- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 3167 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
1417 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 86935
This man is not going to be the next Prime Minister of the UK, and it's going to be fucking awesome.
|>>|| No. 88777
I don't know if you live in the same country as me, but Blair is basically remembered as Satan incarnate for getting ARE BOYS needlessly killed in Iraq and cozying up with Dubya. It's not a good look.
The mistake you're making is thinking people would choose to have the shits, because they'd prefer having the shits to having malaria.
|>>|| No. 88780
Irish people hate Cromwell, even though he is a hero to (and I like the irony of the term in that context) Republicans.
Blair represents a compassionate society with a level of savvy management and not upgrading the status quo. That's what people like and that's what people who are blairites identity with.
Most people want that. When a moderate sees Corbyn, what they see is someone wholly uncompromising of the middle ground. If he can't get the more savvy people of his own party on board the ones who are more pragmatic and compromising, like the MPs who have experience being in Government and how the system works, how is he going to run anything resembling a functional system just with the untempered idealists?
I have images of a Corbyn government snubbing say, the city of London with a policy, them saying 'if you do this we will have to leave because business will be unviable' and him and his followers going 'well fuck you we don't want you anyway greedy bastards' and that will be 20% of our GDP wiped out overnight.
Yes Blair invaded Iraq, Liberals voted for student loans. But if you damn a group for making the tough choices you need to make in government don't be surprised if you get something worse. I didn't support the Iraq war but it seems an absurd point to dredge up to argue that any other Blair/blairite idea is shit.
|>>|| No. 88782
Who really idolises Cromwell in the name of republicanism? He became a tyrant and hereditary monarch himself, I thought?
|>>|| No. 88784
Because it yet again parrots the "should have backed Leave" bollocks that Milne and co were spouting.
|>>|| No. 88785
What I am trying to get at with the "shits vs malaria" analogy is that this is not a binary choice. Blairism may have been what people wanted in the optimistic, comparatively utopian pre-9/11 world. But it won't go down well today if you just teleport in another Milliband or Brown, no matter how good their PR is.
|>>|| No. 88796
>It will be crucial if we are to stop irreversible damage being caused by the climate crisis and the particular effects that has on people in the global South, if we are to stop the pain plaguing our country: food banks, poverty and people struggling to get by, if we are to protect our precious NHS, it won't be easy. But we've built a movement.
These sound like things that desperately need to be addressed to my ears.
|>>|| No. 88797
They're just general "stop the bad things" platitudes that wouldn't be out of place on the Ed stone. Platitudes that could be made by almost any Labour politician.
What's actually telling is that he's still clearly tone-deaf and delusional. He's talking about resistance and campaigning like he's leading a protest rabble rather than the leader of the opposition.
|>>|| No. 88798
I disagree. It's actually not that often you hear any party leader talking about the well-being of people in the global South. As for climate change, Johnson and saville didn't even attend the televised climate change debates. The statement about poverty is backed up with the report of the UN Special Rapporteur Prof Philip Alston, who Corbyn cites in a letter to the PM: https://labour.org.uk/press/scale-poverty-britain-national-emergency-corbyn-writes-pm/
Corbyn's statements on the NHS are also pretty extensive and well-documented.
How much detail you're meant to give in a two minute Twitter video seems subjective, but it's clear there's a lot more depth to his positions than you're giving him credit for.
|>>|| No. 88799
I don't doubt the sincerity of his positions, but they're more or less a given for a Labour politician. What matters, together with his "we won the argument" drivel, is that they haven't learnt a thing and will resolutely bury their heads in the sand even though the Corbyn project was a massive failure.
|>>|| No. 88800
Is he a politician representing the 'global South'? No. His priorities should be here, and poor people who are suffering in this country want to hear that.
Britain is already extremely generous when it comes to foreign aid. Aside from the fact that 0.7% of government spending is ringfenced for global aid and development (surprising move from the evil Tories) our rates of private charitable giving are also high. It's a complete dead-end issue for any left-wing politician who actually wants support from people on council estates.
|>>|| No. 88801
>Is he a politician representing the 'global South'? No. His priorities should be here, and poor people who are suffering in this country want to hear that.
He mentions poverty and people struggling to get by in the UK in the next sentence.
>Britain is already extremely generous when it comes to foreign aid. (...)
Regarding foreign aid, the UK has a mixed record at best. The DFID has some genuinely admirable projects, but some other aid is offered to protect UK investments in a pretty obvious and cynical fashion, and often aid is completely at odds with other areas of foreign policy. I'd highly recommend historian Mark Curtis for this.
Here's an analysis of financial flows in Africa from back in 2014, with plenty of UK companies named in ultimately extracting more profit from Africa than is delivered in aid as a matter of careful and deliberate policy: http://curtisresearch.org/publications/honest-accounts-the-true-story-of-africas-billion-dollar-losses/
Here's some analysis of various primary sources on UK foreign aid: http://markcurtis.info/category/aid/
I should say that this problem is by no means unique to the Conservative party. But I also think a Corbyn government would have had an incomparably more humane foreign policy overall, and that likely would have included aid.
>It's a complete dead-end issue for any left-wing politician who actually wants support from people on council estates.
I'm not really sure what to make of this, or the connection to council estates.
|>>|| No. 88802
>poor people who are suffering in this country want to hear that.
I read somewhere that one of the reasons Labour did so poorly is because their campaign was out of touch as they grossly exaggerated the number of people who are struggling in this country. Most don't feel oppressed, go to food banks or are on a zero hours contract, so Labour's message didn't connect with them.
|>>|| No. 88803
I find it interesting that you use the word 'extracting' when referring to profits. Economics is not a zero-sum game, and your wording hints at the viewpoint that business is parasitic rather than symbiotic (which it certainly can be, but this isn't the rule). The study you linked also has glaring flaws. Notably it centres on capital flows, which are a notoriously 1-dimensional means of evaluating the economy of anything as complex as a nation state. In addition the figures for the losses caused by climate change are highly speculative.
In either case, I find it hard to square the notion that Western businesses are bleeding sub-Saharan Africa dry while the region has experienced economic growth of over 5% for much of the last two decades. Do some of our companies engage in shady practices? Almost certainly given the FTSE's mining contingent. But it's clumsy and inaccurate to assume that any profit made abroad 'robs' that country of deserved income. By that logic France is robbing us blind every time a council contracts Veolia to collect its recycling.
|>>|| No. 88804
You've focused on one word I used and hand-waved an entire study on the basis of it being too complex a subject to report on. Specifically, what else do you feel would be important to include to have a more accurate analysis of an economy?
Five percent growth of what? GDP? GNP? Other measures that have been heavily criticised by economists? Who benefits from that growth, even if it were a useful measure for someone?
And why are we even talking about this, if "council estate" folk apparently don't care and it's not a vote winner?
You lads will endlessly shift about the terms of debate rather than concede on any point.
No, I don't think business is inherently bad, that would be a meaningless position. What I'm pointing out is that UK foreign aid and the broader foreign policy is not designed for the benefit for other countries, therefore an increase in it tells us nothing.
|>>|| No. 88805
No m7. People don't want socialism or far left 6th form politics. I know someone who volunteers at a food bank, whilst there is genuine hardship, there's others that use it so they can go out every other weekend. Also people on zero hours contracts find them preferable and don't want more hours. Zero hours are in the majority supported by the people that choose to work them. Opression? Don't make me laugh unless you want to talk about a middle eastern religion and their treatment of women. The UK has one of the least oppressive societies in the world.
|>>|| No. 88806
This is probably a good point. Would be interesting on the numbers on it- We know the median average income is around £25,000, but like a lot of statistics it doesn't tell us much on it's own. How many chavs does the country really have versus poshos?
I think they need to have a good think about the way they try to market socialism, really. A lot of people are inherently selfish and they hate the idea of generous benefits because they see it as someone who doesn't deserve it being able to get a free hand-out, when they, as a hard working and upstanding member of society, aren't entitled to anything. They see it as rewarding laziness instead of rewarding work, which is why the rhetoric of Osbourne-era austerity worked so well.
Short of convincing everyone UBI is a good idea, I'm not sure what exactly there is to do about it; but probably more needs to be done to emphasise how socialism can help everyone at all levels of society, instead of allowing its detractors to paint a picture of just giving free money to council estate single mums.
Then, of course, there's the fact that people who genuinely are poor will often refuse to identify as such. Class awareness has been eroding for years and slipping towards the American kind of aspirational, "One day I'll be rich!" mindset, even when they're in an obviously dead-end job and have no intention of retraining or otherwise doing much to alter the situation.
|>>|| No. 88807
>people on zero hours contracts find them preferable and don't want more hours
Alright Duncan Smith, time to give the brandy a rest for tonight.
|>>|| No. 88808
I think it's hard to gauge because individual and household incomes can vary considerably. You could be in the top 15% of earners whilst being in the bottom half for overall household income if your partner doesn't have a job.
>In a scathing review of the parties’ proposals to reduce in-work poverty, the IFS said less than one in five of the people who would benefit from a higher minimum wage lived in low-income households. “The direct benefits from minimum wage increases would mostly go to middle-income households,” the report says.
>Only 17% of minimum-wage workers live in the poorest fifth of households and just 19% are in households in relative income poverty, after a shift to part-time work that often means low-paid workers live with higher earners.
>A smaller proportion of UK workers are low paid than at any time since the early 1980s, due to above-inflation increases in the government’s national living wage.
>A report by the Resolution Foundation thinktank said the share of employees who were officially classified as low paid – earning less than around £8.50 an hour – had fallen to 18%, the lowest since 1982.
>Further planned increases in the national living wage would reduce the percentage of low paid – those earning less than two-thirds of the median hourly wage – to 15% by 2020, the thinktank said.
>A boost from an above-inflation increase in the “national living wage” has reduced the percentage of people classified as low paid in Britain to its lowest level since modern records began.
|>>|| No. 88811
There was also a trial by McDonald's.
>Under the trial, staff are offered contracts in line with the average hours per week they work. New starters have to wait three months to be offered a fixed-hours contract.
>“No one can choose their final hours until they have been with us three months, because that way they need to understand their pattern of work and how that works,” Pomroy said. “Then they sit down and agree – ‘OK since you have been with us for three months you have worked an average of 12 hours. Do you want to go to 16? Would you prefer 16? Or do you want to stay at four? Or do you want to go zero?”
>About 80% of workers in the trial elected to stay on zero hours; of those who took up the fixed-hours option, three of five went for the maximum of 30 hours.
>“It was not that they weren’t getting the hours they wanted at McDonald’s, but as financial lending tightened it was becoming a real challenge. So we listened. We have just completed a first pilot test of moving to fully flexible hours. Interestingly in the test we have done, over 80% have stayed on zero because they want the full flexibility. If you speak to them they want to be able to up their hours when they are in school holidays and they want to be able to reduce when they’re studying. The same with mums.”
|>>|| No. 88812
McDonalds have an excellent management training programme that is recognised to a high standard in the employment industry. They also have a harsh anti union stance, leading to an exploitative status in their workforce. At the end of the day, people aren't forced to work zero hours. People choose to work them through choice, not 'muh oppression'.
|>>|| No. 88813
Those things are all well and good when you're a mum or a student who wants flexibility for their sprog or so they can go get pissed when their mates are. That's all well and good, because no self respecting adult who intends to work for a living, chooses to do so at fucking McDonalds.
The trouble arises when people who want/need stable full time income aren't able to get it, and end up stuck at McDonalds. Jobs like taxi drivers being parcelled off to Uber. Competition between workers driving wages down.
Flexibility is great in principle. What's not great is when instead of flexibility, it's just uncertainty.
|>>|| No. 88814
We're not disagreeing lad. The point is that Labour massively fucked up their campaign by resonating with the minority of people who are unhappy being on a zero hours contract whilst doing little to connect with the large majority of the country who don't feel oppressed.
|>>|| No. 88815
>The UK has one of the least oppressive societies in the world.
Imagine living in 2020 and genuinely believing this.
|>>|| No. 88816
The problem with reading too much, or almost exclusively, The Guardian is you end up suffering from mean world syndrome and you end up out of touch with reality.
|>>|| No. 88817
The Guardian is not a particularly good paper for exposing bad things or the systemic flaws which cause them. Sometimes there'll be good journalism, but their coverage is really very limited. Remember that this supposedly left-wing paper dutifully followed the attack on mandated targets like Assange, Snowden, Corbyn, etc.
Anyway, you could flip this point on its head: if you only read papers which follow the establishment framing of issues, you're likely to be missing a lot of suffering and injustice in the country and the wider world -- the kind of events and struggles which don't get exposure. If you think about how small the media class is compared to the population, ownership of media organisations, the overwhelmingly privileged backgrounds of most journalists, and how concentrated media is in one part of the country, which of the two positions do you think are more likely to be true to reality?
|>>|| No. 88818
When the hell has the Guardian ever slagged off Snowden? They were the first media body to start publishing his leaks on 05-06-2013 and have backed him ever since.
|>>|| No. 88820
Agreed, I withdraw the word "attacking" Snowden, there. But I included Snowden because The Guardian destroyed much of the information Snowden released under pressure from the government and intelligence services. Based on their treatment of Assange (who I understand makes documents directly available to the public rather than sending them to newspapers) I'd be extremely skeptical about their coverage on that issue, too.
|>>|| No. 88821
So, you don't think they should treat a rapist differently? Or are they supposed to just let the rape thing slide?
|>>|| No. 88822
The day after the arrest warrant was issued Sweden's chief prosecutor said "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape", so if that doesn't suggest the charges stink I don't know what does.
|>>|| No. 88823
That's only half the story.
>The next day, the case was transferred to Chefsåklagare (Chief Public Prosecutor) Eva Finné. In answer to questions surrounding the incidents, the following day, Finné declared, "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape". However, Karin Rosander from the Swedish Prosecution Authority, said Assange remained suspected of molestation.
|>>|| No. 88824
That allegation refers to consensual sex where he failed to wear a condom after she had indicated she wanted one. I don't think that's even illegal here. Also that woman's behaviour after the incident stinks as well. For one she went back for more and let's not pretend Assange was the controlling husband type.
|>>|| No. 88825
>That allegation refers to consensual sex where he failed to wear a condom after she had indicated she wanted one.
Or, in other words, non-consensual sex.
>let's not pretend Assange was the controlling husband type.
Why would anyone need to pretend? People who know him and have worked with him suggest he was exactly that type.
|>>|| No. 88840
There's plenty to agree with in my opionion, but I don't know why they can't just suck it up regarding the election result. It doesn't matter how ace and lovely you think McDonnel and Corbyn are, their goose is cooked. Folk like the Dulwich CLP are like the American baddy in The Living Daylights, still playing with his American Civil War models even though Bond's broken into his house to shoot him in the face.
|>>|| No. 88842
>I don't know why they can't just suck it up regarding the election result
Because Labour "won the argument."
|>>|| No. 89026
More than a fifth of time spent on news websites during the general election campaign was spent on Mail Online. Interestingly, the Mirror, Sun and Guardian all had a similar number of visits as the Mail but people spent far less time on them.
|>>|| No. 89028
I have no idea who almost all of the 'celebrities' are, but I am partial to some curves being flaunted.
The Mail have written an article crowing about how much time people spent on their site during the election but the majority of posts are people saying they're only there for the comments and don't trust what's published by them.
|>>|| No. 89030
Maybe I'd feel differently IRL but I'd rather have a nosey around those Roman(?) ruins than look at her tits.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]