become an independent especially if you believe it looks better to jump than to be pushed. I'm not saying this is what they actually are, just that it's a way to meet both criteria.

>>85023
She's the only fitty there.

>>85027
Why is Anna Soubry the only one who looks like she posing for the cover of Deus Ex?

I like her, anyway, I don't really know why, but she seems alright.

>>85028
She's quite expressive. Even if you don't agree with what she's saying she's at least saying it with conviction and belief.

>>85027

Luciana Berger is a buff ting. Heidi looks like she'd be quite dominant and aggressive in bed, but Luciana looks like she'd be a bit giggly and playful.

>>85030
This is an illness, Sir, you're in need of medical intervention!

>>85030
Agreed. Also, most pregnant women are quite hot, in a strange, primeval sort of way.

Ian Austin has quit Labour, but says he isn't planning on joining the Independent Group.

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/politics/2019/02/22/exclusive-ian-austin-mp-latest-to-quit-broken-labour-party/

>>85033
>The hard left is now in charge of the party, they’re going to get rid of lots of decent mainstream MPs and I just can’t see how it can return to the mainstream party that won elections and changed the country for the better.
Our resident Corbophile with his history book probably has something to say about that.

>>85034
What I don't get is why Labour are so keen for quitting MPs to resign and call a by-election. There's a number of seats where a split vote could quite easily let the Tories in.

>>85034
Why do we always defend MPs by saying they're decent anyway? is that really the height of our aspirations, the best we have to say for them? With Corbyn it was almost a running joke - "He's decent and principled but he should fuck right off" - but the decent part seems like the standard political eulogy. I don't know, maybe I just expect something a little more from our representatives. How did parliament (and cabinet, shadow and actual) get so full of nonentities? - say what you want about Tony Blair or Tony Benn, love or hate them, you're going to have more to say about both than "Well he was decent and hardworking."

>>85035
35% because Labour is confident of winning them back regardless, especially if they get TIG now while it has no money, no grassroots and no policies
35% because Labour can always beat the Tories, but killing a party with some ideological crossover is much more difficult under FPTP. Easier to strangle it at birth
30% because it would generally be funny to see them lose their seats almost immediately.
(come now, Dear Leader Dad, say "So much for kinder, gentler politics!")

>>85036

>Why do we always defend MPs by saying they're decent anyway? is that really the height of our aspirations, the best we have to say for them?

That's the state we're in right now - there are a lot of decent politicians, but there are also a lot of demagogues who are genuinely awful people. The bar should be higher, but it isn't, I suspect in large part because of the dominance of the two-party system. It's just too easy to get an absolute shitbag into parliament on a Lab or Con ticket, even if they aren't known or liked in their constituency. The majority of parliamentary seats are safe, which gives the two major parties a dangerous incentive to select yes-men and careerists rather than people who sincerely want to work on behalf of their constituents.

>>85037
Did you hear about how Amber Rudd ended up running in Hastings? "It's not too far from London, and it looked like the Tories were going to win it."

>>85037
>It's just too easy to get an absolute shitbag into parliament on a Lab or Con ticket, even if they aren't known or liked in their constituency.

I think every Labour candidate selected to stand for my local council gets the nod from the trade unions, so cronyism is rife.

>>85038

The ease with which management consultants and investment bankers are parachuted into seats that they have no connection to should be an embarrassment to our democracy.

On the other end of the spectrum, I know a lot of Labour MPs who were effectively selected as a reward for long service. They aren't the best person for the job, they're obviously not capable of functioning as an effective MP, but it's good for grassroots morale. If you slog your guts out for the CLP for the next thirty years, if you sit on the council for long enough without causing trouble, you too might be rewarded with a safe seat, regardless of how dimwitted or generally inept you might be. It's a flat-cap sort of careerism, but it's careerism nonetheless.

>>85039
Look at the Blaenau Gwent by-election. National party wanted to impose an all-woman shortlist, and a senior local politician objected. They chucked him out, he ran against the official candidate and won. None of the shortlisted candidates were stellar, and the one eventually selected was a long-term union official who looked like she was just supposed to get the seat as a reward for her long service.

Does anyone know an MP picked off a restricted shortlist that was actually any good?

Cheeky Nandos with the lads.

>>85042

Under Dear Leader's glorious future regime, this will be the picture I am forced to put through the memory hole and remember it never existed.

>>85042
I don't understand why Soubry has opted for a bowl full of leaves but has chips slathered in ketchup on the side next to it.

>>85044

Salad and chips is a metaphor for soft brexit.

>>85043
Always looking on the bright side, eh dad?

>>85046

It's funny because that actually is the bright side for me, compared with the contempt those cretinous, loathsome traitors to the electorate fill me with.

>>85044

Look at Heidi Allen's choice - no sides, no drink, she's just firing into a big plate of wings. 10/10 cheekiness.

>>85047

>>85048

Hang on, why doesn't Mike Gapes have any food? He doesn't look like the sort of man to skip dinner.

>>85042
I still have no idea what these people stand for, as a group, they don't even appear to agree on wanting to be at a Nandos, assuming that actually is a Nandos.

>>85050
Is it possible he already finished it?

>>85050
Which of the two male nobodies is he again?

>>85051
>I still have no idea what these people stand for, as a group
Have you not been paying attention?

>>85053
It's 1983 all over again. Even the party leaders are of the same persuasion.

>>85045
She's media, she knows the importance of small details.

>>85054
Michael Foot alone was an MP of higher calibre than anyone in the modern parliament. If it's 1983, it's a cheap direct-to-video remake of 1983.
More seriously (wait, I was being serious.) it's a superficial resemblance. 1983 is mythologised and simplified as a failure of policy and leadership on the right, and as the Falklands factor and SDP on the left - and all of those things are true to some degree, but that's only half the story. Absolutely everything that could have gone wrong for Labour in 1983 did. The shadow cabinet made it open and clear going into the campaign they were divided - not by showing, but by outright announcing that this was the case. i.e. with Healey and Foot on Defence. Regardless of left-right position, the 1983 manifesto was badly drafted. I'm sure Labour's policy on the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea was very important, but including it was completely unnecessary. The charts used for press briefings fell to bits in front of the TV cameras in an atmosphere where the press were already hostile. Foot and Healey were overburdened with busywork rather than being free to direct the campaign and go out on television where they'd be of the most use. They campaigned door-to-door and in public meetings during the TV age, and even for a ground campaign they did it wildly inefficiently, riding around the country on a bus losing Labour votes.

I don't say that to defend the current leadership, I say it to emphasise just how comically bad the 1983 campaign was. I have never heard of such a poorly organised, poorly run and outright unlucky electoral campaign in any country in all my life.

>>85056
Hilary Clinton's campaign might well take that mantle after inspection. Certain commentators have posited similarities between Trump's victory and Brexit but they're rather tenuous links under examination. Brexit wasn't wholly unpredictable; the Trump presidency on the other hand is the most remarkable upset I've ever witnessed in politics, it was her election to lose at every phase. It's telling that a week before the election I could've told you Trump's slogan and policies but still had no idea what her's were. I can't even remember her running mate and I remember all others going back to Dukakis. I do seem to recall her waging war on a cartoon frog. Ultimately it's astonishing someone so experienced could've mismanaged the media landscape so poorly.

>>85057
>Ultimately it's astonishing someone so experienced could've mismanaged the media landscape so poorly

It's complacency mixed with arrogance. She assumed it was her turn and all she had to do was show up on Ellen and dab. I imagine her advisers were the type of people who think the majority care about whether the Oscars were 'woke' enough.

There was complacency in the EU Referendum from Cameron and Gideon, who assumed they could just half-arse it. There was complacency in the last general election from May, who thought that she could fill a manifesto with deeply unpopular policies because she was assured a landslide.

>>85057

Wasn't it "I'm with her"? Not as bad as Jeb Bush's "Jeb".

>>85059
>Not as bad as Jeb Bush's "Jeb".
Actually, it was "Jeb!". You can see exactly how he ended up having to say "please clap".

>>85059>>85060
Jeb was undoubtedly my highlight of the last US election.

Former Labour MP Chuka Umunna has been named as the spokesman for the new Independent Group of MPs.

Ex-Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston has been assigned responsibility for "new colleagues". The other roles agreed for its members are:

Heidi Allen: welfare and pensions, social care, and business

Luciana Berger: home affairs, health, and digital and culture

Ann Coffey: children and education

Mike Gapes: foreign affairs and defence

Chris Leslie: Treasury and trade

Joan Ryan: group business manager and international development

Gavin Shuker: group convener

Angela Smith: transport, local government and housing, and energy, environment and rural affairs

Anna Soubry: Brexit and justice (and assisting on defence)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47410564

Is this a tacit admission that Shuker and Wollaston aren't competent to have proper responsibilities? Imagine your prime duty is to reserve a table at Nandos.

>>85066
I'm assuming "new colleagues" is code for poaching.

>>85066
Mike Gapes, notoriously unapologetic about the Iraq War, is foreign affairs? Hilarious. The tiggers are a joke.

>>85066
Considering members have stated they will vote with their former parties on non-Brexit/pogram issues it all seems a bit moot. Angela Smith has been lumped with enough reading to keep her 'funny tinge' ways out of the news and Anna Soubry is obviously the de facto leader (with Mike Gapes managing her diary).

>>85069
What's wrong with being unapologetic over Iraq?

>>85071
Independent of anything else, whether the war was right or wrong, whether being mistaken or mislead in good faith at the time is a good defence when plenty of people weren't, whether Iraq is better or worse off than it would've been in a hypothetical no-war scenario, it's a stupid hill to die on, even stupider than Labour tearing itself up over the Israel-Palestine thing. Why would you kneecap your credibility by being "the guy who thinks the Iraq war was a good idea" when the public overwhelmingly disagree and there's no advantage to be taken from it? If you want to push future humanitarian interventions surely it's a much safer line to take to say "Mistakes were made in Iraq, we learned from those mistakes, they won't be made again." rather than "You know that war that everyone thinks was a disaster? Actually it was good. Now, for my next war I will need an assistant..." I mean it's not exactly the mark of a pragmatist willing to compromise with the electorate rather than talk down to them.

God, I'm probably going to go on an Iraq War archive binge now. The buildup was-and-is absolutely fascinating, especially considering how anticlimactic the actual invasion was. (The occupation being another matter.)

>>85072
>hill to die on
Why is this annoying phrase cropping up everywhere? None of you are even using it properly. Has his political career been destroyed by his unflinching support of the war in Iraq? Is it going to be? No, so it is not a hill he has picked to die on. I didn't even bother reading the rest of your post even though I probably agree with it.

I'm officially filing that under 'things people say on the internet that indicate you may freely disregard whatever they have to say'. Stop parroting these damn cliches.

>>85073
is this really the hill you've picked to die on? you're a bit late, people have been asking why it cropped up since like 2016-7 if not earlier.
>Has his political career been destroyed by his unflinching support of the war in Iraq?
I mean it's probably the number one thing on theyworkforyou that can be used to immediately indicate an MP who's going to have a fun time with a reselection committee sooner or later, so it wouldn't surprise me if it's a major contributor to the end of his political career given he jumped ship into a rather rickety lifeboat.
More seriously: It destroys your credibility as a spokesperson for foreign affairs. If you want another misused metaphor, he's voluntarily wearing an albatross around his neck.

Are you really doing Iraq again? I bet there are poor old chaps in nursing homes having to listen to the mouthier inmates(?) rerun the Suez Crisis again, and I understand their pain.

>>85075
Suez and Skybolt demonstrate why America shouldn't be trusted, change my mind.

>Joan Ryan, who quit Labour last month in protest at the party’s ‘culture of anti-Semitism’, called in police after receiving two separate death threats in the wake of her defection.

>One was an unstamped handwritten note delivered to Ms Ryan’s Commons office on a week ago on Friday which branded her a ‘cock-sucking, Jewish cunt who defected to Israel’ who should be raped and ‘set on fire’.

>The other letter, received at the MP’s constituency office in North London on the day before, said: ‘Stop telling lies about Jeremy Corbyn – he is a decent man, you lying Jew whore. You need to be shoved right back in the ovens.’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6764957/Rebel-Labour-MP-Joan-Ryan-calls-police-receiving-death-threats.html

Corbyn fanatics doing an absolutely fantastic job of proving the claims by MPs that they left Labour because of the party's problem with Jews are completely unfounded.

>>85077

Alternatively: We left the Labour party because our smears weren't sticking enough to bring down the dirty evil commie in charge; but that doesn't mean we have to stop smearing!

>>85078
So its's all fake news then? Magic grandpa and his mates secretly love all Jewish people and haven't created a hostile environment for them?

>>85078

STOP SAYING WE'RE ANTISEMITIC YOU LYING JEW WHORE. ALL THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE JUST A ZIONIST CONSPIRACY. CORBYN WOULD HAVE WON THE ELECTION BY A LANDSLIDE IF IT WASN'T FOR THE DUPLICITOUS JEWS WHO RUN THE MEDIA PLOTTING AGAINST HIM. KEEP YOUR HOOK NOSES OUT OF THE LABOUR PARTY AND STOP GIVING ALL YOUR JEW GOLD TO TIG, OR WE'LL BE FORCED TO FIND A FINAL SOLUTION.

Anyone who denies the issue of anti-Semitism in the Labour party is either a liar or an idiot. It takes all of 30 seconds on Twitter to find Labour party activists repeating slurs straight out of Nazi propaganda.

>>85079
There was an amusing article in The Guardian last year where they compared the utterings of Corbyn supporters with those of Tommy Robinson supporters. Can you guess which are which?

Supporters of A:

>A hero in the lion’s den
>The establishment can’t control him and they can’t unmake him
>A voice for the voiceless
>See us rise MSM – you will not win
>They can’t crush him
>You sound scared. You have for a long time. Change can be daunting for the heavily indoctrinated
>I have his back because he has mine
>Time to stand up to the establishment. Stand up to the media
>We’re coming for it, all of it, and they are powerless against us

Supporters of B:

>You may have tried to silence us, but we will prevail
>They can’t silence all of us
>We’ve got your back
>The establishment is afraid of us
>We shouldn’t be afraid of them – they should fear us
>The government should be scared of us
>I am proud and stand with you

When exactly did everything go full tinfoil? I mean, EVERYTHING.

>>85081
I'm guessing B is Labour. How did I do?
answer in spoilers please

>>85082
A is Dear Leader. B is Are Tommeh.

>>85080>>85081
Pretty much it - Twitter is so bad for this, you can find examples of it in a heartbeat.

I'm expecting them to claim it's all an MI5 false-flag next.

Personally, I think it's more like all the Jews in the labour party are hypocritical zionist Israel supporters, so in that context there's nothing wrong with being hostile to the Jews in the labour party, because all the Jews in the labour party are despicable slimy bastards who are rightly deserving of hostillity.

The tricky part is separation of that from genuine racist style anti-Semitism, because let's be completely fucking honest here, it's not as if people are unwilling to use that sort of label as a beating stick.

>>85085
>all the Jews in the labour party are hypocritical zionist Israel supporters
>genuine racist style anti-Semitism

You just illustrated it perfectly right there - your first sentence is genuine racist style anti-Semitism, but just like many of Corbyns activists, you don't think it is - but it is. When people point it out, you think it's a "smear".

Most people don't speak this way about Jewish people. Most people don't conflate those who practice Judaism in the UK, with the actions of the Israeli government - many fanatical Corbyn supporters do.

>>85085
Are you trolling me? How could someone be this lacking in self-awareness.

Protip: if you find yourself saying "the Jews" thricely in a single sentence, you might have an issue with said peoples.

>>85087

It's astonishing that so many Corbynites manage to be anti-Semitic in the process of explaining why they aren't anti-Semitic.

Jonathan Freedland warned about all of this three years ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/18/labour-antisemitism-jews-jeremy-corbyn

>>85088

That article is mostly reasonable but resorts to whataboutism for a bit. I think what makes it so easy to conflate anti Israel with anti semitism is just how awful Israel actually is...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-gave-birth-control-to-ethiopian-jews-without-their-consent-8468800.html

It is one thing to accuse the Israelies of ethnic cleansing the Palestinians it is easy to muddy the waters with to That being hyperbole of a complicated political situation, but this is a clear cut example of Israel performing ethnic cleansing for no other reason then because they could. And in many ways that is a level of evil that means that the Israel state is capable of anything and could be performing it right now which is easily portrayed as anti-Semitic.

>>85089
Seconded. I don't like this idea that branding Israel as racist is antisemitic. Just last year they passed some new laws on nationality that were quite blatantly aimed at rendering Arabs second-class citizens. If that's not dolphin rape, then what exactly is?

>>85088
>It's astonishing that so many Corbynites manage to be anti-Semitic in the process of explaining why they aren't anti-Semitic.

They remind me of my kids when they're being little ratbags and give a have hearted-apology after they've been told off which largely consists of absolving themselves of all responsibility, it being someone else's fault and their misbehaviour being perfectly justifiable.

>>85081
the general population has always been both tinfoil and mildly antisemitic. i'd wager like 50% of the random people i pass on the street are at least "i have nothing against the jews, but they do stick to their own kind and run the banks and media - everyone knows that!"
and at the risk of sounding anti-Semitic myself despite being a tepid zionist (and i mean those aren't incompatible), i've never been tinfoil about jewish people or their motivations, but i do wonder about non-jews in politics who seem attach themselves to jewish or pro-israel organisations. it seems harder for me to explain than the far-left obsession with palestine. i don't think there's a conspiracy though, seems more like a social thing that people towards the right of the centre left gravitate towards either as an in-group signifier or because all their mates are doing it. probably similar, but less moralistic, to the far-left with palestine.

>>85084
your mistake is taking twitter seriously.
i wouldn't be surprised if the average person hasn't gotten less nuts over time, it's just that the cost of expressing their insanity is now near zero.

>>85092

>but they do stick to their own kind and run the banks and media - everyone knows that!"

I don't think that is wrong entirely certainly it is true of ultra othadox that they stick to their own, and they are the only ones you are going to instantly recognise as 'Jewish' so there is definitely a sampling bias there.

Jewish people are definitely historically disproportionately over represented in banks I can cite a lot of very good historical reasons for that to do with money lending laws. The over representation in media is one I have less of an explaination for other then they are somehow regularly in the position of producers and therefore people butter them up by telling stories they can relate to.

>>85093
>The over representation in media is one I have less of an explaination for
Media is a rich man's game.

>>85094
It really is - same with publishing. A while ago I worked for a famous bookshop and had access to the detailed sales figures - when you see how few sales most authors get, and little money they make per book, there are very few who can make an actual living from it, without relying on some other sources of income.

>>85092
>it's just that the cost of expressing their insanity is now near zero
I actually like your theory very much. Maybe we haven't all become more extreme, it's just that through vehicles such as social media, we're allowing people to express how extreme they were in the first place. It doesn't take into account, perhaps, how those new forms of media are enabling or normalising such extreme views, particularly among young people, but its a good theory nonetheless. About ten years ago, it was not uncommon, but was increasingly impolite to be hostile toward minorities - Brexit, Trump, social media, I don't know what the root cause, but people are quite happy (actually often proud) to be outwardly and overtly racist and intolerant toward others.

What have we become - or maybe we were always that way.

The Qanon book is 105 on Amazon's best seller list. $25 for a paperback. Whoever put that up can't be doing too badly.

109 sorry.

>>85097
Which means they've made about $10k - 15k dollars, maximum. They have sold less than 1000 copies. Trust me, I have detailed knowledge of Amazon's book sales figures, how they price books (in very great detail) and how their bestseller lists work.

You can't churn out a book that gets in the top 100 every year unless you're already famous for something, have access to other media, or a lot of Daddy's money.

You can't live on that.

How much do self publishers get paid? The ones aiming them for Kindle users at 99p.

>>85101
A bit less than 30p per book depending on what currency they paid for it and exchange rates.

>>85079
To be fair, I think some of those crying smear might have a point. We're hearing a lot of noise about dolphin rape in Labour. We're very much not hearing noise about dolphin rape in the Conservatives. Maybe Labour's mistake was to try to do something about it (albeit that they keep fucking it up really badly), rather than the Tory tactic of either denying the problem exists or carrying on unapologetically.

>>85103
>whataboutism

>>85103
Lefties tend to reserve their very worst bile for those who are on the left but just aren't as quite left as they are.

It bubbles over now and then, Brexit being a prime example, but Tories tend to be more pragmatic and prepared to compromise over differences for the sake of party unity and to consolidate power. Labour are prepared to eat themselves alive in full public view.

Picture it, if you will, as the Tory party being a married couple where appearances are kept up and to the outside they're a perfectly happy couple, but behind closed doors she's using make-up to conceal the bruises. The Labour party, on the other hand, are a pair of smackheads screaming and fighting with one another in the middle of the street.

>>85105
It certainly isn't helping that the group the Tories have difficulty with have been painted as an acceptable target for abuse, which makes it easier for them to just ignore the problem entirely.

>>85106
What group do the Tories have difficulty with? Are you referring to eskimos? Because they're probably more maligned by Labour's traditional, white base anyway.

>>85104
whataboutism is perfectly valid when you're questioning the judgement of news editors.
you have limited airtime/column inches, why are they being allocated to the stories they are being allocated to? this applies everywhere.
Sometimes the reasons are quite funny, like when you have pure inertia. On 9/11 the BBC news team kept "Tony Blair gives a pro-Euro speech to the unions" in their news line-up until about an hour before they went to air, because they were briefed that it was the big story for that day until events intervened. It would not be unreasonable, even for the most ardent anti-European, to have asked "What about 9/11?" had they bizarrely stuck to their original plans from that morning.

and now to bizarrely contradict my own example: If multiple news-sources are already covering a story, it's redundant for you to jump on the pile. If everyone else is on dolphin rape in Labour or the 9/11 attacks (in the days after, anyway) and you've got nothing special to add and would otherwise just republish from Reuters, why not bugger off and cover some other story - like dolphin rape in the Tory party, or a good article about how very serious people once believed and argued without a tinge of irony or doubt that Britain should join the Eurozone and so we're going to publish their now-very-embarrassing statements in favour.
where about was my point again?

>>85106
I'd imagine it's because the Tories didn't attempt such a pathetic and very public whitewashing over the entire thing.

I can't remember a single Tory MP on a regular basis claiming that the party has a problem with Muslims whereas a not insignificant number of Labour MPs have stated on numerous occasions the party has a problem with anti-Semitism. Even if you find evidence of Tory members saying negative things online about Muslims it's a drop in the ocean compared to the sheer number of negative things online posted by Labour supporters about Jews.

>>85109
>Even if you find evidence of Tory members saying negative things online about Muslims it's a drop in the ocean compared to the sheer number of negative things online posted by Labour supporters about Jews.
This is baffling nonsense with no academic evidence behind it. Tories don't call each other out on dolphin rape, they certainly don't get MPs crying about Twitter weirdos, but that doesn't mean it's not happening. The reason Labour MPs call out the Labour party is because Labour is the party with the most dissident MPs, both on the right and on the left. It's the party with the least clear overall goal structure.

The best reference point for this is the SNP. The SNP have a single, obvious goal: The creation of an independent Scottish state. All the SNP elected members from councillors up have unshakable discipline because their own special little interests like a left-wing policy here, a right wing one there, Israel, Palestine, Abortion, Bathrooms, whatever. It's all something they can kill one another over once Scotland is independent, but here-and-now, everyone has to stick together to get independence.
The Tories come next because they're basically a party of power with occasional delusions of taking a stand in the interest of the national interest or conservative values. Even where they hate one another, they tend to fall into line unless it's something massive like Brexit. They are ideally suited to being the party of passively managing the status quo.
Labour on the other hand has a lot of conflicting visions. Without making a "Blairites = Tories" comparison - if your overarching aim for the Labour party is to make it into the natural party of government, you've got very little cross-over with someone who thinks the primary aim of the Labour party should be to radically restructure the economy such that even when the Conservatives get back into power they'll have to operate within the parameters set by the preceding Labour government. The goals are not compatible, nor can they be postponed until after some major event as it can with the Scots, and so the only option left is to fight to the death, loudly and in public until one of you wins out and gets to sit in the big seat when the Tories have General Strike'd, Mass Unemployment'd, Profumo'd, Who-governs-Britain'd, and Black Wednesday'd themselves out of office.

>>85108

It has effectively become two stories - one story about anti-Semitism, and another story about the failure of the Labour leadership to deal with the controversy.

There are undoubtedly loads of Islamophobes in the Tory party, but the Tory party is sensible enough to immediately suspend anyone accused of Islamophobia and expel them from the party if there's a whiff of credibility to the allegations. UKIP was obviously blighted with incidents of dolphin rape, but they dealt with each incident swiftly and decisively.

There may well be an abundance of Islamophobia in the Tory party, but most of the Islamophobes know better than to be blatantly Islamophobic in public. That's less than ideal, but it's the best you can do in the real world - you can't brainwash people, but you can make them aware of the fact that the airing of discriminatory views will not be tolerated. If Labour conclusively proved that there was no more anti-Semitism in the party than anywhere else, that wouldn't change things much; the story is now about the leadership's failure to deal with anti-Semitism. The longer that story goes on, the more apparent it becomes that the Labour leadership are either grossly incompetent, tolerant of anti-Semitism or both.

>>85108
I think you're missing the point entirely. If you're party has such a rampant problem with anti-semitism then it needs fixing rather than simply pointing the finger at the Tories or pretending the evil media is out to get you.

The very act of trying to shift blame just shows the evolution of Labour into the new nasty party that feels it acceptable to intimidate Jews.

>A man has been arrested after Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was hit by an egg during a trip to a mosque, Sky News understands.

>Mr Corbyn had been visiting the Finsbury Park Mosque and Muslim Welfare House in north London when the incident happened this afternoon. One man, thought to be a pro-Brexit campaigner, has been arrested.

>Sky News' chief political correspondent Jon Craig reports that Mr Corbyn was unhurt by the egg, which was pressed down on his head rather than thrown.

https://news.sky.com/story/jeremy-corbyn-hit-by-egg-during-visit-in-north-london-11654410

I can't believe someone smooshed an egg of Corbyn's head and there's no footage of it.

>>85112
I think you may be missing the point. This isn't Corbyn's crew going around dissing the Jews now he's in charge. They're people who would be referred to euphemistically as "unreformed". They've always been there, and they've always spewed hatred. Antisemitism in the Labour party is not a new phenomenon. The common tropes place Jews in positions antithetical to leftist thought, such as finance and business.

It's possible that this a #MeToo moment where it's reached the point where enough is enough. But it's also possible that a hostile media is using it as a convenient stick with which to beat the party. That they're making an utter hash of it certainly isn't helping.

>>85114
>This isn't Corbyn's crew going around dissing the Jews now he's in charge. They're people who would be referred to euphemistically as "unreformed". They've always been there, and they've always spewed hatred. Antisemitism in the Labour party is not a new phenomenon.

Has the number of people with such views within the party increased since Corbyn became leader?

Have the people with such views become emboldened since Corbyn became leader?

Have the people with such views felt that what they spout is tacitly supported by the leadership?

>>85115
All interesting questions. Feel free to report back the findings of your rigorous studies into the matter.

>>85112

It doesn't have a problem with antisemitism. It's exactly as antisemitic as every other party- Which is to say, it's not, but if you go looking hard enough you'll find examples within the membership. The same way you'll find examples of any kind of discrimination within any organisation.

What is unique is how there are a select group of people, who happen to be Jewish, who support the cause of Israel and generally speaking right-wing neo-conservative international policy, who oppose Corbyn and the fact he supports Palestine. These people deliberately and intentionally conflate this with antisemitism.

Now, I'm not saying it's because those people happen to be Jewish, but it would certainly be easy for less educated people than ourselves to put those two things together.

>>85117
>if you go looking hard enough you'll find examples within the membership

That's exactly why the Tories and other parties have had MPs leave due to anti-semitic abuse.

>>85118

How often do you think members of UKIP turn each other in for dolphin rape?

>>85117

Your comment is implicitly anti-Semitic. If you do not understand why it is anti-Semitic, please refer to the IHRA working definition of anti-Semitism. You are the problem in the Labour party.

https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism

>>85119
A Jewish MP has left Labour due to anti-semitic abuse. Read that again and let it sink in.

>>85120
n1 m8 he wont no wot it im

>>85121

Lots of minorities in UKIP are there?

>>85119
How often do you think UKIP publicly threaten one-another with a 'final solution'?

>>85124
They mainly go after other people rather than each other.

https://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/15327256.ukip-candidate-defends-77-tweet-tirade-in-the-midst-of-london-attack/

My local People's Assembly posted this cartoon.

>>85126
How bad actually is the Windrush scandal? I only seem to read about it in the Grauniad and, even then, at least half of the people deported seem to be drug dealers, sex offenders and murderers so I wasn't sure if they were simply overblowing it for political capital like they did with Grenfell.

>>85127
Sounds like the kind of inept bureaucratic fuckup that the Home Office specialises in. Unfortunately it fell under May's watch. Even I don't think there was anything malign to it, that amount of apologetic backpedaling only occurs when someone's cocked up royal.

>>85120

There are at least 3 of those that don't belong and are there for political gain.

>Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

I am by no means saying all Jewish people are, but some (ie. various friends of israel groups) are.

>Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Those arent the same thing and an atempt to create guilt by association, I don't deny the Jewish people their right to self-determination, but the state of Israel is largely a racist endeavor. speaking of which...

>Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

The state of Israel was caught out practicing ethinic cleansing 6 years ago If they don't like that comparison being drawn they should stop acting like Nazis.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-gave-birth-control-to-ethiopian-jews-without-their-consent-8468800.html

>>85127
There's no issue with deporting foreign criminals. The issue is that the Windrushers aren't foreign, and under international law the government has no power to remove its own citizens.

Unverified, but anyone saying the Tories aren't just as bad is being intellectually dishonest if this holds up:

https://evolvepolitics.com/excl-tory-politicians-are-running-a-vile-facebook-group-where-members-joke-about-bombing-mosques-and-shooting-immigrants/

>>85130
>The issue is that the Windrushers aren't foreign, and under international law the government has no power to remove its own citizens.

Yes, but what is the actual scale of Windrush?

>>85132
Tens actually deported that we know of, but many, many more affected in other ways, such as being unable to access services as a consequence of having no proof of their British citizenship, e.g. unable to claim pensions, issues establishing a right to work, etc.

>>85133
Why has this started happening? Is it because there's no hard evidence of when they came to the country or they've never claimed citizenship? How come this doesn't appear to have affected other groups, such as Asians expelled from Uganda or forced out of Kenya?

>>85134
>Is it because there's no hard evidence of when they came to the country
This, which is in turn because said evidence was knowingly destroyed by the Home Office, also on May's watch.

>or they've never claimed citizenship?
They didn't need to "claim" citizenship. It is theirs by right.

>How come this doesn't appear to have affected other groups, What makes you think that?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/03/windrush-britain-immigration-scandal-hostile-environment