>>90936 >Boris can magically make a lot of his bad leadership go away by resigning
He's too vain for that, and the Tories just don't have anyone new/popular enough coming up through the ranks. Rishi would be a shoo-in for the leader right now if they had to, but once the bill for COVID-19 comes in he will look bad, and I just don't see middle England voting for him in enough numbers to win.
I could see Boris getting bored though, or his private life finally having enough cut-through to actually damage him, the posh twat can't keep it in his pants after all - we would then be in the John Major phase of the Tories.
COVID-19 has distracted us from Brexit, but that won't go on forever and why Trump potentially losing next week bringing Brexit back into focus is so interesting.
So you are telling me in a journal especially about the Science wars with the quite clear agenda of disproving Gross and Levitt’s accusation that Post modernism is baseless junk which is subjected to a poor level of scrutiny and just hand waved for approval. They printed an article that was post modernism is baseless junk with a poor level of scrutiny they just hand waved for approval, and you somehow see that as not entirely proving their point. The mental gymnastics you've done to be an apologist is fascinating.
The idea they would wave through an article based solely on the name attached even if the article was complete bollocks is part of the point that was being made it doesn’t excuse it at all. Social text isn't the Guardian it is not supposed to publish Morrissey’s hot take telling everyone how Christmas is an animal holocaust, it is an Academic journal, and it should really have been using peer review otherwise does it even have value beyond low quality toilet paper?
>>90938 You probably don't realise you've done it, but you've moved the goal posts from "They published nonsense because it appeared to agree with their politics" to "They'll publish any old nonsense because their review process was bad"
Nobody was saying that Social Text's review process was adequate, what was in dispute was whether the inadequacy was a willingness to publish lefty nonsense, or willingness to publish nonsense from an accredited physicist because he was an accredited physicist.
The former is politics, the latter is credentialism.
Lads, lads, lads, are we really playing along with the fiction that any cunt actually reads these academic publications? No one cares, at all. Rutledge Steam Weekly has a wider readership.
>>90940 You don't understand, if we let people publish nonsense in a self-appointed journal of cultural criticism, next thing you know people will be citing it as justification for policy - which as everyone knows, is constructed based on consultation of all the available scientific evidence followed by careful formulation of practical interventions, rather than something fantastically silly like a combination of the vague prejudices of politicians and the general public, dressed up in economic sounding language and justified ex-post-facto with last year's recycled think-tank vomit from the USA, who were 4 years and one notionally centre-left government ahead of us on this particular strategy for butchering service delivery.
I haven't. My stance is "They will publish any old nonsense as long as it agrees with their position regardless of validity" i don't think it would be unreasonable to assume if that article had been talking about how quantum physics demonstrates the need for patriarchy they would have throughly reviewed it to find fault and rejected it.
>Starmer said he had spelled out to Corbyn on Wednesday evening how he intended to respond to the damning report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which found Labour responsible for three legal breaches over antisemitism.
>“I’m deeply disappointed in that response from Jeremy Corbyn yesterday not least because I spoke to him the night before the report to set out how I intended to deal with it,” he told Today. “And from discussions yesterday morning I’m in no doubt that Jeremy Corbyn and his team knew exactly what I was going to say in my response about not only antisemitism but the denial and the arguments about exaggeration, and it’s just a factional fight. That is why appropriate action was taken yesterday by the general secretary in suspending Jeremy Corbyn. That’s the right acton – very difficult action, but the right action, which I fully support.”
Corbyn knew in advance what Starmer's response would be to the report, that anyone who claims antisemitism is factional or exaggerated are part of the problem and have no place in the Labour party, then decides to completely undermine that with his own statement. What a fucking clown he is.
This in spades, he is a fucking knob. He could have just said "I AM SORRY" and it would be over, but his distorted sense of moral superiority / purity got in the way.
>>90944 I appreciate the need to not say it for the cameras, but I also don't appreciate how he can't say something that's manifestly true. Labour had a massive problem which was subsequently blown up to the extent you'd think they were the Black Hundreds, not an organization with a bureaucracy too shit to keep up with all of the people who Twitter now lets us catch out being antisemitic wankers and which dithers on suspending MPs when every parliamentary majority is on a knife-edge.
I suppose I'd have been satisfied if he'd just gone: "Yeah, sure, the problem was as big as everyone says. But the report didn't pay enough attention to how Labour HQ fucked up." That wouldn't be sailing against the wind quite so much, but it would still put pressure on the most crucial area and expose that Labour was (and is, it's just hidden again for now) a dysfunctional party.
And I'm sure someone will take this as just being delusional Corbyn apologia, but it's not that. It's genuinely about the way that Labour is structurally dysfunctional and harmed by the partisanship of those in positions of power, both left and right. Starmer is a nice new coat of paint on a crumbling edifice.
>>90945 It would be over, but it would be a complete concession of defeat to the right of the party and a complete enabling as their plan to throw him to the wolves as though he singlehandedly came in, made the party anti-semitic, and fucked off, and now that he's gone the problem will go away and the EHRC's demand for an action plan is basically perfunctory. Action plan: No More Corbyn. Done.
Cunts just don't know when and how to pick their battles, frankly, and it fucks me right off. Thing is, it was over as soon as they pulled the anti-Semite card. It's the nuclear option. Understandably he wants to fight it but it's just not a fight he's gonna win, without pulling the rest of the party down with him.
I saw a comment elsewhere on the Web along the lines of "bla bla we have to fight this and if it costs Labour the next election, so be it." and frankly that's the part that fucks me off above all else. Because it cuts to the heart of the fact that in order to be able to say that, you have to have the privilege of being able to afford another decade of Tory rule. Anyone who's lives will be further harmed by the prospect is just collateral damage in a quest for ideological purity.
I loved Corbyn as leader honestly, and I was right there arguing it was all bollocks and media spin, but it's fucking over. It's over, we already lost, and these people won't just shut the fuck up and keep a low profile for a couple of years so they can wield some influence over a future Labour that's in power. Just play the fucking game you fucking mugs. Smile and say you're sorry and rim Starmer's fucking ringpiece until you have a better shot at him.
I mean this is the whole issue really, Corbyn himself might have been an old fashioned Marxist battleaxe but his supporters are by and large middle class student brat types. They're not bothered about winning, because a lifetime of permanent opposition suits them just fine. After all, once you win you're no longer the scrappy underdog fighting against the powers that be, and you can't forecast shipping nearly as easily once you are the powers that be.
>>90946 The socialist MPs had agreed that they would wait and read the report in full, digest it, accept what it said and then make a statement. Corbyn blew all of that out of water by jumping the gun. His ego is more important to him than drawing a line under it for the benefit of the Labour party.
Corbyn never actually understood the problem. He was preoccupied with antisemites, but the problem was antisemitism. He refused to acknowledge that he held views that were subtly antisemitic and he refused to acknowledge that subtly antisemitic views were widespread in the party.
Declaring yourself a "committed anti-racist" counts for nothing if you're unwilling to examine your own views and the views of your allies. Everyone is a little bit racist and everyone has dodgy stereotypes rattling around in the back of their mind; the only way to meaningfully address racism is to be humble, vigilant and self-reflective. Corbyn was and is utterly convinced of his own moral purity. He showed no willingness to actually listen to the concerns of the Jewish community. His refusal to accept the findings of the EHRC report was the nail in his coffin.
>>90949 >He refused to acknowledge that he held views that were subtly antisemitic
Well, firstly, I'd disagree that he did and secondly if he'd done that his political ambitions would have ended more swiftly than Robert Budd Dwyer's.
>>90947 You're not entirely wrong (particularly if the implication of "better shot at him" is a left leadership challenge or such at a better time), but there's definitely a non-zero demographic of people who would benefit from a Corbyn government (taken on its policies, if not their practical likelihood of implementation) enough for it to be worth fighting for, but not benefit enough from a Starmer government (assuming he maintains the current cautious approach and we head into the 2024 election with Labour promising slightly less cuts than the Conservatives because oh me oh my we did spend a lot of money in 2020 didn't we?) for it to be worth fighting for, particularly given he's still looking more Kinnock 84 than Blair 94. Kissing the ring of the future king is one thing, kissing the ring of Edward Balliol is just a little bit embarrassing.
Viewing a Labour government as an end in itself is itself a hobbyists view of politics. I know that because it's my view. My support for Corbyn could be unqualified because I didn't believe any of the alternatives would do better. The same is true of Starmer now. I'm more downwardly mobile than an old woman on an escalator, I'm never going to be seen as "deserving poor" (single man), and I'm not optimistic enough to believe that's going to change, so I might as well cheer to see the current crop of inbred incompetent bastards replaced by the other crop of incompetent bastards with less inbreeding and more regional accents.
(Of course since it's a hobby, my involvement in factional battles consists entirely of posts like these.)
But equally, from my position it would be perfectly rational to accept another decade of Tory rule if it meant that the Labour government at the end of it would do something to arrest my downward slide, and it would be insanity to trade that away for a 2 term Labour government committed to moderate improvements in the lives of mostly middle class swing voters, with a few minor adjustment to a few choice segments of the deserving poor which would be rolled back the minute the Conservatives got back into office even if the Budget surplus compared favourably to Labour's massive surplus of PR fuckups.
>particularly if the implication of "better shot at him" is a left leadership challenge or such at a better time
Exactly, yes. But they'll never get there because they're more bothered about going down as martyrs.
>lightly less cuts than the Conservatives because oh me oh my we did spend a lot of money in 2020 didn't we?
The thought occurs to me sometimes that part of the reason the Tories have spent as much as they have so recklessly this year is a lot like like scuttling a ship before the enemy can get their hands on it.
>>90953 >the reason the Tories have spent as much as they have so recklessly this year is a lot like like scuttling a ship before the enemy can get their hands on it.
Or gutting a house before it burns down.
>>90959 It's weird noticing the fluctuations in the Greens. I vaguely remember them having controversy but one would think once you go Green you really go Green.
>>90960 I think they're just the safe default "I don't want to vote for anyone" choice and that fluctuates according to who is ascendant in the main two parties.
The weird part for me is how the LibDems are absolutely fucking nowhere, struggling to name or recall any of them.
Socialism is bad now? What the fuck, why didn't anyone tell me? I will of course start campaigning to dismantle the welfare state immediately.
Sure, a lot of red pilled brothers over at the other place will have no income from their "neet bux" anymore but it's all for the greater good of corporate hegemony.
>>91611 If the argument for this was "we expect more of MPs" I could understand, but it's not. This just seems like the most akward fudge possible that looks bad to everyone. Hang on! It's Starmer's Brexit Ref 2.0 all over again! Christ almighty.
