[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
politics

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

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 84895)
Message
File  []
close
_102444527_hi036065413.jpg
848958489584895
>> No. 84895 Anonymous
9th February 2019
Saturday 8:13 am
84895 spacer
Jimmy Saville: My new Brexit party stands ready to defend democracy

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/08/new-brexit-party-stands-ready-defend-democracy/

'Thousands of Tory party members' to defect to Jimmy Saville's Brexit Party as it gets official approval

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/08/thousands-tory-party-members-defect-Jimmy-Savilles-brexit-party/

Rebel Labour MPs set to quit party and form centre group

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/02/rebel-labour-mps-set-to-quit-party-and-form-centre-group
Expand all images.
>> No. 84896 Anonymous
9th February 2019
Saturday 9:52 am
84896 spacer
I'll believe it when I see it.
>> No. 84897 Anonymous
9th February 2019
Saturday 10:15 am
84897 spacer
>>84896
Are Nige's Brexit party were officially recognised by the Electoral Commission.
>> No. 84900 Anonymous
9th February 2019
Saturday 11:35 am
84900 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 84901 Anonymous
9th February 2019
Saturday 12:13 pm
84901 spacer
>>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
>> No. 84902 Anonymous
9th February 2019
Saturday 12:57 pm
84902 spacer
>>84901 iswydt. Nowt wrong with Militant Elvis.
>> No. 84914 Anonymous
9th February 2019
Saturday 6:05 pm
84914 spacer
>>84901
Mirth. Also:

>Putting Mansfield Residents First
>Putting Warsop Residents First

Well which is it?
>> No. 84916 Anonymous
9th February 2019
Saturday 6:40 pm
84916 spacer
>>84914
They're the splitters from the 'Massive.
>> No. 84918 Anonymous
10th February 2019
Sunday 3:12 pm
84918 spacer
>>84916
It's treason then.
>> No. 84921 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 9:13 am
84921 spacer
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
>> No. 84922 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 10:44 am
84922 spacer
>>84921
Is there a single word that embodies both complete hopelessness and thrashing, violent, pitiless rage?
>> No. 84923 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 10:56 am
84923 spacer
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.
>> No. 84924 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 11:15 am
84924 spacer
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.
>> No. 84925 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 11:28 am
84925 spacer
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'?
>> No. 84926 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 11:30 am
84926 spacer
>>84925
Shut up, you cunt.
>> No. 84927 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 11:34 am
84927 spacer
>>84926
you seem troubled.
>> No. 84928 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 11:48 am
84928 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 84930 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 11:55 am
84930 spacer
>>84928

Learn context cues, lad
>> No. 84931 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 12:15 pm
84931 spacer
>>84930
No.

What now?
>> No. 84932 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 12:19 pm
84932 spacer

Voting intention 3-4 Feb 2019-02.png
849328493284932
>>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.
>> No. 84933 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 12:35 pm
84933 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 84934 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 2:30 pm
84934 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 84935 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 2:34 pm
84935 spacer
>>84934

I think you're confusing politics with the symptoms of clinical depression.
>> No. 84936 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 3:54 pm
84936 spacer
>>84934
Christ. I attempted suicide recently but thank God I'm not you.
>> No. 84937 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 4:21 pm
84937 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 84938 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 4:21 pm
84938 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v14Y0Cvf10U
>> No. 84940 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 5:29 pm
84940 spacer
>>84937

Mate, some of us remember Kinnock.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V58dOl84MaI
>> No. 84941 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 5:35 pm
84941 spacer
>>84937
Honestly you just sound like a vile knobhead.
>> No. 84942 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 6:04 pm
84942 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 84943 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 6:21 pm
84943 spacer
And what kind of a fucking name is "Gapes" anyway!?
>> No. 84944 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 6:36 pm
84944 spacer
So what will the Lib Dems be called next?
>> No. 84945 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 7:03 pm
84945 spacer
>>84944

I dunno, Jewish liberation front?
>> No. 84946 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 7:28 pm
84946 spacer
>>84945
How about the Liberation front of Jews.
>> No. 84947 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 8:12 pm
84947 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 84948 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 8:43 pm
84948 spacer
First day, first gaffe.


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


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbEg6YmTRBs
>> No. 84949 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 8:57 pm
84949 spacer
>>84948
How has she managed to post an actually square video?
>> No. 84950 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 9:06 pm
84950 spacer
>>84948
Jesus Christ we need younger people in politics.
>> No. 84951 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 9:39 pm
84951 spacer

3500.jpg
849518495184951
Do Berger's tits sag all the way down past her elbows?
>> No. 84952 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 9:41 pm
84952 spacer

3500.jpg
849528495284952

>> No. 84953 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 9:51 pm
84953 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 84954 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 10:00 pm
84954 spacer
>>84951

She's heavily pregnant, you meff.
>> No. 84955 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 10:03 pm
84955 spacer
>>84954
Baby belly is where her hands should be.
>> No. 84956 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 10:03 pm
84956 spacer
>>84953
In a heartbeat - if she joins this lot I might actually put leaflets through doors for them.
>> No. 84957 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 10:22 pm
84957 spacer
>>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"?
>> No. 84958 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 10:22 pm
84958 spacer
>>84952
I had to do some googling to find who that was. She reminded me of Claire Forlani from Mallrats.
>> No. 84959 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 10:26 pm
84959 spacer
>>84958

I'd eat her chocolate covered pretzel IYKWIM

help me please im just so fucking tired
>> No. 84960 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 10:42 pm
84960 spacer

DzrtK72WwAENzFS.png large.png
849608496084960
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.
>> No. 84961 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 10:45 pm
84961 spacer
>>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?
>> No. 84962 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 10:51 pm
84962 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 84963 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 11:16 pm
84963 spacer
>>84960
It's completely normal - it's just a domain name privacy service, tons of them exist.
>> No. 84964 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 11:30 pm
84964 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 84965 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 11:33 pm
84965 spacer
>>84960
Nice "9/11 truther"-tier screenshot, mate.
>> No. 84966 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 11:34 pm
84966 spacer
>>84964
My Namecheap domains are listed in Panama as well, despite them having my very British home address. Give up the PI lark.
>> No. 84967 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 11:35 pm
84967 spacer
>>84964

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

http://www.whoisguard.com/contact-us.asp
>> No. 84968 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 11:38 pm
84968 spacer
>>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]
>> No. 84969 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 11:43 pm
84969 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 84970 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 11:56 pm
84970 spacer
> 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.
>> No. 84971 Anonymous
18th February 2019
Monday 11:57 pm
84971 spacer

Screenshot_2019-02-18 Statement of the Independent.png
849718497184971
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.
>> No. 84975 Anonymous
19th February 2019
Tuesday 12:40 am
84975 spacer
>>84942
>these leaderless, mealy-mouthed, scoundrals
Wait, do you mean the splitters or the Labour front bench?
>> No. 84976 Anonymous
19th February 2019
Tuesday 6:48 am
84976 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 84977 Anonymous
19th February 2019
Tuesday 7:01 am
84977 spacer

9973700-6718625-image-a-38_1550527456714.jpg
849778497784977
They're already more popular than the Lib Dems.
>> No. 84978 Anonymous
19th February 2019
Tuesday 7:19 am
84978 spacer
>>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?
>> No. 84979 Anonymous
19th February 2019
Tuesday 7:37 am
84979 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 84980 Anonymous
19th February 2019
Tuesday 7:46 am
84980 spacer
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.
>> No. 84981 Anonymous
19th February 2019
Tuesday 7:57 am
84981 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 84982 Anonymous
19th February 2019
Tuesday 8:11 am
84982 spacer
>>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, ...)
>> No. 84984 Anonymous
19th February 2019
Tuesday 10:35 am
84984 spacer

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?
>> No. 84985 Anonymous
19th February 2019
Tuesday 10:41 am
84985 spacer
>>84984
Did Tom Watson always look like that? He's transformed into a hybrid between Colin Firth and Jim Broadbent.
>> No. 84986 Anonymous
19th February 2019
Tuesday 10:46 am
84986 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 84987 Anonymous
19th February 2019
Tuesday 10:58 am
84987 spacer
>>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!
>> No. 84988 Anonymous
19th February 2019
Tuesday 11:03 am
84988 spacer
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.
>> No. 84989 Anonymous
19th February 2019
Tuesday 11:07 am
84989 spacer
Luciana Berger is very attractive. I'd definitely follow her lead.
>> No. 84990 Anonymous
19th February 2019
Tuesday 1:24 pm
84990 spacer

0_MP-Luciana-Berger.jpg
849908499084990
>>84989
She looks like the Jewish version of Jayda from Britain First.
>> No. 84991 Anonymous
19th February 2019
Tuesday 3:37 pm
84991 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 84992 Anonymous
19th February 2019
Tuesday 3:52 pm
84992 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 84993 Anonymous
19th February 2019
Tuesday 4:04 pm
84993 spacer
>>84992
You sound upset. No need to have a teary, m9.

>abridge it into something it didn't say
If you say so, Donald.
>> No. 84994 Anonymous
19th February 2019
Tuesday 4:17 pm
84994 spacer
>>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"
>> No. 84995 Anonymous
19th February 2019
Tuesday 4:49 pm
84995 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 84996 Anonymous
19th February 2019
Tuesday 5:09 pm
84996 spacer
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.)
>> No. 84997 Anonymous
19th February 2019
Tuesday 5:13 pm
84997 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 84998 Anonymous
19th February 2019
Tuesday 5:31 pm
84998 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 84999 Anonymous
19th February 2019
Tuesday 7:14 pm
84999 spacer
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...)
>> No. 85000 Anonymous
19th February 2019
Tuesday 7:44 pm
85000 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85001 Anonymous
19th February 2019
Tuesday 8:12 pm
85001 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85002 Anonymous
19th February 2019
Tuesday 10:18 pm
85002 spacer
Another one bites the dust.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47300832
>> No. 85003 Anonymous
19th February 2019
Tuesday 10:30 pm
85003 spacer
>>85002
I think they have some Momentum now...
>> No. 85004 Anonymous
19th February 2019
Tuesday 11:05 pm
85004 spacer

_105709237_joanryan.jpg
850048500485004
>>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.
>> No. 85005 Anonymous
20th February 2019
Wednesday 12:39 am
85005 spacer
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.
>> No. 85007 Anonymous
20th February 2019
Wednesday 12:50 am
85007 spacer

surprised jeremy-corbyn.png
850078500785007
>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.
>> No. 85008 Anonymous
20th February 2019
Wednesday 1:00 am
85008 spacer
>>85007
"Centerists"
fuck sakes dad go to bed
>> No. 85009 Anonymous
20th February 2019
Wednesday 6:34 am
85009 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85010 Anonymous
20th February 2019
Wednesday 10:17 am
85010 spacer
>>85007>>85009
Are you capable of writing more than a single line shitpost about this? You're impossibly boring.
>> No. 85011 Anonymous
20th February 2019
Wednesday 10:41 am
85011 spacer
>>85010
He says whilst writing a short dull reply. Talk about hoisting yourself by your own petard, you retard.
>> No. 85012 Anonymous
20th February 2019
Wednesday 11:23 am
85012 spacer
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
>> No. 85013 Anonymous
20th February 2019
Wednesday 1:59 pm
85013 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85014 Anonymous
20th February 2019
Wednesday 3:34 pm
85014 spacer
>>85013
Won't most of them get wiped out at an election anyway? They come across as self-serving careerists.
>> No. 85015 Anonymous
20th February 2019
Wednesday 3:53 pm
85015 spacer

TheIndependentGroup_Chuka.jpg
850158501585015
Has Umunna had a stroke? Every image of him I've seen in the last few days has made him look half-cut.
>> No. 85016 Anonymous
20th February 2019
Wednesday 3:59 pm
85016 spacer
>>85014
>self-serving careerists

Thank God they have something to distinguish them from the rest of parliament!
>> No. 85017 Anonymous
20th February 2019
Wednesday 4:22 pm
85017 spacer
>>85016
Yes, but they could at least have kept up the pretence that they're not.
>> No. 85019 Anonymous
20th February 2019
Wednesday 4:33 pm
85019 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85020 Anonymous
20th February 2019
Wednesday 4:35 pm
85020 spacer
>>85019
Go home m8, you're drunk. And at 4:30 in the afternoon, no less.
>> No. 85021 Anonymous
20th February 2019
Wednesday 4:41 pm
85021 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85023 Anonymous
20th February 2019
Wednesday 5:05 pm
85023 spacer

heidi.jpg
850238502385023
Heidi Allen is properly fit though.
>> No. 85024 Anonymous
20th February 2019
Wednesday 5:12 pm
85024 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85025 Anonymous
20th February 2019
Wednesday 5:23 pm
85025 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85026 Anonymous
20th February 2019
Wednesday 5:48 pm
85026 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85027 Anonymous
20th February 2019
Wednesday 9:55 pm
85027 spacer

10054672-6724121-image-a-94_1550680567389.jpg
850278502785027
>>85023
She's the only fitty there.
>> No. 85028 Anonymous
20th February 2019
Wednesday 10:20 pm
85028 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85029 Anonymous
20th February 2019
Wednesday 10:24 pm
85029 spacer

10065514-6724121-image-a-27_1550696231409.jpg
850298502985029
>>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.
>> No. 85030 Anonymous
20th February 2019
Wednesday 10:27 pm
85030 spacer

luciana.jpg
850308503085030
>>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.
>> No. 85031 Anonymous
20th February 2019
Wednesday 11:26 pm
85031 spacer
>>85030
This is an illness, Sir, you're in need of medical intervention!
>> No. 85032 Anonymous
21st February 2019
Thursday 9:53 pm
85032 spacer
>>85030
Agreed. Also, most pregnant women are quite hot, in a strange, primeval sort of way.
>> No. 85033 Anonymous
22nd February 2019
Friday 9:15 am
85033 spacer
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/
>> No. 85034 Anonymous
22nd February 2019
Friday 9:25 am
85034 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85035 Anonymous
22nd February 2019
Friday 11:05 am
85035 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85036 Anonymous
22nd February 2019
Friday 12:10 pm
85036 spacer
>>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!")
>> No. 85037 Anonymous
22nd February 2019
Friday 4:23 pm
85037 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85038 Anonymous
22nd February 2019
Friday 5:04 pm
85038 spacer
>>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."
>> No. 85039 Anonymous
22nd February 2019
Friday 5:14 pm
85039 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85040 Anonymous
22nd February 2019
Friday 5:22 pm
85040 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85041 Anonymous
23rd February 2019
Saturday 4:38 pm
85041 spacer
>>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?
>> No. 85042 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 9:58 pm
85042 spacer

D0RsEk4WwAUqzRE.jpg
850428504285042
Cheeky Nandos with the lads.
>> No. 85043 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 10:18 pm
85043 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85044 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 10:35 pm
85044 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85045 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 11:06 pm
85045 spacer
>>85044

Salad and chips is a metaphor for soft brexit.
>> No. 85046 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 11:08 pm
85046 spacer
>>85043
Always looking on the bright side, eh dad?
>> No. 85047 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 11:37 pm
85047 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85048 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 1:43 am
85048 spacer
>>85044

Look at Heidi Allen's choice - no sides, no drink, she's just firing into a big plate of wings. 10/10 cheekiness.
>> No. 85049 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 1:43 am
85049 spacer

citizen_smith.jpg
850498504985049
>>85047
>> No. 85050 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 2:12 am
85050 spacer
>>85048

Hang on, why doesn't Mike Gapes have any food? He doesn't look like the sort of man to skip dinner.
>> No. 85051 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 2:21 am
85051 spacer
>>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?
>> No. 85052 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 7:55 am
85052 spacer
>>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?
>> No. 85053 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 12:44 pm
85053 spacer

D0Ugm1LWkAE_atn.png
850538505385053

>> No. 85054 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 12:53 pm
85054 spacer
>>85053
It's 1983 all over again. Even the party leaders are of the same persuasion.
>> No. 85055 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 1:14 pm
85055 spacer
>>85045
She's media, she knows the importance of small details.
>> No. 85056 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 1:57 pm
85056 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85057 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 5:15 pm
85057 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85058 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 5:50 pm
85058 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85059 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 5:51 pm
85059 spacer
>>85057

Wasn't it "I'm with her"? Not as bad as Jeb Bush's "Jeb".
>> No. 85060 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 5:57 pm
85060 spacer
>>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".
>> No. 85061 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 5:59 pm
85061 spacer

45927962_2147204712188061_8853878710940546990_n.jpg
850618506185061
>>85059>>85060
Jeb was undoubtedly my highlight of the last US election.
>> No. 85066 Anonymous
1st March 2019
Friday 7:13 am
85066 spacer
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.
>> No. 85067 Anonymous
1st March 2019
Friday 8:20 am
85067 spacer
>>85066
I'm assuming "new colleagues" is code for poaching.
>> No. 85069 Anonymous
1st March 2019
Friday 5:58 pm
85069 spacer
>>85066
Mike Gapes, notoriously unapologetic about the Iraq War, is foreign affairs? Hilarious. The tiggers are a joke.
>> No. 85070 Anonymous
1st March 2019
Friday 6:05 pm
85070 spacer
>>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).
>> No. 85071 Anonymous
1st March 2019
Friday 6:15 pm
85071 spacer
>>85069
What's wrong with being unapologetic over Iraq?
>> No. 85072 Anonymous
1st March 2019
Friday 8:18 pm
85072 spacer
>>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.)
>> No. 85073 Anonymous
1st March 2019
Friday 8:25 pm
85073 spacer

comfy time.jpg
850738507385073
>>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.
>> No. 85074 Anonymous
1st March 2019
Friday 8:33 pm
85074 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85075 Anonymous
1st March 2019
Friday 9:33 pm
85075 spacer
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.
>> No. 85076 Anonymous
1st March 2019
Friday 9:43 pm
85076 spacer
>>85075
Suez and Skybolt demonstrate why America shouldn't be trusted, change my mind.
>> No. 85077 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 7:22 am
85077 spacer
>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.
>> No. 85078 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 8:05 am
85078 spacer
>>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!
>> No. 85079 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 11:29 am
85079 spacer
>>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?
>> No. 85080 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 11:41 am
85080 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85081 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 11:53 am
85081 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85082 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 11:56 am
85082 spacer
>>85081
I'm guessing B is Labour. How did I do?
answer in spoilers please
>> No. 85083 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 11:58 am
85083 spacer
>>85082
A is Dear Leader. B is Are Tommeh.
>> No. 85084 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 12:16 pm
85084 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85085 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 12:19 pm
85085 spacer
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.
>> No. 85086 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 12:26 pm
85086 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85087 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 12:34 pm
85087 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85088 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 1:18 pm
85088 spacer
>>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
>> No. 85089 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 2:10 pm
85089 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85090 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 2:16 pm
85090 spacer
>>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?
>> No. 85091 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 2:21 pm
85091 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85092 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 3:19 pm
85092 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85093 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 3:48 pm
85093 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85094 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 4:12 pm
85094 spacer
>>85093
>The over representation in media is one I have less of an explaination for
Media is a rich man's game.
>> No. 85096 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 6:08 pm
85096 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85097 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 6:12 pm
85097 spacer
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.
>> No. 85098 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 6:13 pm
85098 spacer
109 sorry.
>> No. 85100 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 6:28 pm
85100 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85101 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 6:59 pm
85101 spacer
How much do self publishers get paid? The ones aiming them for Kindle users at 99p.
>> No. 85102 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 7:06 pm
85102 spacer

amazon.png
851028510285102
>>85101
A bit less than 30p per book depending on what currency they paid for it and exchange rates.
>> No. 85103 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 7:30 pm
85103 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85104 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 7:41 pm
85104 spacer
>>85103
>whataboutism
>> No. 85105 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 7:57 pm
85105 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85106 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 8:04 pm
85106 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85107 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 8:22 pm
85107 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85108 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 8:34 pm
85108 spacer
>>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?
>> No. 85109 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 8:42 pm
85109 spacer

shami2.jpg
851098510985109
>>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.
>> No. 85110 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 9:26 pm
85110 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85111 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 9:44 pm
85111 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85112 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 10:14 pm
85112 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85113 Anonymous
3rd March 2019
Sunday 11:01 pm
85113 spacer
>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.
>> No. 85114 Anonymous
4th March 2019
Monday 9:30 am
85114 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85115 Anonymous
4th March 2019
Monday 9:46 am
85115 spacer
>>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?
>> No. 85116 Anonymous
4th March 2019
Monday 10:17 am
85116 spacer
>>85115
All interesting questions. Feel free to report back the findings of your rigorous studies into the matter.
>> No. 85117 Anonymous
4th March 2019
Monday 6:09 pm
85117 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85118 Anonymous
4th March 2019
Monday 6:13 pm
85118 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85119 Anonymous
4th March 2019
Monday 7:07 pm
85119 spacer
>>85118

How often do you think members of UKIP turn each other in for dolphin rape?
>> No. 85120 Anonymous
4th March 2019
Monday 7:16 pm
85120 spacer
>>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
>> No. 85121 Anonymous
4th March 2019
Monday 7:27 pm
85121 spacer
>>85119
A Jewish MP has left Labour due to anti-semitic abuse. Read that again and let it sink in.
>> No. 85122 Anonymous
4th March 2019
Monday 7:42 pm
85122 spacer
>>85120
n1 m8 he wont no wot it im
>> No. 85123 Anonymous
4th March 2019
Monday 8:07 pm
85123 spacer
>>85121

Lots of minorities in UKIP are there?
>> No. 85124 Anonymous
4th March 2019
Monday 8:08 pm
85124 spacer

Untitled.png
851248512485124
>>85119
How often do you think UKIP publicly threaten one-another with a 'final solution'?
>> No. 85125 Anonymous
4th March 2019
Monday 8:17 pm
85125 spacer
>>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/
>> No. 85126 Anonymous
4th March 2019
Monday 8:20 pm
85126 spacer

windrush.jpg
851268512685126
My local People's Assembly posted this cartoon.
>> No. 85127 Anonymous
4th March 2019
Monday 8:26 pm
85127 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85128 Anonymous
4th March 2019
Monday 8:34 pm
85128 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85129 Anonymous
4th March 2019
Monday 8:45 pm
85129 spacer
>>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
>> No. 85130 Anonymous
4th March 2019
Monday 8:47 pm
85130 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85131 Anonymous
4th March 2019
Monday 8:53 pm
85131 spacer
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/
>> No. 85132 Anonymous
4th March 2019
Monday 8:56 pm
85132 spacer
>>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?
>> No. 85133 Anonymous
4th March 2019
Monday 9:01 pm
85133 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 85134 Anonymous
4th March 2019
Monday 9:11 pm
85134 spacer
>>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?
>> No. 85135 Anonymous
4th March 2019
Monday 9:20 pm
85135 spacer
>>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
>> No. 85136 Anonymous
4th March 2019
Monday 9:51 pm
85136 spacer
>>85131
Whataboutery, still. Nobody for a second believes that Theresa May and the cabinet are licensing or encouraging that kind of behaviour - many believe Corbyn and his acolytes are.
>> No. 85137 Anonymous
4th March 2019
Monday 10:01 pm
85137 spacer
Can't help but see parallels between the Labour anti-semitism thing and the Cybernat thing in Scotland.
>> No. 85138 Anonymous
4th March 2019
Monday 10:04 pm
85138 spacer
>>85136
>Nobody for a second believes that Theresa May and the cabinet are licensing or encouraging that kind of behaviour - many believe Corbyn and his acolytes are.
Typical double standard.
>> No. 85139 Anonymous
4th March 2019
Monday 11:19 pm
85139 spacer

asdf.png
851398513985139

>> No. 85140 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 12:16 am
85140 spacer
Let's be completely honest with ourselves here lads. None of you actually give a shit about the anti-semitism (or lack thereof), you couldn't give a toss if there were Labour MPs hosting private holocaust re-enactment LARPS at the weekend and going around posting bacon through every letterbox in north London.

What you are extremely glad about is that there's something solid you can get behind to justify wanting rid of Corbyn, and your implicit support of the kind of mild centrist nobody politicians who've put us in this Brexit nightmare to begin with. This is effectively a big game of soggy biscuit for Blairites.
>> No. 85141 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 4:08 am
85141 spacer
>>85140

Like a large proportion of the electorate, I have no problem with Corbyn's stated policy platform, I just think he's a nasty, incompetent puppet for Seumas Milne. May is obviously a nasty, incompetent puppet for the tabloid press, but that doesn't get Corbyn off the hook; this country can do better than a false dichotomy between two unpleasant idiots.

I do care about anti-Semitism, mostly because I try to be a decent human being, but also because I'm half German. I believe the IHRA when they say that anti-Semitism is the canary in the coal mine for totalitarianism. I see comments on Twitter every day with #JC4PM and #GTTO hashtags that are literal, word-for-word repetitions of Nazi propaganda. My mum has left the Labour party after 33 years of membership because she heard repeated anti-Semitic statements at CLP meetings and had no response to her complaints. My grandfather stopped having nightmares about Germany in the mid-90s, but they've started again in the last year; it's partly worries about Brexit, but he's also terrified that anti-Semitism is creeping into the public conversation.

39% of the British Jewish community would seriously consider emigrating if Corbyn won the next election. 86% of British Jews believe that Corbyn is anti-Semitic. If the best argument you've got is "we're not anti-Semitic, it's just a conspiracy by lying Jews to undermine our leader", you need to have a serious fucking word with yourself.

https://www.survation.com/new-poll-of-british-jews-highlights-tensions-between-labour-and-the-jewish-community/

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/nearly-40-per-cent-of-british-jews-would-seriously-consider-emigrating-if-corbyn-became-pm-1.469270
>> No. 85142 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 4:29 am
85142 spacer
>>85141
>this country can do better than a false dichotomy between two unpleasant idiots.
It really, really can't. There's a reason we've got them in the first place. This country is a mess and our political class is a joke. Of all the things I dislike about the centre, their commitment to the idea this is a fundamentally decent country that's just one quick fix away from sorting itself out is perhaps the thing I like the least. This is a country with very deep rooted problems that probably can't be fixed and certainly cannot be fixed with something as trivial as getting rid of one dismal prime minister or one non-leader of the opposition.
And now the lighter side: Stop reading Twitter. Instead of a Porn ban, this country cries out for a Twitter ban. It might even make up for Brexit if we could get that through.
>> No. 85143 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 6:54 am
85143 spacer
>>85140
>What you are extremely glad about is that there's something solid you can get behind to justify wanting rid of Corbyn

Most Labour supporters I know who want rid of Corbyn, we're talking lifelong tribal voters here and ones who voted him into power, do so because either they believe he's a vile little man or they've grown disillusioned by his incompetence and feel betrayed by him over Brexit.

I want him out because vacillates wildly, to the point of being paralysed by his own dithering. I don't believe he has the ability to actually make his policies a reality if did come into power, but he never will get into power because he's Marmite and he's an absolute non-starters for far too many people. If he'd any sense he'd be starting a succession plan for someone who supports similar policies but isn't electoral kryptonite, like a bag of flaming dog shit.
>> No. 85144 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 7:30 am
85144 spacer
>>85143
I'd like to see how someone could justify the idea of Corbyn as vile without falling afoul of Hanlon's razor.
Incompetent, sure. Stupid, easy, Useless? Naturally. But in any way actively vile? I mean, I guess he's still got his Maoist bike.
>> No. 85145 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 10:14 am
85145 spacer
>>85141
>86% of British Jews believe that Corbyn is anti-Semitic.
57% of Republican voters believe that Obama was born in Kenya.

Neither group is the final arbiter of said claims.
>> No. 85146 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 11:30 am
85146 spacer
>>85144
I believe it's more to do with the behaviour of Corbyn's acolytes and the tacit understanding that he influences and condones what they do whilst being able to keep himself at arm's length of it all.
>> No. 85147 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 12:11 pm
85147 spacer
>>85146
>the tacit understanding that he influences and condones what they do whilst being able to keep himself at arm's length of it all
I think you're crediting him with more capability than he has.
>> No. 85148 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 3:04 pm
85148 spacer
>>85144

Corbyn is very quick to anger when he's challenged. His supporters see it as passion, but I (and many others) see it as symptomatic of an essentially totalitarian approach to politics - he's right, everyone who disagrees with him is wrong and the only reason they disagree with him is because they're shills or stooges or crypto-fascists. He only seems comfortable when he's addressing a rally of loyal supporters and doesn't seem able to calmly and reasonably engage with his critics.

I am a moderate, not because I hold wishy-washy views, but because I recognise that there is a diversity of opinion in this country and the role of politics is to facilitate a satisfactory compromise that represents the broadest possible range of opinions. I don't think politics should be a winner-takes-all fight between intractable opponents, but a process of discussion, persuasion and consensus-building. I think that Corbyn is complicit in a cultural shift in the Labour party that treats these things as dirty words, that regards any opposition as treachery rather than legitimate disagreement.

My local CLP has seen a mass exodus of long-standing members, simply because they don't want to turn up for a meeting every Wednesday night and literally get told to fuck off by someone who joined the party three years ago. Corbyn's supporters are overwhelmingly clear that the grass-roots activists who got Labour elected in 1997 and kept them in power for thirteen years are no longer welcome in the Labour party. During the Blair and Brown years, nobody was seriously agitating to de-select the likes of Corbyn, Benn, Field and Flynn, but now there seems to be a widespread view that anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly and uncritically support Corbyn does not deserve to remain in the Labour party.

Corbyn has done precisely nothing to oppose the wave of viciousness within his party. He stands idly by while loyal and hard-working Labour members are harassed and abused by members of their own party. There's a point at which inaction becomes complicity.
>> No. 85149 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 5:37 pm
85149 spacer
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/05/tories-suspend-14-members-over-alleged-islamophobia
>> No. 85150 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 6:12 pm
85150 spacer
>>85149
The Facebook group is reported to the Tories on the Friday evening and the following Tuesday the members involved are suspended.

Meanwhile, if it was anti-semitism reported to Labour there'd be a six month delay before they investigate it followed by members of Momentum pleading for leniency.
>> No. 85151 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 6:14 pm
85151 spacer
>>85148
I think your analysis is somewhat lacking.
>> No. 85152 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 7:12 pm
85152 spacer
>>85148
>Corbyn has done precisely nothing to oppose the wave of viciousness within his party. He stands idly by while loyal and hard-working Labour members are harassed and abused by members of their own party. There's a point at which inaction becomes complicity.

I keep hearing this from his critics but what would you have him do? what, for you personally, would be an action he could take that would satisfy you?
>> No. 85153 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 7:18 pm
85153 spacer
>>85148
>I recognise that there is a diversity of opinion in this country and the role of politics is to facilitate a satisfactory compromise that represents the broadest possible range of opinions.
I don't doubt that you mean this, but I do doubt that you'd accept the implications this approach would ultimately lead to in a truly representative democracy. The ideal compromise for the British electorate almost certainly isn't a sort of imagined and lopsided compromise between Benn and Thatcher. It's what would appear to a political scientist as a schizophrenic breakdown. Nationalise the trains, Hang the Paedos, abolish benefits but hike the minimum wage to £20/hr, spend 10% of GDP on Defence, abolish tuition fees and cut net immigration to 0. A 70% top rate of income tax, but no inheritance tax. The number of voters who actually go gaga for manifestos proclaiming evidence based policy and grandstanding speeches about the rules based international order is vanishingly small, but a grab-bag of far-right and hard-left policies could be smoothed over enough to appeal to the actual median voter rather than the overrepresented people in the swing seats. It might be a policy-disaster, but it's a highly likely result of any genuine democratic compromise. (Rather than one that most people don't actually want, but the most important minority of voters do.)

It's tangential but there's also the problem that "moderate" MPs didn't exactly try to compromise with Corbyn. Their initial position was always that he should compromise with them, as though he was the one who had lost. In such an atmosphere, why should he give any ground? I don't say that from a moral position but from a tactical one - if he compromises with the moderates, they're never going to say "Okay, you get 50% of your ideas, 50% of ours" they're going to say "Right, now drop the other 50%" - something we can already see given stuff like unilateral nuclear disarmament didn't become party policy. I'm not defending his non-leadership, but refusal to compromise is something that makes absolute tactical sense.

Also: During the Blair era, there might not have been the overt membership-lead purges you expect to see now, but there was definitely a tendency to only select candidates who conformed with the project without themselves being a threat to the leadership. (I've seen it suggested one reason for the talent vacuum today is that Blair and Brown didn't want anyone of their own skill level hanging about making things difficult, helping Gordon or threatening his chances of replacing Blair as leader respectively. It would explain a lot.) There's a reason most of the far-left MPs didn't enter parliament from 1997-2005, and it's not because everyone spontaneously became moderate. More subtle measures were used to ensure conformity, to make sure the right sort of person was getting into parliament. I'm not saying that's a bad thing - it's normal and natural - but let's not pretend it's strictly fair or representative of feeling in the party or country itself. The ugliness of membership-lead purges comes in large part from the fact those conducting them lack the power to do it quietly and politely, like by kicking people upstairs to the lords where they can't cause any trouble.
>> No. 85154 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 7:33 pm
85154 spacer
>>85150
>The Facebook group is reported to the Tories on the Friday evening and the following Tuesday the members involved are suspended.
Without a hearing, no less. Got to make a couple of convenient examples to throw people off the scent, innit.
>> No. 85155 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 7:41 pm
85155 spacer
>>85153
>Nationalise the trains, Hang the Paedos, abolish benefits but hike the minimum wage to £20/hr, spend 10% of GDP on Defence, abolish tuition fees and cut net immigration to 0. A 70% top rate of income tax, but no inheritance tax.
That's not even remotely how compromise works.

>It's tangential but there's also the problem that "moderate" MPs didn't exactly try to compromise with Corbyn.
Labour is a democratic party. The members decide the platform, not the leader. He may well be the leader, but if he wants to change policy he needs to put it to conference, not simply demand that his MPs support it.
>> No. 85156 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 8:04 pm
85156 spacer
>>85155
>That's not even remotely how compromise works.
No, the point is that's the compromise you'd get if you were actually democratic about it, trying to get the majority of the people in the country on-side rather than the majority of constituencies as we do now. (The current system ideally has parties triangulate towards a few unrepresentative swing-seats, not "the broadest possible range of opinions" which I'm interpreting in good faith as covering the largest number of people rather than the largest ideological breadth.)
>Labour is a democratic party. The members decide the platform, not the leader. He may well be the leader, but if he wants to change policy he needs to put it to conference, not simply demand that his MPs support it.
Conference generally breaks in line with the leadership though. MPs are and always have been far and away the biggest anti-Corbyn grouping, and they're not too keen on the membership either. If the membership endorse mandatory reselection at the behest of the leadership, I can guarantee you MPs wouldn't just grin and bear it because that's what conference wants and party democracy must come first. It wasn't the membership who forced a leadership election in 2016. They overwhelmingly re-affirmed the decision they had made in 2015. It was MPs who couldn't stomach Corbyn.
>> No. 85157 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 8:11 pm
85157 spacer
>>85156
>It was MPs who couldn't stomach Corbyn.

Neither could the wider electorate, if he couldn't even beat Theresa May and her abysmal campaign.
>> No. 85158 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 8:18 pm
85158 spacer
>>85156
>No, the point is that's the compromise you'd get if you were actually democratic about it
Except it isn't. Not even remotely. I'd say you were wrong, but even that would be too generous.

>Conference generally breaks in line with the leadership though.
Except when it doesn't. Such as when the additional referendum he didn't want to endorse was passed as part of the mammoth composite last year. Or when he failed miserably to get his position on Trident accepted.

You may now remove your head from Jezza's arse should you so wish.
>> No. 85159 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 8:28 pm
85159 spacer
>>85152

For a start, I'd like to see him visit Wavertree CLP to speak to the people who tried to de-select Luciana Berger. I'd like to see a disciplinary procedure that is swift, fair and genuinely independent, with oversight from outside the party. I'd like to see an investigation into anti-Semitism that isn't blatantly tainted by the chair of that inquiry being given a peerage immediately afterwards.

Mostly, I want Corbyn to do something that isn't entirely reactive. I want him to come up with an idea, any idea for dealing with the toxicity in his party that isn't a half-arsed response to whatever scandal is in the papers that week. I want to see him produce some semblance of a plan, rather than make half-hearted non-apologies when the need arises.

>Their initial position was always that he should compromise with them, as though he was the one who had lost. In such an atmosphere, why should he give any ground?

He's a party leader, not a dictator. Corbyn knows better than anyone that backbench MPs have the right to disagree with their leader and to rebel against the whip. Corbyn made no effort to acknowledge that his views differed greatly from the bulk of the PLP and a substantial proportion of the membership; had he chosen compromise and consensus-building rather than ploughing ahead with his own platform, he may be in a far stronger position today. He had the opportunity to compromise and create a big-tent consensus, but he chose not to use that opportunity and has dealt with the consequences since.
>> No. 85160 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 8:32 pm
85160 spacer
>>85156

"Compromise" doesn't mean choosing whichever policy position has the plurality of support; it means working to develop policy positions that most people can live with. A lot of people might support 70% income tax and no inheritance tax, but almost as many people would be utterly outraged by it. Same for the death penalty, same for abolishing benefits, same for cutting net migration to 0 - you might please a plurality or even a majority, but you'd have riots in the streets. A moderate position tries to split the difference in a way that feels equitable to as many people as possible.
>> No. 85161 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 8:50 pm
85161 spacer

leftrightpolicies1.png
851618516185161
>>85158
>Except it isn't.
Except it is, and there's polling evidence to prove it. The fact I exaggerated for comic effect doesn't undermine the central point.
Please now demonstrate my central suspicion: When it comes down on it, you compromise on wanting a compromise based around what the public want. You instead break for a compromise based around a view of what's sensible generally held by a narrow circle of people in political circles. A position that would be perfectly valid if you were only honest about it.
> Such as when the additional referendum he didn't want to endorse was passed as part of the mammoth composite last year. Or when he failed miserably to get his position on Trident accepted.
Oh no, two defeats? Deary me. Up next: The membership secretly hated Blair because they voted to re-nationalise the trains in 2004. (And like a good boy, Blair dutifully did so, just like Callaghan and Wilson before him, because Labour is a democratic party that listens to conference.)
Meanwhile: Conference also made it easier to deselect sitting MPs and required some backing from Unions or CLPs to launch a leadership bid.

>You may now remove your head from Jezza's arse should you so wish.
I'm not defending Corbyn, I'm being honest. Just like I'm being honest when I describe him as the non-Leader of the Labour party. Admitting that Labour MPs are-and-were disloyal to the leadership and to the membership means nothing. I have no objections to disloyalty - our politics could do with a good deal more of it, frankly - my objection is to dishonesty.

>>85160
That's when you start to trade off positions. You can split the difference by accepting two sets of radical policies that appease different people, just as well as you can by picking ones that please nobody. Especially if they're in areas that don't particularly impact the day to day life of the average person, but are in areas that the average person feels strongly about.

Even adopting the positions that the least people object to, it's unlikely one would arise at the consensus of the late 90s to late 2000s. It's perfectly valid to still want to bring that consensus back, but accepting that it isn't a majority position would be an important step towards actually doing so.
>> No. 85162 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 9:20 pm
85162 spacer
>>85161
I'm a Tory voter and none of those policies strike me as 'radical' left. They're social democrat policies I'd associate more with the Lib-Dems, who were my other party before they collectively decided to become Trappists.

Better examples of 'radical' should include 'all mass transport should be nationalised' and so on. I doubt many of the self-described socialists on here think the listed policies there come close to their vision of society.
>> No. 85163 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 9:35 pm
85163 spacer
>>85161
>Except it is, and there's polling evidence to prove it.
Precisely which part of that's not how that works are you having difficulty with?

>Please now demonstrate my central suspicion: When it comes down on it, you compromise on wanting a compromise based around what the public want. You instead break for a compromise based around a view of what's sensible generally held by a narrow circle of people in political circles. A position that would be perfectly valid if you were only honest about it.
And we're back to "not even wrong" territory.

>I'm not defending Corbyn, I'm being honest.
If you say so, m8.
>> No. 85164 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 9:37 pm
85164 spacer

National vs private-01.png
851648516485164
>>85162
I mean, many of the left policies go further than Labour's 2017 manifesto commitments and they're the fault of beardy badman. Still, it's interesting that almost all of them would be rejected by Labour moderates despite your associating them with the even-more-moderate Lib-Dems. Though I guess if we look at that weird bit of 2001-10 where the Lib-Dems tried to look left of New Labour it makes some sense.
Here's a breakdown of nationalisation preferences by sector. Lump in bus companies and you do wind up nationalising most mass-transit - just not airlines. (Or ferries, but who takes ferries? Shetlanders? They're going to vote Lib-Dem regardless.)
>> No. 85165 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 9:38 pm
85165 spacer
>>85163
Go on then big brain, explain how it works to all the philistines.
>> No. 85166 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 9:48 pm
85166 spacer
>>85165
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=compromise
>> No. 85167 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 9:52 pm
85167 spacer
>>85166
>an agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions. / settle a dispute by mutual concession.
Oh right, now I see. That's incompatible with negotiating the passage of a 60% rate of income tax in exchange for a 2 year freeze on immigration. I was mistaken in believing that was a compromise. Or perhaps you were getting at
>expediently accept standards that are lower than is desirable
Like I'm doing right now by dignifying your cuntery with a reply.
>> No. 85168 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 10:11 pm
85168 spacer

D05nTewXgAAvjzO.jpg
851688516885168
At least you cunts aren't cunting about the Jews any more.
>> No. 85169 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 10:20 pm
85169 spacer
>>85167
>That's incompatible with negotiating the passage of a 60% rate of income tax in exchange for a 2 year freeze on immigration.
Well, yes, because neither side would take that deal, for obvious reasons.
>> No. 85170 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 10:28 pm
85170 spacer
>>85169
Please cite the academic research that you're quoting correctly in future. You should have written:
"neither side would take that deal" (Arse, 2019)
Bibliography:
My Arse. 2019. Arsing Around. [ONLINE] Available at: http://britfa.gs. [Accessed 5 March 2019].
>> No. 85171 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 10:47 pm
85171 spacer
>>85170
No, you're right, the Tories are totally up for a 60% rate. I can see Jacob Rees-Mogg jumping at the chance to give up an increase in childcare vouchers in return for a massive tax bill.
>> No. 85172 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 10:56 pm
85172 spacer
>>85171
That's not how this works.
>> No. 85173 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 11:12 pm
85173 spacer
>>85172
Apparently it is in otherlad's world. Give up the centre ground in exchange for your opponent's extreme position which you find intolerable.
>> No. 85174 Anonymous
5th March 2019
Tuesday 11:37 pm
85174 spacer
>>85173
I find you intolerable, stop posting.
>> No. 85175 Anonymous
6th March 2019
Wednesday 8:12 am
85175 spacer
>>85174
How about we compromise? You can keep up the insults and I'll keep posting. Because apparently that's how compromise works now.
>> No. 85176 Anonymous
6th March 2019
Wednesday 10:33 am
85176 spacer
>>85175

Ah now we get to the root of the problem of compromise, it means no one is happy.
>> No. 85177 Anonymous
6th March 2019
Wednesday 12:32 pm
85177 spacer
>>85175
The thing is, that's actually a much more likely and long-lasting compromise than you suddenly deciding to stop being a cunt and me deciding you're anything but insufferable. Thank you for proving my point.
>> No. 85178 Anonymous
6th March 2019
Wednesday 12:47 pm
85178 spacer
>>85177
>The thing is, that's actually a much more likely and long-lasting compromise
No, because outside of the mind of one poster here, it's not actually a compromise.
>> No. 85179 Anonymous
6th March 2019
Wednesday 1:19 pm
85179 spacer
>>85178
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=compromise
Please quote definition 2 for the class.
>> No. 85180 Anonymous
6th March 2019
Wednesday 2:23 pm
85180 spacer
>>85179
In this context, you want sense 1.
>> No. 85181 Anonymous
6th March 2019
Wednesday 2:29 pm
85181 spacer
>>85180
Your soothsaying is no better than your posting.
>> No. 85182 Anonymous
6th March 2019
Wednesday 2:33 pm
85182 spacer
>>85181
That's not what your mum said last night.
>> No. 85183 Anonymous
7th March 2019
Thursday 11:38 am
85183 spacer
The Labour Party may have unlawfully discriminated against Jewish people, the UK's human rights watchdog says.

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission said it was considering launching a formal investigation into anti-Semitism in the party.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47482048

It's all just a figment of the imagination of Blairites, though.
>> No. 85184 Anonymous
7th March 2019
Thursday 12:49 pm
85184 spacer
>>85183

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission are just Zionist stooges with a blatant anti-Corbyn agenda.

God help us.
>> No. 85185 Anonymous
7th March 2019
Thursday 5:57 pm
85185 spacer
>>85183

Non-governmental body whose board members are all heavily connected to the finance sector rules in favour of blairite conspirators shocker
>> No. 85186 Anonymous
7th March 2019
Thursday 6:02 pm
85186 spacer

tweet.png
851868518685186
>>85184

Oh fucksticks.
>> No. 85187 Anonymous
7th March 2019
Thursday 7:30 pm
85187 spacer
>>85186
Nuke them all from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
>> No. 85188 Anonymous
7th March 2019
Thursday 8:12 pm
85188 spacer
Antisemitism is acceptable because it's punching up. Islamophobia is punching down, as most Muslims are worse off in society. But antisemitism is punching up at the Zionist elite. I think that's why Momentum support antisemitism, it's getting back at the upper echelons of society like the Rockefellers and Rothschilds and Bogdanoffs.
>> No. 85189 Anonymous
7th March 2019
Thursday 8:42 pm
85189 spacer

Untitled.png
851898518985189
>>85186
>> No. 85190 Anonymous
7th March 2019
Thursday 9:01 pm
85190 spacer
>>85188
Poe's Law in full effect there, lad. Well done.
>> No. 85191 Anonymous
7th March 2019
Thursday 9:07 pm
85191 spacer
>>85188

U wot Hitlerlad?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitic_canard
>> No. 85192 Anonymous
7th March 2019
Thursday 9:12 pm
85192 spacer
>>85188

I think that is largely the case in Joe Public's opinion. It's hard to pity jewish people as a beleaguered, oppressed minority, when the majority of them are filthy rich bankers, politicos, and what have you. I think a lot of people, while not outright holocaust deniers, have this perspective where holocaust guilt and the label of anti-semitism in general is used as a shield to deflect criticism of just exactly how and why jewish people seem to disproportionately occupy those privileged positions.

Now, it's a separate issue whether those things are true, or even accurate whatsoever. I try to keep the benefit of the doubt myself, but it's certainly the perception, I think, on a subconscious level amongst a lot of people. I think the kind of Islamophobia most people witness takes on a much more blatant, name calling and violent character that makes it a lot easier to sympathise with- You certainly see a lot less of thugs attacking a jew in the street, or yelling "kike" out of their car window. Nobody has driven a van into a synagogue recently, as far as I can remember.

With that said, I once witnessed a really unsettling example of what I can only, to this day, consider to be pro-Jewish nepotism. I once worked in a call centre. I didn't last very long, but in the short space of time I was there, I witnessed one girl, who started in my training group, secure a promotion to team leader in fewer than six weeks. You might ask what's so strange about that, but the fact is she honestly had no idea what she was doing. But she was Jewish, and so was the office manager. So it didn't take long for people to put two and two together. The overall ethnicity of the office was about 80% muslim, and one of the muslim lads had been trying for months to get that job. Even in my limited time there I could see that he was a better fit for the job.

Now, I'm not saying I witnessed the wider Jewish conspiracy in action, but there was definitely some funny business going on. All I can conclude is that either a) she was a racist and didn't want to promote any of the muslims, or b) she was a racist who instantly gave the job to a member of her ancient desert tribe or c) she was a lesbian and the other lass gave her a right good fanny munching under the desk one night.
>> No. 85193 Anonymous
7th March 2019
Thursday 9:12 pm
85193 spacer
>>85188
Appropriate post number, m7.
>> No. 85194 Anonymous
7th March 2019
Thursday 10:34 pm
85194 spacer
>>85192
"Well blow me down lads, did you know racist tropes are different depending on the race? And that people subjected to dolphin rape are capable of perpetuating dolphin rape themselves? This changes everything!"
>> No. 85195 Anonymous
7th March 2019
Thursday 10:45 pm
85195 spacer
>>85183
I mean if you read the article it isn't particularly surprising. It'll be the same standard complaints signal-boosted by people who've heard of the complaints. I'm not saying anti-semitism doesn't exist or isn't a major problem in the Labour party, but this headline doesn't actually mean very much about it either way.
Article with the words you should be reading like a lawyer to moderate your expectations:
The labour party may have unlawfully discriminated... The [EHRC] said it was considering launching a formal investigation. The action comes in response to complaints from a number of organisations and individuals... (as opposed to coming from the EHRC following up on it's own suspicions or preparing to take action against the blindingly obvious.)

Now for the jokes: Wouldn't it be funny if there was an actual conspiracy between the EHRC and Momentum, whereby the EHRC will launch the fullest most serious investigation possible and then go "Actually there aren't any Antisemites in the Labour party. None. The worst we've found is a guy who gave El-Al a 3* review on Google."
>> No. 85196 Anonymous
9th March 2019
Saturday 12:07 pm
85196 spacer
>>85195
The fact that the EHRC are even having a look is bad enough.
>> No. 85220 Anonymous
14th March 2019
Thursday 10:25 pm
85220 spacer

parlimentdelaybrexit.png
852208522085220
Err, now what?
>> No. 85221 Anonymous
14th March 2019
Thursday 10:27 pm
85221 spacer
>>85220

My money's on squeezing out a second referendum.
>> No. 85222 Anonymous
14th March 2019
Thursday 11:34 pm
85222 spacer
>>85220
You know exactly what. May's going to push her deal through Parliament every week until they vote for it. We'll still be here in a year's time, at the end of our extension, having Meaningful Vote no. 54.
>> No. 85231 Anonymous
16th March 2019
Saturday 9:11 am
85231 spacer
>>85222
I only learnt yesterday that she is indeed intending to have a third vote on her historic failure of a deal next week, which is a move so insane I can think of at least twenty personality defects it might be chalked up to.
>> No. 85232 Anonymous
16th March 2019
Saturday 9:30 am
85232 spacer
>>85231
As to the Conservative Party, I am beginning to change my view of the big problem. I’ve always said it was the referendum result; and joked that although Theresa May obviously isn’t any good, the Archangel Gabriel could not have salvaged much improvement on the awful deal she’s hawking to her scared and exhausted Tory troops.

But as the months have ground on I’ve been at first shocked but finally persuaded that not Brexit alone, but also she personally, is the problem.

Time and again I’ve protested that she may not be the answer but she didn’t create this mess: she’s just an unimaginative, unremarkable, perhaps wooden but dogged politician, overly cautious and rather shy. Time and again my informants — MPs, former MPs, civil servants, special advisers — tell me, eyes flashing, that I’ve got it wrong and the public have it wrong, and she’s so much worse than that. She’s not normal. She’s extraordinary. Extraordinarily uncommunicative; extraordinarily rude in the way she blanks people, ideas and arguments. To my surprise there is no difference between the pictures of her that Remainers and Brexiteers paint.

Theresa May, they tell me (in a couple of cases actually shouting) is the Death Star of modern British politics. She’s the theory of anti-matter, made flesh. She’s a political black hole because nothing, not even light, can escape. Ideas, beliefs, suggestions, objections, inquiries, proposals, projects, loyalties, affections, trust, whole careers, real men and women, are sucked into the awful void that is Downing Street — and nothing ever comes out: no answers, only a blank so blank that it screams. Reputations (they lament) are staked on her, and lost. Warnings are delivered to her, and ignored. Plans are run by her, unacknowledged. Messages are sent to her, unanswered. She has become the unperson of Downing Street: the living embodiment of the closed door.

And I am, finally, persuaded. Persuaded that Theresa May has not simply failed to unite two wings of my party, but that her premiership has driven them apart, into anger and despair; helped to turn a disagreement into a schism. Before healing becomes possible (one told me) she, and all who wait upon her and have surrounded her, must be hounded out of the party’s cockpit, and every trace of the era of her leadership expunged. Another, careless of the proprieties, told me the political massacre should be on a Rwandan scale. For the first time I understood the passion, if not the logic, behind the self-defeating challenge to her leadership the Brexiteers mounted last December.

I do not exaggerate the violence of the imagery into which her Tory critics fly at the very mention of her name. And perhaps because I’ve been so reluctant to believe this picture, you will now believe my report.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/theresa-may-has-turned-conservative-discord-into-aschism-0btbdk80q
>> No. 85233 Anonymous
16th March 2019
Saturday 10:27 am
85233 spacer

annie-leibovitz-theresa-may-list.jpg
852338523385233
>>85232
Remember back when ministers were calling her mummy and mayism was a thing?
>> No. 85234 Anonymous
16th March 2019
Saturday 12:05 pm
85234 spacer
>>85232

May has been tasked with the impossible. The ERG and the Labour Party set red lines that were incompatible with any deal the EU was prepared to negotiate. They are now demanding a new deal, after the EU have said that May's deal is final and non-negotiable.

May is simply the scapegoat for cakeism. Her deal is genuinely the best deal that could have been negotiated, because the EU would be total idiots to offer us a deal that's better than our current terms of membership. A majority of parliamentarians are unwilling to support that deal, either because they oppose Brexit on principle, because they expect a magic Brexit that has no downsides, or because they are deluded enough to believe in a "clean Brexit".

May's only substantive failure was to entertain those lunatics for far too long. She wasn't sufficiently frank about the realities of the Brexit negotiations until far too late. She tried and failed to deliver the impossible, rather than simply refusing to entertain it. She kept kicking the can down the road in the hope that eventually sanity would win out, but you can expect no such thing from the likes of Rees-Mogg, Bone and Chope.
>> No. 85236 Anonymous
16th March 2019
Saturday 12:07 pm
85236 spacer
>>85233
History will judge her better than her predecessors and successors. This whole fandango has made me (and lots of others I suspect) feel sorry for her, and respect the effort she has put in.
>> No. 85242 Anonymous
16th March 2019
Saturday 4:28 pm
85242 spacer
>>85232
I'm glad this absurd idea of her as the dogged and principled PM is finally, finally, beginning to fade. She's utterly boneheaded and is motivated foremost by ego, seemingly. The only positive from this mess is that the ensuing Conservative leadership scrap will make the red wedding look like a round of Splatoon.

>>85236
Lol.
>> No. 85244 Anonymous
16th March 2019
Saturday 6:03 pm
85244 spacer
>>85234
>May has been tasked with the impossible. The ERG and the Labour Party set red lines that were incompatible with any deal the EU was prepared to negotiate.

Theresa set those ridiculous red lines by herself. She wanted to definitely leave on the 29th. She wanted to leave the customs union. She wanted to end freedom of movement. Brexiters often said during the referendum that the Norway model was preferable. In short May is a fucking idiot. Why is May brown-nosing the ERG when there's a majority for staying in the custom's union and likely the single market?

What red lines have the Labour party set out? A custom's union? Workers' Rights?
>> No. 85245 Anonymous
16th March 2019
Saturday 6:23 pm
85245 spacer
>>85236
I have my doubts. First because a lot of unsavoury and farcical elements of the modern history are going to be stored forever by the internet. Secondly, because history was not kind to James Callaghan and he was a far more sympathetic character with circumstances even further outside his control.
She may get kinder judgements than Cameron and her likely-Tory immediate successor, but Gordon Brown seems like another figure who will receive more sympathy. Even amongst non-Labour people I regularly hear "Oh he would've been a good PM, shame the financial crisis ruined it for him." Brown himself seems to almost self-consciously try to manage his historical reputation in light of modern developments, positioning himself in a way rather at odds with his actual behaviour in government - but it will probably fly. I would go so far as to say people want to like Gordon.

I occasionally feel sorry for her (it must be said I imagine any personal premiership would go down much like hers, collapsable sign and all), but I have no respect for her efforts. I would rather prefer she simply go away like David Cameron has done.
>> No. 85246 Anonymous
16th March 2019
Saturday 6:36 pm
85246 spacer
>>85245
>I would rather prefer she simply go away like David Cameron has done.

Pretty sure this is the general sentiment at the moment, at least it's been all I've encountered and I have to agree. People are pissed, understandably. She doesn't give a damn about us anyway.
>> No. 85247 Anonymous
16th March 2019
Saturday 6:49 pm
85247 spacer

3qafhk.jpg
852478524785247
>>85246
Exactly. She gave it a go, and it didn't work out. Now she's just outstaying her welcome. Pic very much related.
>> No. 85248 Anonymous
16th March 2019
Saturday 7:09 pm
85248 spacer
>The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), which has 10 lawmakers in parliament, is close to changing its position for the first time after receiving a promise that the government would put into law a requirement that there be no divergence between Northern Ireland and Britain, the Spectator magazine said. A cabinet minister involved in the talks with the DUP told the Spectator the chances of the party backing the government’s deal were around 60 percent.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu/may-could-win-backing-of-northern-irish-kingmakers-in-third-brexit-vote-report-idUKKCN1QX0JG

Third times a charm I guess.

>>85236
>This whole fandango has made me (and lots of others I suspect) feel sorry for her, and respect the effort she has put in.

This is the opinion I've been encountering everywhere. Unless you're talking to a ideologue they will generally follow the thought that she's had an awful job and Cameron dropped her in it.

Corbyn will have it far worse because not only is his track record abysmal but the party itself will want him swept under the rug because of anti-semitism.
>> No. 85250 Anonymous
16th March 2019
Saturday 7:14 pm
85250 spacer
>>85245
>shame the financial crisis ruined it for him

Shame he helped make it worse by bailing out banks that should have been left to go bust, more like.
>> No. 85251 Anonymous
16th March 2019
Saturday 7:31 pm
85251 spacer
>>85248
>Unless you're talking to a ideologue they will generally follow the thought that she's had an awful job and Cameron dropped her in it.

She wasn't forced to become PM.
>> No. 85252 Anonymous
16th March 2019
Saturday 7:48 pm
85252 spacer
>>85250
Dropped your SWP card, lad.
>> No. 85253 Anonymous
16th March 2019
Saturday 8:05 pm
85253 spacer
>>85252
"Let the banks go bust" would seem more Libertarian party than SWP. SWP would be "Shame he didn't nationalise all the banks properly", surely?
>> No. 85254 Anonymous
16th March 2019
Saturday 8:23 pm
85254 spacer
>>85252>>85253
Exactly right. I work in an investment bank; much nearer Libertarian party than SWP in a million years.

The right thing to do during the banking crisis would be to let the fuckers who fucked up go bust - not bail them out and try to be a hero/saviour, as Brown tried to do. Or, as you say, go the other way and nationalise everyone.
>> No. 85255 Anonymous
16th March 2019
Saturday 8:44 pm
85255 spacer

Tesco_Value_brexit2.jpg
852558525585255
Nobody else seeing the Tesco Value Brexit bus in the news?
>> No. 85256 Anonymous
16th March 2019
Saturday 8:54 pm
85256 spacer

11075772-6816733-image-m-112_1552746960486.jpg
852568525685256
>>85255

Would.
>> No. 85257 Anonymous
16th March 2019
Saturday 9:05 pm
85257 spacer
>>85254
>let the fuckers who fucked up go bust
You seem to have a surprisingly poor grasp on how banks actually work for someone that works in one. The consequences of a retail bank failure are severe, and go well beyond shareholders losing their shirt.
>> No. 85258 Anonymous
17th March 2019
Sunday 12:20 am
85258 spacer

P24.its-time.jpg
852588525885258
>>85251
And I once had a dog.

>>85255
>As Mr Saville arrived, counter protesters let off a flare in the EU colours, with shouts of "exit Brexit".
>There have been reports of scuffles and angry rows between some marchers and counter-protesters.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-47595598

I'm still not convinced counter-protests should be a thing. It is by definition turning up at someone's else's party just to cause trouble when you could just as easily make your point somewhere else. Even in a best case scenario it will just be two sides shouting at one-another like idiots.

>>85256
It's shallow but I suddenly don't give a damn about access to the common market if there's cute girls involved. One day someone will properly learn to weaponize this and politics will be finished.

>>85257
Not him but I think the moral hazard could be far more severe down the line. If your entire business model is built on bollocks then you go bust, that is a rule capitalism needs to function. The way things have turned out we've ended up with massive public debt but what exactly has it achieved? The state's done nothing to punish the wrongdoing while the markets were neutered through the action of shovelling money.
>> No. 85265 Anonymous
17th March 2019
Sunday 7:22 pm
85265 spacer
>>85258
>Im still not convinced counter-protests should be a thing

Then how would angry Mohammedan yoots and simpering pansexual art students anti-fascists make the EDL aware their presence isn't wanted?
>> No. 85266 Anonymous
17th March 2019
Sunday 7:23 pm
85266 spacer
>>85258
Does any kind of protesting work? Let alone counter ones.
>> No. 85267 Anonymous
17th March 2019
Sunday 7:54 pm
85267 spacer
>>85266
Given your post comes days after the Algerian president, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, said he wouldn't run again, following mass protests against him running for a fifth term, I'd say yes, yes it does. Even if it doesn't result in direct and immediate change it can still focus people's attention on a cause and establish popular sentiment. For instance the student protests against tuition fees made it clear how young people felt about those changes, which is something that's important to display in terms of future policy making. The same goes for the anti-fracking protests in Lancashire. Indeed, something like that might hardly have made the news if not for the protests against it.
>> No. 85268 Anonymous
17th March 2019
Sunday 8:15 pm
85268 spacer
>>85265
Well, they could have a lovely day at the seaside instead. Who could possibly smash up a bus-stop when you have a 99 in your hand? What better way to get noticed by the news than having your counter-protest involve building lovely sandcastles?

>>85266
It gets people out the house and that's the important thing.
>> No. 85269 Anonymous
17th March 2019
Sunday 8:38 pm
85269 spacer
>>85268
>Who could possibly smash up a bus-stop when you have a 99 in your hand?

Just use your feet. Are you daft?
>> No. 85276 Anonymous
20th March 2019
Wednesday 5:07 pm
85276 spacer
>The leader of the new pro-Brexit party backed by Jimmy Saville has abruptly resigned, after the Guardian asked her about a series of deleted anti-Islam Twitter messages sent from her account before she took on the role.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/20/leader-of-pro-brexit-party-catherine-blaiklock-resigns-over-anti-islam-messages
>> No. 85277 Anonymous
20th March 2019
Wednesday 7:13 pm
85277 spacer
>>85276
Yeah, I read that earlier.

>“I want my country back. I want seaside donkeys on the beach and little village churches, not acid attacks, mobs and mosques.”

Indeed.
>> No. 85278 Anonymous
20th March 2019
Wednesday 8:28 pm
85278 spacer
>>85276
Quelle surprise.
>> No. 85288 Anonymous
20th March 2019
Wednesday 10:13 pm
85288 spacer
>>85277
>I want seaside donkeys on the beach

Weren't those done away with years ago for animal welfare concerns?
>> No. 85292 Anonymous
20th March 2019
Wednesday 10:34 pm
85292 spacer
>>85288
No, I think they just banned fat kids from riding them.
>> No. 85293 Anonymous
20th March 2019
Wednesday 10:36 pm
85293 spacer
I too would like my country back from these fucking Brexit cunts that are intent on stealing it away from us in the name of "taking back control".
>> No. 85294 Anonymous
20th March 2019
Wednesday 10:36 pm
85294 spacer
>>85288
No they're still around. https://www.westondonkeys.co.uk/
>> No. 85295 Anonymous
20th March 2019
Wednesday 11:09 pm
85295 spacer
>>85293
Whose 'us'?

>>85294
>Discounts available for Schools or Children's Parties.

Imagine how much of a cunt you'd have to be in this life to come back as a donkey.

I remember when I was 6 I got a donkey ride and took a shine to him, petted him as he went around the circuit and that - he stopped though and everyone yelled at me to kick my friend to get him going again. I did it in the end but I could tell I wasn't his mate any more and that he'd rather not be walking around in circles all day.
>> No. 85296 Anonymous
20th March 2019
Wednesday 11:51 pm
85296 spacer
>>85295
>Whose 'us'?
The 65 million or so of us not named Arron.
>> No. 85297 Anonymous
20th March 2019
Wednesday 11:53 pm
85297 spacer
>>85296
You mean the 16 million people who voted remain as opposed to the 17 million who voted leave?
>> No. 85298 Anonymous
21st March 2019
Thursday 12:38 am
85298 spacer
>>85297
If I'd meant that, I'd have said that.
>> No. 85371 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 1:53 am
85371 spacer
>>85297

I love it when people cite all those who didn't vote at all in the number of people who didn't vote Leave.

No, sorry, they don't count. If you have a free vote and you don't use it, that's your right but you then by default don't count.
>> No. 85373 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 2:32 am
85373 spacer

GettyImages-522605040.0.jpg
853738537385373
Imagine living in 2019 and still thinking the 2016 referendum was a legitimate expression of democratic will.
>> No. 85380 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 9:37 am
85380 spacer
>>85373
Still baffles me that even now all this isn't talked about or gotten in to, despite that it's all been in the news and the available information is out there. Weird that.
>> No. 85381 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 10:22 am
85381 spacer
>>85380
Most people who aren't melodramatic fishwives don't give too much of a shit about super secret clandestine funding paying for... a bunch of adverts on Facebook.
>> No. 85382 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 10:36 am
85382 spacer
>>85381
Good job that advertising, propaganda and news articles that are outright lies presented as fact never had an impact on anyone. It's why the advertising business never made any money.
>> No. 85383 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 11:01 am
85383 spacer
>>85381
>melodramatic fishwives
If you think someone's a cunt, call them a cunt, don't chat shit, you cunt.
>> No. 85385 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 11:42 am
85385 spacer
>>85382
I don't think I've ever seen criticism of the content of the material on Facebook, just the funding. It's no worse than Cameron using taxpayer's money to give everyone a Remain propaganda brochure or when the Guardian used to run campaigns during the US elections to get British people to phone Americans and tell them why voting for Bush was wrong, but they tend to get a free pass from those who agree with the end goal.
>> No. 85388 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 1:55 pm
85388 spacer
>>85385

The campaign was shady as hell, but I don't honestly think it was shadier than any other political campaign. It's hard to say that they concretely lied, but they definitely stretched the truth to the absolute limits.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44966969

That's really besides the point though; Vote Leave may or may not have "cheated", but they ran a far better campaign and were very lucky on the timing. Cummings is a strange sort of borderline-amoral genius who deeply understood the practical realities of the campaign. He has blogged in extraordinary depth and remarkable honesty about the precise strategy of Vote Leave. He freely admits that Leave was at best a 20/1 shot and knew it at the time, so he used every trick in the book to try and maximise those slim odds.

His basic argument is that a) they were extraordinarily lucky to get several major European crises immediately prior to the election, b) Cameron and Osbourne made some crucial errors that created an opportunity for Leave and c) the Vote Leave campaign developed better technology that allowed them to better understand the electorate and target their resources more efficiently. Remove any one of those elements and Remain would have won comfortably.

https://dominiccummings.com/2017/01/09/on-the-referendum-21-branching-histories-of-the-2016-referendum-and-the-frogs-before-the-storm-2/
>> No. 85389 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 2:05 pm
85389 spacer
>>85388
>but they ran a far better campaign

Well yeah, they had the money and opportunities donated to them by people now distancing themselves as much as possible from the UK.
>> No. 85390 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 3:43 pm
85390 spacer
>>85389

The Remain campaign spent £6m more, even after you account for overspends and dark money. Like it or not, Leave made better use of their money.

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/campaign-spending-and-donations-at-referendums/campaign-spending-at-the-eu-referendum
>> No. 85391 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 3:58 pm
85391 spacer
>>85388
>That's really besides the point though
It really isn't though. In a rules-based system you agree to play by those rules, and if those rules are broken all bets are off. Nobody says we should "respect the result" of the 1500m in 2012 precisely because it was corrupted by cheaters. Lies or no lies, Vote Leave broke the rules. Various third parties broke the rules. Foreign entities broke the rules. Rules are important. They're what separates us from dictators.
>> No. 85392 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 4:03 pm
85392 spacer
>>85390

That's a fairly misleading summary. The official campaigns were fairly even, and the numbers do not, AFAICT, "account for overspends and dark money".
>> No. 85393 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 4:18 pm
85393 spacer
What is this mass corruption you desperate fannies are talking about?
>> No. 85394 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 4:21 pm
85394 spacer
>>85392
There's little need to account for it because the sums are trivial.
>> No. 85395 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 4:36 pm
85395 spacer
>>85394
If that were the case, nobody would care.
>> No. 85396 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 5:09 pm
85396 spacer
>>85395
Just because sums are trivial doesn't imply that a vocal minority won't jump up and down about it because things didn't go their way. I'm sure some other excuse can be pulled once Brexit 2 happens like lower turn-out and an awkward planetary alignment.
>> No. 85397 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 5:16 pm
85397 spacer
>>85396
By all means keep that head of yours in the sand.
>> No. 85398 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 6:25 pm
85398 spacer
>>85393
Apparently Russia paid for a few Facebook adverts and that had more impact on people's voting intentions than the negative and complacent campaigning of Gideon and Cameron or Jeremy Corbyn deliberately hobbling Labour's Remain campaign.

I kind of miss the days of Gideon and Cameron. They may have been cruel but at least they gave the impression that this was a result of being incompetent and not thinking through the consequences of their decisions rather than being cold and malicious like Theresa.
>> No. 85399 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 6:29 pm
85399 spacer
>>85398
I know, right? What were they thinking paying for adverts on Facebook as if those would somehow be effective. I mean, Facebook's only way of generating value is its ability to sell ads, and it's worth a measly ... *checks notes* half a trillion dollars.
>> No. 85400 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 6:53 pm
85400 spacer
>>85399
Several people I know have admitted they were duped into voting Leave because they believed things like it would mean more money went to the NHS. I don't know a single person who claims they were duped by fake news on Facebook.
>> No. 85402 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 7:03 pm
85402 spacer
>>85400
>I don't know a single person who claims they were duped by fake news on Facebook.
I don't know a single person who claims to have seen any snow this month. I'm not really sure what bearing that has on whether or not there was actually any snow.
>> No. 85404 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 7:09 pm
85404 spacer
>>85392

Those figures are the final sums from the Electoral Commission, after a fairly substantial investigation into spending on the Brexit campaign. It includes the dodgy money that went through Darren Grimes, the DUP and an assortment of front groups. If you can find better data, I'd like to see it.

>>85391

Both sides received significant fines for breaches of campaign finance rules. There's a perfectly reasonable argument that Leave cheated more, but both sides cheated. If the result had gone in favour of remain, would you be arguing that the result was invalid because the remain campaign had cheated? If you can't honestly say yes, then you're not arguing based on rules, you're making a post-hoc justification for why your favoured side should really have won.
>> No. 85405 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 7:42 pm
85405 spacer
>>85404
>It includes the dodgy money that went through Darren Grimes, the DUP and an assortment of front groups.
It clearly doesn't. Indeed, it states up front that it's the money from registered campaigns. Grimes was fined for overspending. How does that work if he's only spent 97% of his limit as these figures claim? Maybe it was that £6 at the One Stop that put him over?
http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/Search/Spending?currentPage=1&rows=10&query=grimes&sort=DateIncurred&order=desc&tab=1&open=filter&et=perpar&includeOutsideSection75=true&evt=referendum&ev=2514&optCols=CampaigningName&optCols=ExpenseCategoryName&optCols=FullAddress&optCols=AmountInEngland&optCols=AmountInScotland&optCols=AmountInWales&optCols=AmountInNorthernIreland&optCols=DateOfClaimForPa
yment&optCols=DatePaid

>Both sides received significant fines for breaches of campaign finance rules. There's a perfectly reasonable argument that Leave cheated more, but both sides cheated.
I'm not sure what difference this makes. The ultimate fact of the matter was that there was cheating, and the result is therefore worthless.

>If the result had gone in favour of remain, would you be arguing that the result was invalid because the remain campaign had cheated?
Yes, but I'm not sure what difference it would make. The path we would have embarked on in those circumstances would have been to do nothing, and the idea of putting the question again in a few years wouldn't have been that controversial to me.
>> No. 85406 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 7:43 pm
85406 spacer
>>85404
>If you can't honestly say yes, then you're not arguing based on rules
realpolitik innit
>> No. 85407 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 8:03 pm
85407 spacer
FWIW, here's a thread that does a fairly reasonable job of laying out the situation with Vote Leave and BeLeave.
https://twitter.com/RobertCPalmer13/status/1083771051782430720

To say the social media advertising had nothing to do with it is somewhere between ignorant and dishonest. Facebook isn't worth $470bn for being a place you can share cat pictures with your mates. There's a reason they fuck with adblockers.
>> No. 85408 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 8:05 pm
85408 spacer
>>85391
Isn't it fairly common for people to say the Conservatives broke the rules in 2015? I seem to remember that being a thing. Obviously they didn't do it on the same scale, but if we're going to play time machine and go back and have votes again, we might as well cut out the difficulty and give Milliband a fair go.

Hell, can we go back and do the 2005 election again? Labour got caught being dodgy buggers skirting the rules in 2002 by using government funds to make what were essentially party political broadcasts such as by advertising that the NHS was hiring nurses on TV. This was a remarkably stupid way to try and hire nurses, but a remarkably effective way of showing the public their lovely government was hiring nurses. That stunt made the government the single biggest advertiser in the country around 2002.

For reference, I'm not even trying to imply a second referendum is disagreeable. I would quite like one. I guess I'm just not fond of acting like corrupt-but-technically-legal behaviour is any more acceptable than technically illegal behaviour, which seems to be a distinction a lot of people want to make in the face of the wrong spivs winning.
>> No. 85409 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 8:20 pm
85409 spacer
>>85408
>Isn't it fairly common for people to say the Conservatives broke the rules in 2015?
Not particularly. That only affected a handful of seats, so there would have been an argument to void the election in those seats, rather than the whole thing, and the numbers involved wouldn't really have changed anything. Davycambles would have still had his small majority.

>Labour got caught being dodgy buggers skirting the rules in 2002 by using government funds to make what were essentially party political broadcasts such as by advertising that the NHS was hiring nurses on TV.
Can you back that up? I'm having trouble finding sources to support this.
>> No. 85410 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 8:29 pm
85410 spacer
>>85409
The thing I was specifically thinking of was this Panorama episode: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/1993982.stm
(Which they kindly provide a transcript for. Dear me, if only current producers were so considerate.)
That may've been the 2001 election though, or straggling the intervening period.
>> No. 85411 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 8:56 pm
85411 spacer
>>85410
Thanks. I'll give it a proper read later, but it's worth remembering that turnout in 2001 was a record low and the result wasn't remotely in doubt, so I'm not sure what to make of it. To a degree, I can understand the advertising on benefit fraud, because it's something that people always massively overestimate and assume nobody's doing anything about.
>> No. 85412 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 9:18 pm
85412 spacer
>>85405

>Grimes was fined for overspending. How does that work if he's only spent 97% of his limit as these figures claim?

His spending of £676,016 equates to 97% of the applicable limit for an independent campaign group, which is £700,000. The Electoral Commission ruled that Darren Grimes was acting in coordination with Vote Leave, which means that his spending should have been reported as part of Vote Leave's spending. Adding Grimes' spending to the Vote Leave total means that Vote Leave would have overspent their £7m limit by about £350,000. The coordination between Vote Leave and Be Leave invalidated the status of the latter as an independent campaign group, because obviously it wasn't actually independent. The limit for an individual is £10,000, so Grimes was therefore charged with an overspend of £666,000.

Nonetheless, the Leave campaign spent in total about £5m less than the Remain campaign. Remain were legally able to spend more, because Labour and the Liberal Democrats campaigned for Remain and were entitled to use their own funds to do so, separately from the £7m limits on the official campaign or the £700,000 limit on an independent campaign group.

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/party-and-election-finance-to-keep/vote-leave-fined-and-referred-to-the-police-for-breaking-electoral-law

No matter how you slice it, Remain spent several million pounds more than Leave. Remain were legally entitled to do so, but the argument that Leave won through sheer force of money is manifestly false. They achieved greater results with less money. Dominic Cummings has been completely candid on his blog about how they achieved that and why he thinks the Remain campaign failed.

>>85407

Social media advertising had everything to do with it, Cummings says so himself. They used rapid OODA loops to optimise and precisely target their message, allowing them to spend money far more effectively. That doesn't alter the fact that they won the referendum despite spending less money. They were very lucky, they were very clever, but any suggestion that the Russians bought the referendum result has no basis in fact.

I'm a remainer FWIW, but I think that trying to invalidate the result of the referendum is a completely counterproductive dead-end. There simply isn't any evidence to suggest that overspending altered the result of the referendum and trying to argue otherwise just smacks of sour grapes. If you want us to stay in Europe, the sensible battle to fight is over a final say on the deal - we might have voted to leave, but the electorate are entitled to choose between May's deal, no deal or remain, especially given that Parliament is seemingly incapable of making that decision themselves.
>> No. 85413 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 9:44 pm
85413 spacer
>>85412
>Nonetheless, the Leave campaign spent in total about £5m less than the Remain campaign.
No, they didn't. That's not how this works. They spent a few thousand less, if you discount the £650k they laundered through Grimes.

>independent campaign group
... and therefore not part of the official campaign. The way you phrase it is as though all the money can be taken together, which is precisely what the prosecution was for.

>the argument that Leave won through sheer force of money is manifestly false
Again, not born out by the facts. Look at Cummings' part 22 in which it's made clear that the campaign was won in those final days, on the back of ads that the Leave campaign legally could not afford to run, because they'd already hit their spending limit.

"The Remain campaign" was Stronger In. "The Leave campaign" was Vote Leave. The other groups were not part of the campaign, hence "independent". Those additional resources were not available to the campaigns. The parties spending an extra £5m is irrelevant, because Stronger In could not leverage that. To wit, Vote Leave doing so to the tune of over £650k is precisely what they were convicted for.

All of which is academic. The simple fact is that the winners cheated, and therefore should by right be deprived of their victory. The losers might have also cheated, but that doesn't matter - they already received their punishment in losing. Ultimately this renders the result illegitimate.
>> No. 85414 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 9:57 pm
85414 spacer
>>85413
>The parties spending an extra £5m is irrelevant, because Stronger In could not leverage that.
That seems tediously legalistic.
Though also a greater indictment of the remain campaign: If the parties could still hurl out cash, why the hell didn't they make a last minute panic dash in the final days just to be sure? I'm convinced to this day that if they'd done that, as they did in Scotland's 2014 referendum after Yes scared the bejesus out of them by polling ahead, we'd only just be getting into the opening moves of the campaign to replace Cameron before the 2020 election. Instead the remain campaign (not stronger in, literally everyone campaigning for remain.) did sweet bugger all of note.
>> No. 85415 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 10:11 pm
85415 spacer
>>85414
>That seems tediously legalistic.
It's about as "tediously legalistic" as Trump using money from his charitable foundation to line his own pockets, lad.

>If the parties could still hurl out cash
What makes you think they could still spend anything? The entire problem that Vote Leave were trying to get around was that everyone was running up against the spending limits.

>why the hell didn't they make a last minute panic dash in the final days just to be sure?
Because that would be co-ordination, which they're not allowed to do.

>I'm convinced to this day that if they'd done that, as they did in Scotland's 2014 referendum
They didn't. "The Vow" was conceived by the press. It wasn't paid advertising.
>> No. 85416 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 10:11 pm
85416 spacer
>>85413

>The other groups were not part of the campaign

The Electoral Commission says otherwise.
>> No. 85417 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 10:15 pm
85417 spacer
>>85415
>Instead the remain campaign (not stronger in, literally everyone campaigning for remain.)
There is no "remain campaign". There is a designated lead, and there are independent organisations. You can't lump them as one because they can't act as one.

>>85416
No, they don't.
>> No. 85418 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 10:24 pm
85418 spacer
>>85413

>The simple fact is that the winners cheated, and therefore should by right be deprived of their victory.

By right perhaps, but not by law. The results of a referendum cannot be invalidated due to breaches of election law, per the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

>>85415

>What makes you think they could still spend anything? The entire problem that Vote Leave were trying to get around was that everyone was running up against the spending limits.

Political parties are not subject to specific spending limits during a referendum campaign. They could spend as much as they liked, subject to usual rules on party donations. It's also worth noting that the government spent £9.3m of public funds to print and distribute a leaflet entitled “Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK”; this cost was not reported to the Electoral Commission, nor was it included in anyone's spending limits.

Both sides broke the rules, the Leave camp perhaps more blatantly, but the rules were clearly biased in favour of Remain.
>> No. 85419 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 10:26 pm
85419 spacer
>>85417

What are you trying to achieve here? Do you believe that after nearly three years, the Government will concede that the referendum was illegitimate? Do you believe that Leave voters will be persuaded to lobby in favour of Remain because the Leave campaign broke campaign finance rules? What's the point of your argument?
>> No. 85420 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 10:30 pm
85420 spacer
>>85415
>What makes you think they could still spend anything?
I mean if Labour managed to blow all their budget on doing literally nothing I'd be quite impressed.
>Because that would be co-ordination, which they're not allowed to do.
It doesn't take much in the way of co-ordination for any of the campaigning groups to throw their own resources at getting their own message out.
>They didn't. "The Vow" was conceived by the press. It wasn't paid advertising.
And Remain suddenly forgot how to make use of the press in the last week of the campaign? (Yes, I know, The DPRK has more diversity of newspaper opinion than Scotland while most papers were pro-leave, but still. There's always TV. Except on polling day.) Nobody could've asked the EU to make some bollocksy statement to grab a few headlines? David Cameron promising he'd share the pig photo if we voted remain would require including the cost of photo development being assigned to stronger in?

>>85417
>There is no "remain campaign".
If you say so. (My god, are we really doing this?)
Did you know the pound isn't actually legal tender in Scotland?
>> No. 85421 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 10:38 pm
85421 spacer
>>85418
Now this is tediously legalistic.
>> No. 85422 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 10:47 pm
85422 spacer
>>85419
The point is quite simple. The referendum in 2016 does not represent the legitimately expressed democratic will of the people. Anyone who says otherwise is being dishonest.

That's it. The result doesn't need to be changed, reversed, substituted, overturned, or whatever the fashionable word of the day is. People just need to be honest about the fact that it did not then and certainly does not now reflect the opinion of the country.
>> No. 85423 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 10:51 pm
85423 spacer
>>85422
I'm not sure this is entirely reasonable. If I break the rules to make people share my opinion they still share my opinion, unless I've lied. "You changed their opinion illegitimately!" is an odd tack.

Now obviously there's lying, which is illegitimate and did occur, but that's quite distinct from breaking the rules. Indeed the rules would generally seem to consider lying acceptable, given the fact the ASA can do sweet fuck all about party ads.
>> No. 85424 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 11:25 pm
85424 spacer
>>85423
>If I break the rules to make people share my opinion they still share my opinion
But do they really, genuinely share your opinion?

>unless I've lied
Is there a difference? If you're dishonesty trying to sway opinion, does it matter how that dishonesty manifests?
>> No. 85425 Anonymous
24th March 2019
Sunday 11:43 pm
85425 spacer
>>85424
>But do they really, genuinely share your opinion?
I mean if we're really getting into this I'm going to find it rather hard to avoid questioning the legitimacy of every election we've ever had (let alone of advertising itself), but on a surface level: Yes. That's not just the binary question on the ballot paper, but also of the other information in a campaign which may have an impact such as migration numbers.
>If you're dishonesty trying to sway opinion, does it matter how that dishonesty manifests?
Depends on how you're framing dishonesty. Lying by omission, selective use of data, etc are all still within the realms of lying. But simply overspending to set out or bring people around to an opinion in itself doesn't invalidate or remove that opinion from the public once the overspending is discovered.

It's slightly academic given we know they lied in the ads they overspent on.
>> No. 85426 Anonymous
25th March 2019
Monday 12:12 am
85426 spacer
>>85425
>But simply overspending to set out or bring people around to an opinion in itself doesn't invalidate or remove that opinion from the public once the overspending is discovered.
It does, however, raise the question of whether they'd still have had that opinion but for the efforts that said overspending bought. Which is precisely why we have laws governing political campaigns.
>> No. 85427 Anonymous
25th March 2019
Monday 6:51 am
85427 spacer
You lads are right. People don't make up their minds from years of politicians using the EU as a scapegoat for their own shortcomings or the tabloids going on about bendy bananas. It's all down to an advert on Facebook the day before the vote.
>> No. 85428 Anonymous
25th March 2019
Monday 7:54 am
85428 spacer
>>85427
Because everyone goes into a vote knowing who to vote for and nobody is undecided.
>> No. 85429 Anonymous
25th March 2019
Monday 10:18 am
85429 spacer
>>85427
0/10 GCHQlad.
>> No. 85430 Anonymous
25th March 2019
Monday 12:10 pm
85430 spacer
>>85429
Think about it, lad. Major corporations have admitted to throwing millions into online advertising and are unable to determine whether it has had any tangible positive effect for them but they do so because it's what the marketing wonks tell them to do, an Emperor's New Clothes situation.

We're supposed to believe Facebook adverts won the EU Referendum all because of Dominic Cummings claiming it did but he's clearly trying to blow his own trumpet and portray himself as a genius mastermind. He's clearly egotistic and wanting to take the credit.
>> No. 85431 Anonymous
25th March 2019
Monday 12:25 pm
85431 spacer
>>85430
>Major corporations have admitted to throwing millions into online advertising ... because it's what the marketing wonks tell them to do

>Major corporations spend lots of money on things that advertising executives advertise to them. But who knows if advertising really works!?
>> No. 85432 Anonymous
25th March 2019
Monday 12:34 pm
85432 spacer
>>85431
Open your mind, lad. Most companies do things that are in their own best interests rather than those of the customer if it means the money keeps rolling in. Advertising is no different and online advertising in particular is a racket.
>> No. 85433 Anonymous
25th March 2019
Monday 12:39 pm
85433 spacer
>>85432
Leave it, lad. He's just a corporate marketing shill that wants to steal ARE BREXIT.
>> No. 85434 Anonymous
25th March 2019
Monday 5:45 pm
85434 spacer
Isn't there a current investigation regarding the money involved/influence from the likes of Russia/Cambridge Analytica and money from Arron Banks?
>> No. 85435 Anonymous
25th March 2019
Monday 6:57 pm
85435 spacer
Petition's at over 5.5 million. More people have signed it in my constituency than voted for the current MP, so I sent him an email about it.
>> No. 85436 Anonymous
25th March 2019
Monday 7:02 pm
85436 spacer
>>85435
Did you mention the crabs?
>> No. 85437 Anonymous
25th March 2019
Monday 8:32 pm
85437 spacer
The big, Tory, Brexit, bods have started referring to themselves as the "Grand Wizards", which is dorky and incidentally racist which does sum up a great many of their number.
>> No. 85438 Anonymous
25th March 2019
Monday 9:04 pm
85438 spacer
>>85435
11% of JRM's own constituents have signed.

Leader is still Bristol West at 26%. Bear in mind this isn't the electorate, it's the entire constituency.
>> No. 85445 Anonymous
25th March 2019
Monday 11:27 pm
85445 spacer

sym_hagrid.jpg
854458544585445
>>85437
>The big, Tory, Brexit, bods

You ever notice how people tend to bonk their political opposites?
>> No. 85446 Anonymous
26th March 2019
Tuesday 12:09 am
85446 spacer
>>85445
I honestly don't think I've shagged a single member of ISIS.
>> No. 85448 Anonymous
26th March 2019
Tuesday 6:38 am
85448 spacer
>>85446

Attending a central London school in the mid nineties I probably sold weed to about half of them.
>> No. 85484 Anonymous
29th March 2019
Friday 3:31 pm
85484 spacer

_106230277_hi053238497.jpg
854848548485484
>>85256
>>85258
Who are these women and how do they keep ending up on camera?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47751805

Would one of you mind chatting to the other lass, she seems a bit down now that her mate has picked up a boyfriend.
>> No. 85485 Anonymous
29th March 2019
Friday 3:40 pm
85485 spacer
>>85484
>Who are these women
The only people in the Leave campaign who are remotely young or attractive.
>and how do they keep ending up on camera?
Because they're the only people in the Leave campaign who are remotely young or attractive.
>> No. 85488 Anonymous
29th March 2019
Friday 4:11 pm
85488 spacer
>>85485
I'll have you know I voted Leave and I'm fucking beauiful.
>> No. 85495 Anonymous
29th March 2019
Friday 5:49 pm
85495 spacer
>>85488
Me too, but we're not in the "Leave campaign", we're wisely keeping our radiant youth away from the vampiric forces that live and breath, if you can call it living, headless sloganeering and knee-jerk reactionism.
>> No. 85496 Anonymous
29th March 2019
Friday 5:57 pm
85496 spacer

D22AoS-X4AEmfMy.jpg
854968549685496
>>85488
>>85495
Are you fans of Q also?
>> No. 85497 Anonymous
29th March 2019
Friday 6:04 pm
85497 spacer
>>85495
Good point well made.
>> No. 85498 Anonymous
29th March 2019
Friday 6:46 pm
85498 spacer
>>85496
No, I did it for long term, left wing reasons which I'm too tired and too embarrassed to talk about.

I would play the role of a gormless Libertarian to cop off with one of those leave-lasses people keep posting though.

>>85497
Thanks.
>> No. 85501 Anonymous
29th March 2019
Friday 11:01 pm
85501 spacer
Happy Brexit Deadline, lads.

It's been nice knowing you.
>> No. 85504 Anonymous
30th March 2019
Saturday 12:34 am
85504 spacer
>>85498
>I did it for long term, left wing reasons
While under a Tory government.

Haven't yet met a Leave voter who isn't a fucking moron.
>> No. 85505 Anonymous
30th March 2019
Saturday 12:40 am
85505 spacer
>>85504>>85504
>While under a Tory government.
This is bigger than that, short-sightedlad

Try and think long term, you fucking pea-brain.
>> No. 85506 Anonymous
30th March 2019
Saturday 12:50 am
85506 spacer
>>85505
Please make it clear you aren't me (>>85498) if you're going to be a pillock. Anonymous has a reputation to keep.
>> No. 85507 Anonymous
30th March 2019
Saturday 12:57 am
85507 spacer
>>85506
Sorry, will do in future.
>> No. 85508 Anonymous
30th March 2019
Saturday 12:59 am
85508 spacer
>>85505
>Try and think long term, you fucking pea-brain.
He is thinking long term, you fucking pea-brain.
>> No. 85509 Anonymous
30th March 2019
Saturday 2:30 am
85509 spacer
>>85508
Excellent argument, well put. Just kidding, it was shit.

He literally just said "While under a Tory governemnt" as though we don't get a chance to get rid of them every four years.

Not like we get to vote on Brexit all that often is it?
>> No. 85512 Anonymous
30th March 2019
Saturday 9:04 am
85512 spacer
>>85509

I think there's a fair case to be made that a lot of the feelings behind Brexit are also the things that have kept Labour so completely unable to even make a dent in the electorate over the last decade, even in working class areas that should be their home turf.

I've said for a while that, if nothing else, Brexit should at least lance the boil of nationalist sentiment and allow the left wing to regain some credibility.
>> No. 85513 Anonymous
30th March 2019
Saturday 10:12 am
85513 spacer
>>85509
Corbyn has been the first proper left-wing leader Labour has had in decades. And he can't even throw out one of the most incompetent Tory governments in history. Once Brexit hits, and everyone is really angry about suddenly being poorer, they are not going to be turning to the Labour Party for succour. History tells us what kind of movements strengthen when there is an economic shock. And on that note:

>>85512
"Let's give fascists everything they want and then they'll go away." Good one Chamberlain, get back in your box.
>> No. 85514 Anonymous
30th March 2019
Saturday 10:28 am
85514 spacer
>>85513
I mean, giving Hitler Czechoslovakia technically did lead to them going away in the medium term
>> No. 85515 Anonymous
30th March 2019
Saturday 10:42 am
85515 spacer
>>85509
No, you're right, if we don't like the Brexit arrangements the Tories give us, we can just change them after the fact by electing a new government.

Fucking pea-brained cunt.
>> No. 85520 Anonymous
30th March 2019
Saturday 12:11 pm
85520 spacer

brexit_not_vote.jpg
855208552085520
>>85515
Everyone knew it was this is nothing.

If Remain had won there would never have been another referendum even suggested.

It was all that was offered, so we took it. And fuck you and every one of the political classes reneging on the deal.
>> No. 85521 Anonymous
30th March 2019
Saturday 12:17 pm
85521 spacer
>>85520
2/10 SEE ME
>> No. 85524 Anonymous
30th March 2019
Saturday 12:39 pm
85524 spacer
>>85520
Nice revisionism, Nige.
>> No. 85526 Anonymous
30th March 2019
Saturday 12:46 pm
85526 spacer
>>85520
Deal?
>> No. 85529 Anonymous
30th March 2019
Saturday 12:51 pm
85529 spacer
>>85513

Except they're not fascists, they're mostly working class people with perfectly valid concerns about the survival of their communities. Calling them fascists for the last twenty years instead of at least listening and having an open debate is exactly what put us in this mess, and you well know it.
>> No. 85530 Anonymous
30th March 2019
Saturday 12:53 pm
85530 spacer
>>85529
They're calling for the overthrow of democracy because they didn't get what they wanted. They're fascists.
>> No. 85531 Anonymous
30th March 2019
Saturday 1:52 pm
85531 spacer

hitlerelection.jpg
855318553185531
>>85529
>mostly working class people with perfectly valid concerns about the survival of their communities
>> No. 85532 Anonymous
30th March 2019
Saturday 3:17 pm
85532 spacer
>>85530

A handful of extremists and tabloid journalists are calling for the overthrow of democracy. Most people, leave and remain, are just fucking bored of Brexit. Polling shows that a majority are happy to support either revocation or a Norway-style soft Brexit, they just want it to be over with.

>>85529

Denigrating the working class is an easy kind of status signalling. Left-wing commentators often decry the trope of Schrodinger's immigrant (simultaneously scrounging off benefits and taking all our jobs), but they don't recognise the hypocrisies in their own belief system. Remember all those jokes about getting a Polish bloke to build a conservatory for £15 and a large kielbasa? Remember all the jokes about muslamic ray guns? Remember Vicky Pollard and the endless stream of chav jokes? There's an ugly streak of bigotry at the heart of mainstream left-wing ideology.

Brexit is the price we're paying for treating working-class voters like second-class citizens. We didn't listen, we didn't engage, we didn't try to win the argument through persuasion, we just told an entire section of society to shut up. Brexit is stupid and self-destructive, but it's exactly the kind of stupid and self-destructive act you'd expect from a group of people who have given up on democracy because they've been systematically marginalised. We have allowed demagogues and lunatics to control the debate, because we simply refuse to participate.
>> No. 85533 Anonymous
30th March 2019
Saturday 3:21 pm
85533 spacer
>>85532
>Brexit is the price we're paying for treating working-class voters like second-class citizens.

Oh, look, it's this bollocks again.
>> No. 85534 Anonymous
31st March 2019
Sunday 8:14 am
85534 spacer
>>85533

What, the truth? It's annoying isn't it.
>> No. 85535 Anonymous
31st March 2019
Sunday 10:44 am
85535 spacer
>>85534
>the truth
If you say so, m9.
>> No. 85536 Anonymous
31st March 2019
Sunday 11:29 am
85536 spacer
I compare the working class leave voter who voted to stop immigration to a luddite but not as a pejorative. If a social change threaterns your quality of life of course you are going to be against it. And if being undercut and lossing your job is a real threat peoples theoretical arguments about the virtues seem unfounded in reality. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
>> No. 85537 Anonymous
31st March 2019
Sunday 1:16 pm
85537 spacer
>>85536
It was on the BBC last night that it's rife amongst Polish builders to buy fictitious invoices, often five figure sums, to reduce the amount of tax they have to pay. With such tricks it's no surprise that they can undercut your average British builder; most tradies I know work cash in hand but I doubt they're resourceful enough to inflate their expenditure to offset against the income they do actually declare.
>> No. 85538 Anonymous
31st March 2019
Sunday 2:42 pm
85538 spacer
>>85536

In my experience, the foreigners only seem to take the jobs that British people don't want to do. You don't get many English dishwashers or cleaners, and, again, in my experience, that's because a Brit will take that job and quit after a week because they hate it. A Romanian or Pole will do the same job happily, even if they were an engineer or something back home. Sending them home, or more likely just driving them out because the pound is no longer strong enough to justify working here, will just mean a lot of angry working class people on the dole being sent out to interview for the sorts of jobs they wouldn't touch with a barge pole.

Maybe it's different in the trades. My hungarian mate is was an electrician back home, but found it nigh on impossible to establish himself here in that line of work, though maybe that's just him.
>> No. 85539 Anonymous
31st March 2019
Sunday 3:34 pm
85539 spacer
>>85538
To be fair, if I could earn the equivalent of £170,000 working in Lithuania washing dishes I'd be off like a shot.
>> No. 85540 Anonymous
31st March 2019
Sunday 3:54 pm
85540 spacer
>>85539

Of course, so would I.

Give it a couple of years and it might just come true
>> No. 85541 Anonymous
31st March 2019
Sunday 4:03 pm
85541 spacer
>>85538
>the foreigners only seem to take the jobs that British people don't want to do
That's partially true but there's also the side of thing where skilled migrants are welcomed over (and less contentious) despite doing jobs that brits would probably do if companies would take up the cost of training them.
Granted as a would-be skilled emigrant I should probably welcome the current system. It's similar in most places.
>> No. 85542 Anonymous
31st March 2019
Sunday 4:14 pm
85542 spacer
>>85541

I agree. To me it seems the sort of people who complain about the foreigners taking their jobs are people who weren't willing to do the job in the first place. I'm sure there are genuinely skilled people out of work because of the Poles, but I've also never heard a doctor complain about an immigrant taking their job, and the NHS seems to rely on that sort of thing.
>> No. 85543 Anonymous
31st March 2019
Sunday 4:48 pm
85543 spacer
>>85542
>I've also never heard a doctor complain about an immigrant taking their job, and the NHS seems to rely on that sort of thing.

Each year there's tens of thousands of people who apply to train as a doctor or nurse but aren't successful because there aren't enough spaces for them. If I remember correctly, it costs the NHS three or four times as much to train a nurse than it does to import a ready trained one from overseas.
>> No. 85544 Anonymous
31st March 2019
Sunday 6:13 pm
85544 spacer
It's all too easy to get caught up in a pedantic debate about which jobs immigrants take and if, in fact, Brits would do them instead. It's easy to look at it as an argument between small minded little-Englanders and elitist suburban Graun readers. But to do so is missing the point entirely, I think.

Too many people are unemployed, underemployed, or unsecure in their employment. We've seen reliable old fashioned jobs give way to zero hours contracts and the "gig economy". So sure, lots of people's anger is misplaced, but the fact remains nobody, on the left or otherwise, has ever tried to seriously address those concerns, and now we're all terribly shocked that so many people were taken in by the rhetoric of nationalism.

It might not be true that the Poles have taken all the jobs, it might not be true that Brits would eagerly be dishwashers if Romanians weren't doing it. But it definitely is true that if those people had the decent work they should have had, and if they had been listened to and engaged in serious debate instead of simply being called fascists, they wouldn't have voted leave.
>> No. 85545 Anonymous
31st March 2019
Sunday 6:18 pm
85545 spacer
>>85544
>if those people had the decent work they should have had

Why should they have had 'decent work'?
>> No. 85546 Anonymous
31st March 2019
Sunday 6:33 pm
85546 spacer
>>85545

What's wrong with expecting to have an economy full of good, safe, decent paying jobs? That's how capitalist society is supposed to work, surely? And it's how Britain worked for many years, which is the reason people want to go back to it.

They're thinking about the decent, accessible, well paying jobs of thirty or so years ago, and rightly or wrongly (my opinion is wrongly) blaming the EU for that decline. That was a time where anyone who was willing to work, had somewhere to go and make a good living. Factories, manufacturing, the docks, it was all booming, even up here in the forgotten wilds of the north. My dad was 22 when he bought his house, on a docker's salary.

It's exactly the sort of time the nationalistic lot remember, though I don't think they're willing to entertain the idea that we can never go back to that, that there are so many other factors at play, not least the housing market.
>> No. 85547 Anonymous
31st March 2019
Sunday 6:48 pm
85547 spacer
>>85546

Something about people only deserving to have good jobs if they go above and beyond for them and it not being a right, judging by his tone.
>> No. 85548 Anonymous
31st March 2019
Sunday 7:44 pm
85548 spacer
>>85545

Because of the social contract you fucking prick.
>> No. 85549 Anonymous
31st March 2019
Sunday 7:53 pm
85549 spacer
>>85545

The more people in decent work, the better our economy is, the better our exports can be, job stability can improve the mental and sometimes physical health of people, which reduces strain on the NHS, not to mention the reduction in welfare costs (our biggest expense, as taxpayers) and that of course people in decent work pay decent tax too, making us all better off.

Honestly, what reasons are there that people shouldn't have decent jobs? It's a net positive for the entire country.
>> No. 85550 Anonymous
31st March 2019
Sunday 8:34 pm
85550 spacer
>>85549
>Honestly, what reasons are there that people shouldn't have decent jobs? It's a net positive for the entire country.

Some people are just plain cunts and want people poorer than them to suffer to feel better about themselves.
>> No. 85551 Anonymous
31st March 2019
Sunday 11:10 pm
85551 spacer
>>85549

All this and, more to the point: Because then they wouldn't have voted for fucking Brexit.
>> No. 85553 Anonymous
1st April 2019
Monday 2:19 am
85553 spacer
>>85544
>nobody, on the left or otherwise, has ever tried to seriously address those concerns
I'm not a big fan of this sentiment. Plenty of people have tried, they're just barely publicised or influential. The most important political lesson it is possible to learn is that a lot of people do have the answers or did have the answers, but they were ignored, fell out of favour, weren't good at building a faction around themselves, and so on. It's incredibly disheartening (I'm still not sure it hasn't completely broken my mind.) but sufficient time reading about obscure historical figures makes it painfully obvious.

None of the factions in either major party today have any reason to exist. They are a collection of people who were better at faction-building and media relations than they were about being right about the solutions to our social and economic problems. That failure is much larger than a failure of one or two people to become Prime Minister: It's worse than that. It prevents their ideas spreading generationally. If anyone has the answer to our problems today they're probably getting into fights on Twitter about how money is created, not sitting in parliament.
>> No. 85554 Anonymous
1st April 2019
Monday 8:22 am
85554 spacer
>>85553
MMT is a whole other kettle of crap.
>> No. 85555 Anonymous
1st April 2019
Monday 12:29 pm
85555 spacer
>>85553

>I'm not a big fan of this sentiment. Plenty of people have tried, they're just barely publicised or influential.

Well, that's a fair point I suppose. But it amounts to near enough the same thing, and those who have been more influential have tried their level best to stop the unwashed masses from having their voices heard.
>> No. 85556 Anonymous
1st April 2019
Monday 12:53 pm
85556 spacer
>>85554
I'm not really pushing MMT or any other specific theory or ideology. It's just that anyone with a clue is going to be engaged in that kind of tedious academic argument rather than being in power setting things right. I'd rather remain circumspect about my own views because I've lost interested in pushing that my specific ideas are correct. I'm now much more interested in emphasising that the commonly accepted ideas are wrong and that we've got a woeful talent and ideas deficit. If we can accept that, we can at least possibly chart a course to setting things right. Probably not though. We love to pretend we'll just muddle through.

>>85555
Well yeah, it's the same practical outcome. I feel like a lot of the problem is less malice on the part of politicians and more a mixture of ignorance and unquestioned assumptions, though. But then that'd be my explanation for why we got a referendum in the first place as well, so maybe I'm just a hammer seeing nails.
>> No. 85557 Anonymous
1st April 2019
Monday 3:55 pm
85557 spacer

welp.png
855578555785557

>> No. 85558 Anonymous
1st April 2019
Monday 11:12 pm
85558 spacer
>>85557
Poetic or tragic irony?
>> No. 85586 Anonymous
12th April 2019
Friday 11:57 am
85586 spacer

article-6914049-12184512-955_636x382.jpg
855868558685586
Are Nige is back, lads.
>> No. 85587 Anonymous
12th April 2019
Friday 2:17 pm
85587 spacer
>>85586

Why is he dressed as a shopkeeper from a Monty Python sketch?
>> No. 85588 Anonymous
12th April 2019
Friday 4:56 pm
85588 spacer
>>85587
Because he wants normal people to think he's one of them and that's what he thinks they look like.
>> No. 85589 Anonymous
12th April 2019
Friday 5:13 pm
85589 spacer
>>85586
I thought he had no stake in this country at all any more.
>> No. 85590 Anonymous
18th April 2019
Thursday 5:55 pm
85590 spacer

D4RD0wJW4AAUCoB.jpg
855908559085590
TIG won't have their logo on the ballot papers for the European Elections after it was rejected by the Electoral Commission.
>> No. 85591 Anonymous
18th April 2019
Thursday 6:44 pm
85591 spacer
>>85590
Apparently they consider it "likely to mislead" because it contains a hashtag. It would appear that the Electoral Commission have a stick up their arse. Stexit when?
>> No. 85592 Anonymous
18th April 2019
Thursday 8:50 pm
85592 spacer
>>85590
It's impressive that they managed to fuck up something so unbelievably simple. Why did nobody check the guidance? Why didn't they think to call up and ask? Did they come up with the design and press submit over Nando's?

I was flabbergasted so I looked it up and they were recently advertising jobs like senior press officer for 40k a year. Clowns.
http://www.w4mpjobs.org/JobDetails.aspx?jobid=70272

>>85591
In fairness, "change" is a bit misleading when their entire platform is about maintaining the status quo, I think the hashtag is just something else they don't like because it will inevitably lead to twitter in the polling booth. After all, the Electoral Commission have consider the interests of the sentient mushroom people we allow to vote. Take Obama-fans for instance
>> No. 85593 Anonymous
18th April 2019
Thursday 9:08 pm
85593 spacer
>>85592
>Why did nobody check the guidance? Why didn't they think to call up and ask? Did they come up with the design and press submit over Nando's?
British politics will make a lot more sense if you 'imagine' that:
(a) Everyone there is half-arsing their day job like a student half-arsing their essay the day before the deadline having done none of the reading
(b) Everyone's incompetence lacks a lower bound. The best the competent can hope for is to be gracefully shunted to the lords in recognition of their refusal to resign and do something else with their lives.
It really is awe inspiring.
>> No. 85594 Anonymous
18th April 2019
Thursday 9:22 pm
85594 spacer
>>85592
>In fairness, "change" is a bit misleading when their entire platform is about maintaining the status quo
Go home, Guido.
>> No. 85595 Anonymous
18th April 2019
Thursday 10:06 pm
85595 spacer
>>85592
>>85594
Blissful thought, if you dwell on it: Their aim is not to maintain the status quo. That is no longer possible. Their aim is to restore the last 'status quo' that we knew. That status quo is gone, dead, never to be restored. Even if we were to decide to remain in the EU, we've passed the point of no return. Real change is easier than putting humpty dumpy together again. It follows on from this that we're in another moment of historical flux. You can be pessemistic about that if you want (we could go in a very bad direction), but the reopening of the possibility for change is fundamentally optimistic. If we can change now, we can change again and if progressive forces seem to be on the back-foot now then it's worth looking back at the delusional froth of the right-wing in 70s Britain. From "Labour has won 4 of the 5 previous elections" to 18 years of Tory rule in less time than we've learned it takes to leave the European Union...
>> No. 85596 Anonymous
18th April 2019
Thursday 10:43 pm
85596 spacer
>>85595
>That status quo is gone, dead, never to be restored.
Go on.
>> No. 85597 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 6:48 am
85597 spacer
>>85596
That depends on what variant of the old status quo you want. Are we turning the clock back to 2001, 2005, 2010 or 2015, or some other date? I appreciate that's an oversimplifying question, but a more detailed one would probably become an impossible to answer mess.
Generally speaking: It's very rare for an old status quo to be restored once it's been broken with. Off the top of my head I can think of none except status quo ante peace treaties, and even those rarely avoid the changes brought on by the fact a war happened even if no territory changed hands. I don't have a mechanism for that broad trend.
>> No. 85598 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 4:32 pm
85598 spacer

farage.jpg
855988559885598
Throw your hands in the air like you don't care!
>> No. 85599 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 6:57 pm
85599 spacer
If I want PR should I vote for the Brexit party at the upcoming elections? If not, who should I vote for instead?
>> No. 85600 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 7:29 pm
85600 spacer
>>85599
Lord Buckethead.
>> No. 85601 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 12:19 pm
85601 spacer
>>85535

Going to drag this comment up from the depths

If your unskilled working class it's likely your job will be minimum wage, zero hour and increasingly employed through an agency to circumvent employment laws. You will have seen your government decline to implement EU regulation of zero hour contracts. You will have seen the calls for a living wage while your government declines a raise minimum wage in line with this. Your life will be unrimmittingly grim and you will be painfully aware parliament and government decline to make any improvement to your lot.

If you don't see this as a huge pool of resentment just waiting to be exploited by twats like England first/UKIP and others you live in fantasy land. If some or all of the above had been addressed we wouldn't be in the situation we are
>> No. 85602 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 12:22 pm
85602 spacer
>>85601
I agree with this post wholeheartedly.
>> No. 85603 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 1:01 pm
85603 spacer
>>85601

You're definitely not wrong lad.

I feel like it's only now, when we're balls deep in this mess, that people are starting to wake up to that fact. The working class have been fucked from both sides for a long time- The right obviously wants them to be the peasants they've always been, while the left too has indulged in its own casual class based discrimination. The people who have been most eager to silence working class concerns have been those comfortable middle class Graun reading types, who are almost visibly disgusted at the thought of those uncouth, vulgar white van men and football hooligans.

Those are the people who are only just realising you can't make a problem go away by calling everything racist, and then posting on twitter about how immigrants are just harder workers doing jobs Brits are too lazy to do, completely unaware of the delightfully Marxist irony of such statements.

But it's too late now. We're already fucked.
>> No. 85604 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 1:39 pm
85604 spacer
>>85601
That would be all well and good were it not for the fact that the very things you describe not only fail to explain Brexit, they argue the very opposite.
>> No. 85605 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 1:40 pm
85605 spacer
>>85603
I disagree with this post wholeheartedly.
>> No. 85606 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 2:49 pm
85606 spacer
>>85604

I think I explained my reasoning in my post

Working class treated badly and apparently unlistened to leading to resentment, this then being exploited by pro brexit organisations
>> No. 85607 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 3:20 pm
85607 spacer
>>85606
Right, but the resentment want caused by the EU. Indeed, in the they you advanced, it was our government breaking with the EU that caused it. That doesn't seem like it would create the sort of anti-EU resentment that anti-EU organisations could feed off.
>> No. 85608 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 4:22 pm
85608 spacer
>>85607

The right-wing tabloids have been blaming all our ills on BLOODY BRUSSELS BUREAUCRATS since before Maastricht. Successive governments have used this scapegoating for their own ends and pro-Europeans have failed to establish a compelling counter-narrative.

Our membership of the EU is possibly/probably a net benefit to low-paid workers, but nobody has managed to persuade them of that. The conversation around the referendum contained an obvious element of snobbery against Leave- and Leave-leaning voters - they're provincial and parochial, they're stupid, they're racist etc. Regardless of whether those things are true, it wasn't a particularly persuasive approach. A huge amount of what happened before and after the referendum simply reinforced the long-standing belief that the country was being run by a bunch of posh, out-of-touch London wankers who had no idea what life was like in Burnley or Walsall.

Brexit is more about culture than policy; Saville understood this, but Cameron didn't. Saville connected Brexit with a sense of personal and national identity that is widespread in the electorate but chronically under-represented in politics and the media. He made a policy that ultimately benefits the elite and harms the majority seem like a proletarian utopia; somehow, the Remain campaign achieved the opposite.

Remain supporters have still largely failed to seriously examine why they lost and what that says about the broader political conversation. Dominic Cummings has written with extraordinary length and candour about why his campaign succeeded; I think his blog is the single most important document in contemporary politics, because he understands things about the electorate that nobody else does.

https://dominiccummings.com/2017/01/09/on-the-referendum-21-branching-histories-of-the-2016-referendum-and-the-frogs-before-the-storm-2/
>> No. 85609 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 6:02 pm
85609 spacer
>>85608
I'm not sure what counter narrative you were expecting beyond "it's all bollocks". Doing anything more only serves to legitimise the bollocks and elevate to a status on par with the truth. This is how KAC was able to explain away falsehoods as "alternative facts". There's a whole series of explainers on this topic under the headline "The Alt-Right Playbook", though many of the tactics described therein aren't particularly "alt".
>> No. 85610 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 6:33 pm
85610 spacer
>>85608
>pro-Europeans have failed to establish a compelling counter-narrative.

The message that you used to hear from the likes of the Greens, Labour and the Lib Dems is that the EU is a deeply flawed organisation but we should remain and reform from within.

That's about as positive as it got. When Cameron came back from his negotiations with his tail firmly between his legs many simply saw that message become "the EU is a deeply flawed organisation." At best, Remain managed to turn the entire thing into a coin toss where you should decide based on your gut instinct.
>> No. 85611 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 6:34 pm
85611 spacer
>>85609

If that's your mindset, you've already lost.

You don't let the other side dictate the terms of the debate. You create your own slogans and talking points to sell the benefits of EU membership rather than merely reacting to whatever is coming from the Leave campaign. "Take back control" was an incredibly powerful message, even if it was fundamentally wrong. It connected on a deep level with the sense of disaffection, alienation and loss of status felt by many older and working-class voters. Remain had nothing even vaguely comparable, because they couldn't empathise with Leave- and Leave-leaning voters. Arguing that Remain couldn't have had an equally powerful message is just a re-iteration of that lack of empathy.

More to the point, nobody had done the groundwork. There was no Remain equivalent of the constant drip feed of bendy banana bullshit. Nobody invested any real effort in promoting the benefits of EU membership to working-class voters. Cameron could have reacted to the rise of UKIP with an onslaught of pro-EU propaganda, but he chose to pander to anti-EU sentiments instead for short-term political benefit. That subsequently proved to be a devastating blow to the credibility of the Remain campaign, because it looked like a u-turn.

Remain lost. You can blame the Leave campaign and learn nothing, or you can reflect on the many grave mistakes made by the Remain campaign and become a more effective participant in the democratic process.
>> No. 85612 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 7:00 pm
85612 spacer

article-6955187-12670206-749_636x644.jpg
856128561285612
What a picture of Nige and Widdy.
>> No. 85613 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 7:12 pm
85613 spacer
>>85611
>If that's your mindset, you've already lost.
Well, no. That's so wrong it doesn't deserve to be dignified with further comment.

>You don't let the other side dictate the terms of the debate.
Which is exactly what your notion of a counter narrative is, in effect.

No, if you treat lies as legitimate views, then you've already lost.
>> No. 85614 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 7:34 pm
85614 spacer
>>85613

Mate, you clearly don't understand what a counter-narrative is.

https://www.isdglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Counter-narrative-Handbook_1.pdf
>> No. 85615 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 10:55 pm
85615 spacer
>>85605

You can disagree if you want, but that means you're one of those very people and it's your fault we're leaving the EU.
>> No. 85616 Anonymous
25th April 2019
Thursday 3:35 am
85616 spacer
>>85615

Whatever you say, luv.
>> No. 85617 Anonymous
25th April 2019
Thursday 10:17 pm
85617 spacer

12389124-6935401-image-a-7_1555587110970.jpg
856178561785617
The future is Saville.
>> No. 85618 Anonymous
26th April 2019
Friday 12:22 am
85618 spacer
>>85611

As far as I can tell the main opposition position is that the older and working-class voters are racist thickos so trying to engage with them is a lost cause and instead I shall perch upon my high horse of modern education and enlightened values and deem that the correct course of action is self evident for any reasonable person and as such we can't possibly lose.

Might my high horse be metaphorical and about as rooted in sound facts and reality as the narratives of the baddies? Don't be absurd.

Refusing to engage is giving them almost as much power as treating them to a proper debate would. You can argue against this all you want but the real world results bear out in support of that. It happened in the US with Trump and the digustingly smug attitude on display by tons of Democrat aligned media and people, and it's happened here a lot with Brexit.

Raged for this just being my own opinion.
>> No. 85619 Anonymous
26th April 2019
Friday 12:45 am
85619 spacer
A claim that is commonly repeated is that any chicanery should be ignored because we should assume some competence in the voters to see through it, but the evidence of 2016 entirely contradicts this.

Can we just acknowledge that democracy doesn't work and move to evidence-based technocracy already?
>> No. 85620 Anonymous
26th April 2019
Friday 9:41 am
85620 spacer
>>85618
There's not much wrong with elitism against stupidity tbh, the problem is showing that elitism towards people rather than viewpoints, and being wrong in your own politics. If an elitist did little to engage with the concerns of working class people over immigration while actually taking action to boost living standards and improve communities that have been left to rot for decades, the problem might well go away without any pandering. (A bit of press regulation wouldn't be too bad either, frankly.)

Trump came from overengagement as much as refusal to engage. The media couldn't resist jumping on him for saying things he couldn't say, so they'd give him more airtime - then he'd go up and talk about jobs. The smugness of the Democrats came from their smugness in believing their victory was pre-ordained, not from their smug refusal to engage with concerns about immigration. (Their refusal to engage with economic concerns, however...)

>>85619
Evidence based technocracy won't work because smart people are very easily swayed by policy based evidence that benefits them. People who advocate evidence based policy almost always imagine that (a) the evidence agrees with them, and (b) the evidence will suggest a pretty minimal change path. If you believe in evidence based policy but don't believe in pretty radical social change (probably not along the conventional socialist/libertarian/ecologist lines mind you), you don't really believe in what the evidence will tell you to do. You just think that a few tweaks justified with impenetrable documents loaded with nonsense are all we really needed to fix things before democracy fucked it up.

In any case, evidence can't tell you what policy to make. It can only tell you what policy to make towards a specific goal and what trade offs are involved. Democracy is about deciding that goal.
>> No. 85621 Anonymous
26th April 2019
Friday 10:20 am
85621 spacer
>>85620
>Evidence based technocracy won't work because smart people are very easily swayed by policy based evidence that benefits them.
Said every populist ever.
>> No. 85622 Anonymous
26th April 2019
Friday 10:37 am
85622 spacer
>>85621
>Populist presidents and prime ministers are associated with significant reductions in economic inequality across the world, according to groundbreaking research that will challenge the assumption that populism only has negative consequences.

>The research was conducted by Team Populism, a network of academics who have worked with the Guardian to produce the Global Populism Database, which gives leaders around the world a populism “score” based on the contents of their speeches. The team used the data, a comprehensive tracker of populist discourse among world leaders in 40 countries, to analyse what happens when populists come to power.

>The most surprising finding, they said, was that populists across the political spectrum tend to narrow the gap between rich and poor. The academics described the correlation between populism and greater equality as “a fairly large effect”.

>“This was contrary to what I expected,” said David Doyle, an associate professor at Oxford University, who led the economic analysis. “Maybe I’ve just been biased by years of research that tells us that populism is bad.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/07/revealed-populist-leaders-linked-to-reduced-inequality

People like populism because it works. It's not a dirty word.
>> No. 85623 Anonymous
26th April 2019
Friday 12:09 pm
85623 spacer
>>85621
I can't think of any populist who'd say that, in similar words, with all the implied nuance it carries. They might say something more vulgar like that politicians are corrupt, but we're not looking at corruption. Good faith still leads to disaster when combined with ignorance and ideological blind spots.
"Evidence™ based™ aristocracy™ or Populism" is a stupid and false dichotomy pushed by those who should read more history.

>>85622
I wouldn't go so far to say that it works based on that. As the article notes, a possible explanation is just that rich people leave the country.
>> No. 85624 Anonymous
26th April 2019
Friday 5:05 pm
85624 spacer
>>85622
>The research was conducted by Team Populism
Yes, I too remember when Big Oil was funding research saying their impact on climate change was negligible.

>>85623
Self-service is self-service no matter how you slice it.
>> No. 85625 Anonymous
26th April 2019
Friday 6:09 pm
85625 spacer
>>85624
There's a distinction between being self-serving because you're taking backhanders from the construction company, and being self-serving because you're taking the path of least resistance, unknowingly, because the dynamics of government, evidence available at hand (note: not the entirety of evidence on the matter) and time pressure all push in that direction.

It doesn't help that even if you're not trying to be self serving in the slightest. If we assume the ultimate in good faith, your approach might still bugger it up as ideology, personal experiences and existing feeling in the organisation combine. Imagine we're going for another round of NHS reforms. You might set out to simplify management structures and jurisdictions, centralise procurement and give more autonomy to medical staff in the belief that their sense of public duty will lead them to put patients first. You might alternatively set out to ensure appropriate oversight, promote initiative at the management level, try to draw in lessons in efficiency from the business world, and expect that medical staff are - like most rational actors - after the best pay for moderate levels of work. Those two basic approaches will give you very different management structures, and a good faith case can be made for both. But the person who designed the former isn't going to like the latter, and vice versa. Everything from fundamental assumptions about human nature to whether your mum was a nurse could have an impact on which you think will work better. Then if you find yourself in a position of power, you might just get to decide for the rest of us.
>> No. 85626 Anonymous
26th April 2019
Friday 9:47 pm
85626 spacer
>>85625
>There's a distinction between being self-serving because you're taking backhanders from the construction company, and being self-serving because you're taking the path of least resistance
There's a distinction, but ultimately not a difference.
>> No. 85627 Anonymous
26th April 2019
Friday 11:16 pm
85627 spacer
>>85624
Considering that 'Team Populism' was working in partnership with the grauniad it's unlikely they're an actual pro-populist group. Even their name betrays a sense of humour on the subject.
>> No. 85628 Anonymous
26th April 2019
Friday 11:27 pm
85628 spacer
>>85627

The Guardian predominantly espouses a populist ideology. If you disagree, I would respectfully encourage you to first look up a definition of populism before composing a reply.
>> No. 85629 Anonymous
26th April 2019
Friday 11:41 pm
85629 spacer
>>85627
The Guardian loves populism. Brexit and Trump are a wet dream for them, with the amount of column inches they can get out of it. The Graun tries to get its readers in a perpetual state of rage to keep them constantly angrily clicking and commenting away so encouraging populism helps them achieve this. Why else would they regularly want to make the left-wing look utterly ridiculous?
>> No. 85630 Anonymous
27th April 2019
Saturday 1:43 am
85630 spacer
>>85622
That's an interesting definition of "work" you have there.

>According to our research, populist governments have deepened corruption, eroded individual rights, and inflicted serious damage on democratic institutions.

>The most important issue, however, is neither how long populists stay in office nor even how they ultimately leave, but what they do with their power—and, in particular, whether their tenure causes what political scientists call “democratic backsliding,” a significant deterioration in the extent to which the citizens enjoy basic rights.
>Here, too, our findings were sobering, to say the least: In many countries, populists rewrote the rules of the game to permanently tilt the electoral playing field in their favor. Indeed, an astounding 50 percent of populists either rewrote or amended their country’s constitution when they gained power, frequently with the aim of eliminating presidential term limits and reducing checks and balances on executive power.

But far from draining the swamp, most populists have, as the economist Barry Eichengreen put it, simply replaced the mainstream’s alligators with even more deadly ones of their own. In fact, we found that 40 percent of populist heads of government are ultimately indicted for corruption. Since many populists amass sufficient power to hamper independent investigations into their conduct, it is likely that this figure actually underestimates the full extent of their malfeasance.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/hard-data-populism-bolsonaro-trump/578878/
>> No. 85631 Anonymous
27th April 2019
Saturday 11:03 am
85631 spacer
>>85618
>class voters are racist thickos

This position does amuse me. I live in a former mining area, an area which has seen a huge amount of eastern European immigration predominantly polish. This area voted overwhelmingly to leave so on the surface would seem to be a reflection of the above
However from the late 40s into the 1950s large numbers of polish people moved into the same area to work in the mines with little opposition from the locals, and this in a era where almost no laws existed to protect minorities.
>> No. 85632 Anonymous
27th April 2019
Saturday 11:19 am
85632 spacer
>>85628
I did look up the definition and it was exactly what I thought it was. But the Guardian is only populist in the narrow sense that they're concerned about income inequality. By the standard of what is viewed as populist in the West, they're very much not populist at all. People differ in what they consider the 'elite'. There are plenty of UKIP voters who'll see chai-sipping Muswell Hillbillies embarrassed by Brexit as being more of an elitist class than the bloke who owns Wetherspoons.
>> No. 85633 Anonymous
27th April 2019
Saturday 11:38 am
85633 spacer
>>85632

>People differ in what they consider the 'elite'.

Which is exactly my point. Guardian readers don't see themselves as belonging to an elite. They espouse a slightly different strain of populism to the tabloids - an Occupy Wall Street, "we are the 99%" kind of populism. They might be university educated, they might have extensive cultural capital, they might work in well-paid jobs and live in expensive houses, but they're not bankers or tech billionaires, they're just ordinary people from working-class backgrounds who've done well for themselves. They don't see the hypocrisy of railing against unaffordable rents while also owning a buy-to-let ex-council house. They might jet around the world on exotic holidays and drive a Chelsea tractor, but climate change isn't their fault, it's the fault of the big corporations. They see themselves as victims of an unfair system, not benefactors.

Corbyn is, by any reasonable definition, a populist leader. His opinions must be in the best interests of the people, because his party has the most members. His whole political platform is built on the idea of standing up for ordinary people in their fight against the elite.
>> No. 85634 Anonymous
27th April 2019
Saturday 12:29 pm
85634 spacer
The fact populists are often bad and position themselves against an elite does not render the existence of an actual material elite untrue, nor does it legitimate their existence.
Anyway for the two big cleavages of elite here - cultural and economic - I've always found this quote (as relates to the old, paternalistic BBC) interesting:
Treating people as if they were intelligent is, we have been led to believe, “elitist”, whereas treating them as if they are stupid is “democratic”. It should go without saying that the assault on cultural elitism has gone alongside the aggressive restoration of a material elite.
There's a very interesting post in my head about the overlooked right-populism of Thatcher as she took on British institutions, and how it still lingers as an undertone in British culture and politics (especially right-wing distaste for the BBC) but I'm not going to type it because I know the replies won't be worth the effort.

Another, longer, interesting but less related quote with some emphasis.
Hard to credit now, but there was once something paternalistic, almost philanthropic about the Beeb, spreading the cultural wealth of the educated classes through housing estates and comprehensive schools. This kind of evangelism rarely sits well with self-conscious champions of the lumpenproletariat, whose right to live in shit, they believe, outweighs their right to not live in shit – for some, being patronised is worse than being brutalised. But then people can be very naïve about the motivations of those who give the people what they want, relentlessly and remorselessly. And while the Corporation was sometimes guilty of gross assumptions and a very real stuffiness, I don’t like to think how I might have grown up – stomping around in the middle of nowhere – had it not been for Life On Earth, or Carl Sagan’s Cosmos, or James Burke’s Connections, or the gentle guidance of the BBC Childrens’ department. Years ago, I interviewed the men in charge of “youth programming” at Channel 4, goateed and bereted and utterly insistent that their race to the bottom was a noble crusade; they railed against the BBC’s “eat-your-greens” approach, and spoke of gallons of liquid effluent, coursing through the pipes of British culture, in terms of freedom and some strange colour of egalitarianism. Here was the future, banging its drums, and even then it made me blanch. As controller of BBC2 in the late 1960s, David Attenborough had a different vision, rooted in what was, for all his personal privilege, an (enduring) belief in inclusivity. If the so-called Golden Age of Television could boast its fair share of shoddy, overlit crap (and my God, it could) at best it was truly empowering, and its passing has screwed us all to some extent. We can still choose to watch BBC Four, I suppose (assuming it’s not another show where ex-NME writers smirk at Mud’s trousers), but then this is an age of choices, few of which have much to do with freedom in the long term. No one’s going to stumble onto culture any more, not like I did, or my dragged-up mates did. It’s worse than a shame.
>> No. 85635 Anonymous
27th April 2019
Saturday 1:15 pm
85635 spacer
>>85633
>ordinary people from working-class backgrounds who've done well for themselves

I'm aware data is not the plural of anecdote but that is emphatically not my experience of Guardian-readers. I think you're painting them with a very broad brush indeed. The Guardian may fit one definition of populism but not the one that's currently apposite in our society at any rate. They come off as overtly patronising, which as posited in the post after yours really is seen as a cardinal sin for .com many 'ordinary' people. The working-class must be fought for, protected and given the opportunity to advance their place in society. But God forbid they actually go out and vote for things they believe in, because bless their little hearts they're just too thick to know what they're voting for, let alone notice how Benedict Cumberbatch is playing their heartstrings like a fiddle. It's curious that a supposedly populist paper like the Guardian is supportive of an aggressively neoliberal institution like the EU when it's the native working class that loses out from the free movement of labour. On that, Corbyn certainly is populist - people forget that for the longest time it was the Tories that were pro-Europe, following the call of big business against the opposition of unions. Now, particularly in light of the Brexit vote, the beleaguered working-class are piled on even more by the metropolitan left-wing. They're worse than just being stupid, backward-looking, credulous and economically illiterate. They're probably xenophobes too, giving all the more reason to vilify them and ignore their concerns.
>> No. 85636 Anonymous
27th April 2019
Saturday 1:37 pm
85636 spacer
>>85635
Reality isn't your strong suit, it would seem.
>> No. 85637 Anonymous
27th April 2019
Saturday 1:46 pm
85637 spacer
>>85636
Why do you insist on being a cunt? There's no point making an effort to post something thoughtful in this thread because you'll inevitably move the discussion on with a short, pointless, cunty post that adds nothing before someone with something to contribute can get a word in. Cut it out.
>> No. 85638 Anonymous
27th April 2019
Saturday 1:51 pm
85638 spacer
>>85636
Cracking retort m7.
>> No. 85639 Anonymous
27th April 2019
Saturday 2:05 pm
85639 spacer
>>85637
>Why do you insist on being a cunt?
Probably for the same reason people insist on posting ill-informed ill-thought out rambling dreck like >>85635.

>you'll inevitably move the discussion on with a short, pointless, cunty post that adds nothing before someone with something to contribute can get a word in
You'd rather people waste their time arguing with posts that read like the output of Dissociated Press?
>> No. 85640 Anonymous
27th April 2019
Saturday 2:42 pm
85640 spacer
>>85635

I'm >>85633, replying in an effort to avert a pointless cunt-off.

Your point about the alternating patronising and hostile attitudes to the working class is quite reasonable, but I'm not sure it rules out the charge of populism. I think the irreconcilable contradiction (poor wretches vs fascist beasts) reflect a deeper cognitive dissonance, namely that a) we are self-evidently right but b) people keep disagreeing with us. The Mail can just dismiss their critics as belonging to an out-of-touch metropolitan elite, but The Guardian can't credibly pull off the same trick.

There's a framing which resolves these contradictions quite neatly, which is innately populist and reflected quite strongly in much of the post-Brexit discourse - the working classes aren't really fascist monsters, they've just been brainwashed by The Elite. The working class would be queueing up to support the liberal agenda, but their anger at the indignities inflicted upon them by The Elite has just been manipulated by The Elite as a means of suppressing Real Change. A shadowy cabal of media moguls and businessmen have turned working class minds against immigrants and benders to distract them from their elite machinations. Liberal views are truly the most popular, but the working classes have been bamboozled by Elite propaganda into fighting against their own interests. On the far left, "The Elite" appears to often mean "The Jews".
>> No. 85641 Anonymous
27th April 2019
Saturday 6:49 pm
85641 spacer
>>85640

That's because that's who it is m8. I'm glad someone finally sees things clearly.

On a less facetious note, the way I see it is that identity politics like bumder cunt offs, immigration cunt offs, fishmongery cunt offs and racialist cunt offs are exactly what the elite have been using as a divide and conquer strategy for the last several decades. If you're working class or a Mail reader you tend to fall on one side of certain fences, if you're middle class or a Graun reader you fall on the other side. The fences are not mutually exclusive, but the important part is that it keeps everyone bickering and distracted from the real issue.

Fundamentally, it's not about right versus left any more. It's just about keeping everyone tribal and confused so that they don't unite against the one thing they all have in common- The fact the Jews elites have been fucking them over and keeping them economically trapped.

Working class people wouldn't hate immigrants if they themselves had enough money to live comfortably. Ethnic minority communities wouldn't clash with white communities if they had the economic freedom to live alongside each other. Fishmongers wouldn't whinge about not being CEOs if they felt they had more of a slvaluable stake in society. And so on and so forth- whichever issue it is, it all boils down to economic inequality, and I reckon if everyone was happier with their own lot in life they wouldn't waste their time creating grievances with others.
>> No. 85642 Anonymous
27th April 2019
Saturday 6:55 pm
85642 spacer
>>85640
>The working class would be queueing up to support the liberal agenda, but their anger at the indignities inflicted upon them by The Elite has just been manipulated by The Elite as a means of suppressing Real Change.
The problem with putting it dismissively like this is that there's pretty good evidence that it is actually the case. Here's a study from the US that found that the preferences of those outside the donor class had a "near zero" effect on actually enacted policy. (The actual PDF can be found with very little effort.)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
>> No. 85643 Anonymous
27th April 2019
Saturday 7:35 pm
85643 spacer
>>85641
I don't necessarily disagree with the point but I'm going to object to the framing. The balance of forces in society as it stands definitely helps to push us into unproductive debates, but I doubt it's consciously planned. The magic of how we've done things since the 80s has been to hand things over to the market, and the problem is that as individuals we're very bad at understanding the market. The market doesn't plan. These things arise spontaneously from the actions of individuals, some acting in good faith, some in bad faith, others who are completely crazy. It's an emergent property of the way things are done that aids it in protecting itself from changes to how we do things, and organising against it is very difficult because of that. Even as we move in more populist directions, unless they really screw up the results will be more similar to the recent past than not.

The mere scope of the hole we've trapped ourselves in since the 80s, and how that's stuck blinkers on our ability to imagine credible alternatives (be they libertarian, socialist, old-fashioned conservative, technocratic or what have you) is mind boggling. Just absolutely mind boggling. The worst part is that it's not even like we're all out here, aware of what's going on. There are still plenty of people out there who don't appreciate just how bad that this poverty of vision is, and I dare say it's an even bigger problem than our material problems - because it cuts off the exit route.

Something very, very, very bad happened in the 80s, and it wasn't as simple as economic liberalisation. It may not even have been intentional.
>> No. 85644 Anonymous
27th April 2019
Saturday 11:45 pm
85644 spacer
>>85643

I imagine you're familiar with Adam Curtis, but most of his recent work explores these themes.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p04b183c/adam-curtis-hypernormalisation
>> No. 85645 Anonymous
28th April 2019
Sunday 11:43 am
85645 spacer
>>85643

If you believe someone like Noam Chomsky, it was very definitely intentional. If you believe the likes of Curtis, it was partly intentional and partly the system running away with itself in ways that nobody predicted (or at least, cared enough to think about).

It sounds very conspiratorial to blame The Man for everything, but somewhere down the line, there are indeed people responsible. People in power who made decisions purely for personal gain and political expediency. People who could have taken us in a different direction, but chose not to.
>> No. 85650 Anonymous
1st May 2019
Wednesday 7:01 pm
85650 spacer

5cc6d956240000680038b911.jpg
856508565085650
This man is going to be the next MP for Peterborough and it's going to be fucking awesome.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-48123355
>> No. 85651 Anonymous
1st May 2019
Wednesday 7:14 pm
85651 spacer

peterborough.png
856518565185651
>>85650
I can't help but feel if she hadn't been such a tit in the aftermath, no one would really have cared all that much about a bit of speeding.

And I'm not sure there's much of a desire for Nige, my Ukipper Brexit Party friend.
>> No. 85652 Anonymous
1st May 2019
Wednesday 7:21 pm
85652 spacer

Brexit party now first-01.png
856528565285652
>>85651
If they carry momentum from the European Elections then who knows?
>> No. 85653 Anonymous
1st May 2019
Wednesday 7:24 pm
85653 spacer
>>85652
If.
>> No. 85654 Anonymous
1st May 2019
Wednesday 7:34 pm
85654 spacer
>>85652
It'll be negated by all the people voting for an MP who don't vote in European elections. Euro elections are an anomoly in that they specifically bring out people with strong feelings about the EU, people with strong feelings on the EU tend to be opposed to it, and who see at as a vote on "do you like the EU or not?". I know there have been large-scale protest marches for remaining in the EU, or a second referendum, or a customs union, or something, recently, but this is a long term trend and many Remainers still, erm, remain less fanatical than their Leaver counterparts.

Also those who do still support remaining in the EU have a larger pool of parties to choose from. After all, why vote for anyone but the "get us the fuck out now" lot if that's exactly what you want? Most leavers see the EU as a good-for-nothing organisation, they don't care about anything that happens there beyond the odd viral Saville speech. But you could be a small c Conservative or a internationlist Labour voter and be a "Remainer".
>> No. 85655 Anonymous
1st May 2019
Wednesday 7:47 pm
85655 spacer
>>85650
Here are some interesting facts:

The first recall petition, for Ian Paisley Jr of the DUP, fell short by a few hundred signatures. That petition was opened in three locations out of the ten permitted.

This petition has passed overwhelmingly, after being opened in the maximum ten locations.

Prediction: The Brecon and Radnorshire petition will be opened in 3-4 places.
>> No. 85656 Anonymous
1st May 2019
Wednesday 8:54 pm
85656 spacer
>>85652
Interesting to see SNP/Plaid losing a third of their vote.

>>85654
The red line on >>85652 is Labour.
>> No. 85658 Anonymous
2nd May 2019
Thursday 12:36 am
85658 spacer
>>85656
>The red line on >>85652 is Labour.

I don't understand why you felt the need to point this fact out when it's already very clearly labled. I suspect you were making a point, but I can't discern what.
>> No. 85659 Anonymous
2nd May 2019
Thursday 7:42 pm
85659 spacer
Doesn't look like Are Tommeh is going down to well in Bury.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBjzot0z_4o
>> No. 85660 Anonymous
3rd May 2019
Friday 2:53 am
85660 spacer
>>85659
Outstanding debating skills there.
>> No. 85663 Anonymous
3rd May 2019
Friday 6:56 am
85663 spacer

_106776955_optimised-cllr_change_bars_0630-nc.png
856638566385663
YELLOW SURGE
>> No. 85664 Anonymous
3rd May 2019
Friday 12:31 pm
85664 spacer
>>85663
That's orange.
>> No. 85665 Anonymous
3rd May 2019
Friday 12:49 pm
85665 spacer
>>85664

It is clearly apricot pedantlad.
>> No. 85666 Anonymous
3rd May 2019
Friday 5:17 pm
85666 spacer

_106787420_cllr_change_bars-nc.png
856668566685666
APRICOT SURGE.
>> No. 85667 Anonymous
3rd May 2019
Friday 5:56 pm