Can't we just have a second referendum instead? I've had enough of this.

>>86936
Not going to happen. Labour are the only party promising that and they're going to crash and burn under Jezza.

>>86936
Like you think this will all be settled even after another election and/or referendum? This is us now, we need to own it.

Listen I couldn't give a fuck if Jeremy Corbyn knocks down Big Ben and erects a giant statue of Vladimir fucking Lenin in its place, I'd still vote Labour.

The other choices are the Tories, who are the Tories, or the fucking spineless cretin lying bastard yellow sell out Lib Dems- And I live in the North. So it's really not a choice at all.

>>86939
I have no tribal loyalty to any party, whatsoever; I'm a tactical swing voter, and often end up backing the winner. Can't say I love the Lib Dems, but they're the only principled remainer choice, so will get my vote - they haven't got a cat in hells chance of winning my seat (or government) though.

>>86939

You sound like a right-wing person roleplaying a "Labour voter" in order to make them look bad.

>>86941

That's because you're unwilling to recognise the political alienation of the working classes, and how little they have left to cling to in modern political discourse. You're probably more willing to believe nasty white van driving sun reader builder men represent the working class rather than admitting voting for an anti-semitic communist is still better than their other choices.

Here's a free bonus ad hominem- You read the Independent and you were saddened by the death of Deborah Orr.

>>86941
Do Labour voters really need any help in making themselves look bad?

I'm worried they're going to get absolutely annihilated. Corbyn would really have to pull it out of the bag.

>>86943
On the bright side, Labour will get refreshed - can't see the old man staying on after this.

>>86944
At the cost of the entire fucking country going down the shitter.

>>86945
>the entire fucking country going down the shitter

That ship has sailed though - we're about five years away from fixing that I think; I think that's why what Labour do next after this apocalypse is so important. They're going to have to pick up the pieces.

>>86942
Swing and a miss - I read the Times and will be voting Tory. Not out of any particular love of Johnson, but the LD pledge to reverse IIIWW would divide the country worse than it currently is and Labour are so busy beating the decomposed economic horse of socialism they've failed to formulate a better case than 'AT LEAST WE'RE NOT THE TORIES!'. But fair enough, that's plenty for some people.

This chart is fascinating. Labour exactly where they were at the last election, while the Tories quite far adrift. I don't think Labour will win this election, but the Tories could easily lose it.

I think the most likely outcome is a parliament very similar to what we have now - there are going to be some local swings either way, and it seems like there are a large body of MPs who are not standing this time (or have changed party). If Boris doesn't get a thumping majority, we're going to have this shit for the next few years.

>>86947

Socialism is only a decomposed economic horse because neo-liberalism gave it the treatment Bane gives Batman in Dark Knight Rises.

I can respect someone who stands for some straight, old fashioned economic conservatism. I might not agree, but fair play to them. But the thing I loathe more than anything in this world is the crooked form of crony-capitalism based on fossil fuel and middle eastern instability we're letting the global economy just accept as a default.

But I'm telling you- China.

>>86947
>I [...] will be voting Tory
First against the wall when the revolution comes.

Sorry, Remain-lads. Chuka Umunna is my local candidate so I'm going to have to sit this one out.

Hope we get a golden shower this Christmas all the same.

>>86937
>Labour are the only party promising that

The election is being held on a Thursday which is one of the designated days Labour say they're NOT going to hold a referendum.

>>86952
Labour have adopted a written constitution rejecting antisemitism, but that doesn't stop them.

>>86952
What day of the week do they plan holding a referendum on when it comes?

>>86952
>>86954
Yeah, they should have specifically refused to hold it on a saturday.

>>86952
>Chuka Umunna is my local candidate

Posho detected.

Shame really. If we'd managed to put it off till the same time next year, just enough pensioners might have died to tip the odds.

What do you think Brenda from Bristol thinks of all this?

Can we just borrow Japan's Prime Minister for five years? we might have to put up with chessboard porn for a while, but the train services and road infrastructure will be worth the imaginationwanks in the long term.

>>86947
So then, you support the hostile environment, Universal Credit, Windrush, the rape clause, Grenfell, child poverty, child refugees, bedroom tax, dementia tax, cuts to legal aid, cuts to disability benefits, cuts to mental health support, and now wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on preparations and advertising for a no-deal IIIWW that never happened, all while crowing about fiscal responsibility.

But none of that really matters to you, does it. We all know why you really vote Tory.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyGND49CBYk

>>86961

Just a heads up mate, as a current day labour supporter, it's probably best not to respond in a way that encourages the other person to reply with a list of what the current labour party stands for. You're just serving it to them on a plate, really.

>>86961
Oh get over yourself. You support open dolphin rape against Jewish people and are being investigated by the EHRC.

>>86963
>promotion and ENFORCEMENT of equality

Oh my gosh hee hee I guess I need to get better at maffs or the EHRC will GET me

>>86963

It boggles the mind that people still believe the antisemitism thing that started when Corbyn went against Israel and accusing people of antisemitism is their favourite tactic. You've been told, in advance, that you're going to be lied to about a certain topic yet you still believe what you go on to hear.

>>86965
>that you're going to be lied to about a certain topic yet you still believe what you go on to hear

Physician, heal thyself.

I can't believe there are people who still think that trying to shame people for voting Tory is actually going to work and get Labour into power.

I see this thread's predictably shite.

>>86967
Indeed. Could the cunt doing that place a postal vote then lock himself in a small cupboard until mid-December? Being a BRILLIANT shit doesn't win votes.

>>86967

It's painful to see. It always carries an air of smug superiority you can only get by being young/inexperienced that leads you to the assumption that everything is black and white and you're so morally superior, it's impossible to take another position.

It makes me cringe every time I see it.

>>86969
> smug superiority you can only get by being young/inexperienced that leads you to the assumption that everything is black and white and you're so morally superior
Well, that's completely false, but whatever.

>>86970
There is a tendency amongst 'the left' that they're not just correct, they're morally right. As such, anyone who disagrees with them isn't just wrong, they're also evil.

Sage because this thread is an absolute abortion from start to finish.

>>86971
>There is a tendency amongst 'the left' that they're not just correct, they're morally right
The wonderful unspoken implication of this statement is that "the right" don't think they're morally right.

>>86971

That's because they believe there are Tory policies that are fundamentally immoral.

I'm not really caught up on modern politics bit Maggie taking away our milk was definitely immoral

>>86962
I'm not a Labour supporter, I'm making the point that the Tories are patently worse than the alternatives.

>>86963
I'm not a Labour supporter, but it's telling that you aren't responding by attempting to defend the Tories. Because they are indefensible. (And this is after being told that Labour's only argument is 'but we're not the Tories' - very quick to adopt it yourself!)

>>86972
The view of 'the right' tends to be more to do with perceived logic and maturity; other people are wrong because they're naïve and juvenile, they'll grow up eventually, rather than morals coming into it.

>>86975
"Perceived" is the operative word there as what is logical to do depends entirely on what you're trying to achieve. At this point it's hard to see what logic is it to vote for the Tories other than to achieve the short term self-interest of a 1%. Do we have so many temporarily embarrassed millionaires in this country too?

>>86976
Yes, lad. We get it. You're right and everyone else is wrong.

The only problem with this is that shaming people for voting Tory does not work and loses elections.

>>86977
Good thing that this is .gs, and not an election campaign, then, isn't it? Why not respond to the substantive points being made?

>>86978
Because that takes effort.

>>86977

Why is the onus on me? That's the same backwards logic as "I became a Nazi because I think Paul Joseph Watsons go too far" or "I'm eating extra steak because I take offence to the way vegans behave". If someone is knowingly and deliberately doing the wrong thing, blaming other people for not stopping them is not logic, it's insane.

>>86980
What exactly is the point of shaming people for voting Tory?

It doesn't get them to change their mind. If anything, it's counterintuitive as it makes people turn into "shy Tories" so you underestimate their level of support and overestimate your own level of support. It's pure egotism over pragmatism.

I'd much rather they didn't win the upcoming election but I'm not going to shame people for voting Tory, no matter how much I disagree with it, because it doesn't fucking work.

>>86981
I refer you back to >>86978

>>86981

I agree with the point that you're making, but it says a lot about how fucked our country is and our general levels of selfishness as a society, in my opinion.

I find the anti-Semitism claims to be a particularly convenient get out of jail free card for Tories. I mean fine, we support starving hundreds of thousands of people, but your party allegedly doesn't like Jews! Allegedly not liking Jews is objectively worse than letting thousands of people (plenty of whom may well be Jewish) starve!

It's tosh and I don't believe a word of it honestly. Seems telling to me that all the Jewish Labour MPs going along with the scandal are also demonstrably non-socialist neo-liberals in the model of a certain previous Labour PM- And how convenient: It's literally anti-Semitic to suggest that these individual Jewish MPs might be unscrupulous enough to use their Jewish background for political gain.

I'm not going to shame anyone for voting Tory but it's really very frustrating just how many people don't realise that the Tories literally offer them nothing. The number of working class people who are the proverbial turkeys voting for Christmas. It's a difficult problem to solve for Labour, and they have the uphill battle against the media establishment to fight alongside it. The people who do engage in this behaviour of Tory shaming are only trying to rationaly persuade their peers that they are voting against their own best interests.

It doesn't work for Labour to shame people out of voting Tory, but why dies it work so well for Tories to shame people out of voting Labour?

>>86983

>I find the anti-Semitism claims to be a particularly convenient get out of jail free card for Tories.

Politics is not football. Criticising one side does not imply support for the other and vice-versa. Labour demonstrably has an anti-Semitism problem, it's utterly unacceptable and it's going to cost them seats at the next election; they need to fix it or find a leader who will. That doesn't make the Tories any more or less worth voting for, but it would be grotesque to pretend that Labour isn't rammed with blatant anti-Semites purely for party political reasons. There's a case to be made that you should vote for Labour in spite of the anti-Semitism, but Labour shouldn't be facing people with that choice.

>The number of working class people who are the proverbial turkeys voting for Christmas. It's a difficult problem to solve for Labour, and they have the uphill battle against the media establishment to fight alongside it.

Polling consistently shows that most IIIWW supporters continue to support IIIWW even if it's certain that they'll be made poorer. That, fundamentally, is why Corbyn is unelectable - he might make the average voter a bit better off, but the average voter would rather be poorer than led by someone they perceive to be weak and unpatriotic. The average voter is well to the left of Corbyn on many issues, but they're well to the right of Johnson on others.

The problem for the poor (as opposed to the working class) is simply that they don't vote and never have done. Pensioners get plum treatment because they reliably turn out on polling day; conversely, shafting someone who has never voted has almost zero political cost.

>>86984
>Politics is not football. Criticising one side does not imply support for the other and vice-versa.
Sadly, this is not how the average voter thinks.

The reason "shaming" people for being Tory doesn't work is because they don't care. You need to point out why people are wrong and not with all that "ooooh, foodbanks and sad school kids" shit because most people don't care. You and I might, but you're a prick and I'm an arsehole and we're still more empathetic than those that don't. You need to point out the detrimental, long term effects that increased numbers of working poor and stressed out kids will have. You can convince people to view things differently, thus increasing the odds they'll vote the same way as you, but not by saying "you're a bastard, you know that?", because no one thinks they're a bastard, even total bastards. If you don't care about doing that then fine, but let it be known that I will push you in front of a bus if I ever meet you, such is the worthlessness of such idiocy.

>>86984

>Labour demonstrably has an anti-Semitism problem

Does it though?

Or does it more honestly have a problem with "fanatical supporters of the state of Israel", in the words of the big fat Jew, Alexi Sayle?

>Polling consistently shows that most IIIWW supporters continue to support IIIWW even if it's certain that they'll be made poorer.

Which is another thing I'm fairly certain Comrade Corbyn knows, deep down in his wooly commie heart, too. But he can't express that view because half his party would mutiny.

Labour is fucked from both within and without, and honestly it's tragic not just for the lower classes. Nobody represents them any more, and it's going to end terribly for everyone. There's just resentment bubbling away everywhere you look.

>>86986
>You need to point out why people are wrong
All the following things that are likely to be detrimental to the working class Tory voters were mentioned
>bedroom tax, dementia tax, cuts to legal aid, cuts to disability benefits, cuts to mental health support, and now wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on preparations and advertising for a no-deal IIIWW that never happened
but brushed away as "shaming" five posts later. It seems as though any criticisms of the Tories are being dismissed as "shaming that won't work".

>>86988
It doesn't work because Tory voters have no shame.

>>86987

>Does it though?

Labour doesn't have an anti-Semitism problem, it's just a slanderous plot by greedy, conniving Israelis to prevent the British people from electing a true socialist leader who will finally solve the problem of globalist bankers.

>>86983
>It doesn't work for Labour to shame people out of voting Tory, but why dies it work so well for Tories to shame people out of voting Labour?

There's two main reasons for this, in my opinion.

• Criticism of Labour tends to come from the left, right and centre. It's said that lefties reserve their strongest bile for those who are also on the left, but to a different extent to themselves. The Tories have their differences, but they largely keep it under a lid for the sake of unity and power; it does boil over, as everything since the EU Referendum has demonstrated, but not very often.

• Media campaigns and individualism. It's easy to accept that most people are poor because they deserve to be so. It's easy to accept that most people on benefits are scroungers. It's easy to accept that they simply need to work harder and the Tories will reward those with aspiration whilst Labour are driven by envy. Things it's easy to digest at a superficial level. The "red lines" why some people won't ever vote Tory can be eroded away or dismissed by the effects of this over time. There's plenty of "red lines" why people won't ever vote Labour, at least with Corbyn in charge, but these tend to be harder to defend or need an explanation that starts with "actually, it's a bit more complicated than that" compared with something overly simplistic and snappy like "don't feed em if you can't breed em". I think I'm meandering so I'll stop.

>>86989
That's not about shame though, that's about things that will make their own lives worse.

>>86991
Very good post - you explain the problem very well.

Labour behave with that student politic / holier than thou attitude - the irony being that mode is very exclusive and doesn’t win people over. I know I’m not one of the cool kids but I also don’t want to be constantly told I’m a bastard.

>>86991
>Obama, once again, is absolutely right.
Careful, lad. When I shared this in one community, the resident idpolist retorted "He just doesn't want to be called out for bombing the Middle East".

The reason the left never get anywhere is because there's always some cunt having a go at their own. No outside force can stop the modern left, they'll implode before they give anyone else a chance.

>>86993
I think for many people austerity is a bit of an abstract concept, particularly if you don't live in a city. So called living within your means, even if it means treating the economy like a bank account.

Austerity is not tangible for me apart from perhaps potholes on the road. I don't use public transport. I don't see homeless people. Crime seems under control where I live. I don't have any problems seeing the dentist or when I've had to use the NHS. I'm not on benefits. I don't use the library. I'm not a public sector worker.

What the Tories in government has directly meant to me is a considerable increase in the personal allowance so my take home pay has gone up. If you live your life unaffected by austerity then I can see how it'd be easy for people to be ignorant of it or to dismiss those who harp on about it as grossly exaggerating for political gain.

>>86994
>Labour behave with that student politic / holier than thou attitude
Can you point to where in the previous manifesto this happens or perhaps some parliament recordings of this happening?

>>86996
>things that are likely to be detrimental to the working class Tory voters

>>86998
Most working class people aren't on benefits, so benefit cuts won't affect them. The message on austerity doesn't work if it doesn't connect with people as it feels alien to them.

You've also got to remember that polling has consistently found that reducing benefits is extremely popular. Never underestimate the level of spite that a poor person has for someone worse off than them

>>86999
Maybe the whole "blaming the firemen for Grenfell" thing will turn a few heads.

>>86988
Yeah, but why? Just saying "thing bad" doesn't usually convince people because other people have said "thing good". If the latter is their starting position then why should they change their mind? You need to have the facts to point out why "thing bad" is actually bad.

People like you are the ball and chain holding back the entire left wing political agenda.

>>87000
Grenfell was massively overblown. I remember the proclamations that it was going to lead to a huge sea change in British politics, which never materialised.

>>87001

Just read the post by the otherlad who actually understood what I was saying.

>>87001
>You need to have the facts to point out why "thing bad" is actually bad.
I think it's obvious to everyone that's been paying attention for the past 3-4 years that nobody cares about facts anymore.

>>87003
I ain't reading shit, you hoe ass bitch.

>>87004
I still think you can convince people with clear and thought out arguments, but most politicians can't or won't do that. Likely because they too think everyone's too much of a dafty for it to be worth the bother.

>>86999

It's probably more appealing for lower income people to want to cut benefits. Where I'm from has quite a few benefits people— that does take the piss when you're giving 40 hours a week to Sainsbury's. If you're a rich city lawyer, you could lose £15,000 a year without really noticing— you probably don't even get how people live on such a wage.

>>87005

It doesn't matter what you think, it hasn't been that way for decades now. Shut up, pay attention, and stop talking like a yank.

>>87005
>I still think you can convince people with clear and thought out arguments
Yes, and that's the problem. The country voted to leave based on clear and thought out arguments that happened to be entirely divorced from anything remotely resembling factual reality.

>>87005

>I still think you can convince people with clear and thought out arguments

You can, sure. But you can much more easily convince people with lies and slander in the Daily Mirror.

>>87007
No, I would say that doesn't really constitute what I would call a "thought out" argument.

>>87008
I don't think it's "much more easy" to do that though, that's just what the majority of newspaper reporting looks like. It's buoyed by the fact that people aren't exposed to proper counter-arguments.

>>87008
The Mirror is just about the only pro-Labour paper out there.

>>87009

If it's not what the majority of newspaper reporting looks like, would you say it's more or less easy to get it published?

>>87009
>No, I would say that doesn't really constitute what I would call a "thought out" argument.
... and you would be wrong.

>>87005
>I still think you can convince people with clear and thought out arguments, but most politicians can't or won't do that. Likely because they too think everyone's too much of a dafty for it to be worth the bother.

As someone in politics, I think that, yes, politicans can do that, but they don't, not because they think people are stupid - it's because it's a huge investment of time and effort simply to change one person's mind. When I first started election campaigning and went knocking on doors I would engage people in conversation, challenge their views, even get invited in for tea and explored their whole personal and political background. But when I took my leave, I realised that, not only have I not altered one iota of their opinions, but I'd wasted the whole afternoon talking to that one person and I still have hundreds more living in the area that I need to speak to. It's just not practical.

It's not glamorous, but it's far easier and simpler to win an election by finding out where the people who support you live, and then reminding them to vote on polling day. And by and large that's the majority of what the major parties do when it comes to elections.

>>87013
I admire your honesty - but doesn't that approach just lead to the tribalism we see now?

Tory voters are such fucking snowflakes aren't they? Any criticism and it's like "don't shame me, don't shame me". I thought the right-wing was supposed to be about the strength of individuals.

>>87015
Nice troll. Take it to The Other Place.

>>87016
You know it's true.

It's threads like these that make me grateful /pol/ is dead most of the time.

>>87017
Right wingers might be prone to pissing and moaning, but you strike me a /pol/fag troll trying to start flame wars because that's all his always online brain can enjoy anymore. Otherwise you're just fucking boring.

>>87018
I wish I was dead most of the time.

Unfortunately with the right wing media behind Bogjob, I think it will be incredibly hard for Jezza to get a majority.

>>87018

Threads like this make me despair, because you two keep shouting at each other over which team you're going to vote for while I just keep waiting for Rome to fucking burn.

Bunch of cunts. Going to put on my "Free Palestine" t-shirt that almost got me detained at Tel-Avil airport and drink Stellas all day because fuck you all.

>>87021
>Threads like this make me despair, because you two keep shouting at each other over which team you're going to vote for while I just keep waiting for Rome to fucking burn.

>>87021
>Going to put on my "Free Palestine" t-shirt that almost got me detained at Tel-Avil airport
Your own fault for putting up with racist airport security.

I don't know who this woman is and it does support the "the Left will eat itself" argument but whatever it's quite funny.
https://twitter.com/matthaig1/status/1189557172922966016

It's over. There's no hope for humanity. It's been nice knowing you both, lads.

>>87025

Survation are the ones who've been most accurate with their polling in recent years.

>>87027
>most favourable to Labour over recent years

Fixed it for you.

Trump "called in" to ARE NIGE's LBC show earlier. Two things jump out at me.

1. Didn't ARE NIGE have a shitfit when Obama got dragged into the referendum?

2. How is it that the leader of a major-ish political party is allowed to have his own radio show?

>>87029
>2. How is it that the leader of a major-ish political party is allowed to have his own radio show?

I agree - I recall it wasn't so long ago (2013?) that Nick Clegg did a couple of radio shows to universal outrage. Somehow saville doing this regularly is seen as okay.

I vote Tory because I hate Paul Joseph Watson shit. Any faint whiff of political correctness and I'm out. Tories also have nicer suits and hair usually. I like the posho cunts. Mog makes me laugh.

>>87031

Second against the wall when the revolution comes.

>>87031
Agree with most of what you say, but I'm sorry, JRM is a cunt.

Given the number of places Boris has been booed out of now, it's hard to understand who's actually voting for him.

>>87031
Poe's law there.

>>87033
You too will find yourself against the wall, but you'll be much further down the queue. Your appointment will be in the post.

>>87035
Tory cuts to the execution squad, he'll die of old age first.

Ha!

>>87037

Did this appear in an article with any kind of context? Not really surprised by media bias at this point.

>>87038
It was the local LibDem party on Twitter, in fairness.

I don't understand how saville is going about trying to froce this "IIIWW Alliance" malarky. He's saying a pact with the Tories would make IIIWW a dead cert, while vehemently diasagreeing with the deal Johnson wants to get through Parliament. That's not an alliance.

>>87040
The Mail have been quite heavy on the 'vote Jimmy, get Corbyn' line in recent days.

>>87041
To be fair, agree with IIIWW, disagree with IIIWW, vote IIIWW Party and you're basiclly hampering any chance of IIIWW now.

He needs to wind his ego in and step aside in these seats.

>>87042
But Johnson's deal isn't IIIWW!

>>87041
The Mail are so pro-Tory it's embarrassing. They only said goodbye to May when she was so dead on her feet it looked like she might have to be placed on a stretcher to get her out of Number 10. They'd hype up a baked potato if Conservative Party members elected one as leader.

The identity politics is strong in this election. Lib Dems are campaign on a platform of being Remainiest and BXP and the Tories of being Leaviest and none of them seem to have any coherent policies beyond that. Poor old JC has come out with loads of policies and ones which are popular amongst old Tory voters, and people just complain that he doesn't take a hard enough stance on IIIWW. A second referendum is a perfectly sensible option- it's the only one that is guaranteed to not end your career and induce years of bitter resentment.

>>87045
Only caring for a single issue isn't "identity politics", it's, you guessed it, single-issue politics.

Why you trying to start shit, fam? I see you up and down this thread trying to get people to have a go. It's tragic, mate, pure awkward.

>>87044
I don't know. They're pro-Tory but they tend to hate their leaders. They absolutely loathed Cameron because they saw him as Blair 2.0.

It'd probably be more accurate to say they hate them the least rather than liking them the most.

>>87047
I should have been more specific. The new order is majorly pro-Tory, Dacre less so, but he's old news.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50261647
Right at the bottom.

>Meanwhile, a poll by Teacher Tapp found one in 12 primary school teachers say nativity plays and Christmas concerts will be disrupted by the election

MANGER-GEDDON!!! Pack your gold, frankincense and myrrh, lads.

>>87049
Evil Remoaner Empire - Check
Good Christian values out in the cold - Check
Three Wise Men (Boris, Jimmy saville, Arlene Foster) - Check

Reminds me of another story.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/01/undercover-reporter-reveals-life-in-a-polish-troll-farm

Worth keeping in mind that online disinformation and manipulation is no longer conspiracy but everyday reality.

In fact I'm starting to think that people I thought I knew from real life have merely been sleeper agents for Big Election all along.

Has there been an election in recent history where whoever Murdoch's papers', backed did not win the most seats?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/01/viral-billionaires-super-rich-exist

This is why I'll be voting Labour. Despite the foibles and disagreements I have with the party overall it's still the only one of any influence that is saying "this system isn't working for the majority of the population". It's not because I have some kind of blind faith in Corbyn or a chip on my shoulder, it is because, to my eyes, since the Great Recession started, the ways in which the world is run are increasingly not fit for purpose. The rise of far-right "strongmen" and the increasing stagnation in global economic growth are not random, inexplicable events, they are the symptoms of an ailing, failing system. In this country we've got homeless camps in pronvincial town centres, people on well above minimum wage just about getting by and an already struggling NHS at risk of being sold out to US buisnesses, with no benefit to those who access it, but only one mainstream party willing to challenge any of these issues head-on. The Conservatives won't lift a finger to fix any of these, because they aren't even problems as far as they're concerned and the LibDems are jam packed with people just as economically right-wing. I implore people to look at the past decade of wrecking in this country and consider what another five years could lead to, especially from a Johnson government chased further and further right by saville and bullied from overseas by American and Chinese asset strippers claiming to be "investors". It's not "envy", I just want to see the problems littering this country start to get solved, and if the government isn't a Labour one I don't see how that can happen.

>>87055
>I don't see how that can happen.
I say the very same thing about a Labour government. Without Scotland, there is no path to a majority, and because of his utter mishandling of You-Know-What nobody wants to back Corbyn. With the same platform and a more credible leader, we might have seen electoral deals being done. Let the SNP take all 59, withdraw from seats with strong LibDem challengers, and vice versa, and have them stand aside where Labour is strong. Then we get a nice progressive bloc of around 350 or so MPs and the makings of a government.

But that isn't going to happen while parties controlling a wedge of 60 seats, which will almost certainly grow, don't feel they can work with the leader Labour currently have.

>>87055
I agree with a lot of what you say, but that only further serves to highlight how the problem is Corbyn. A lot more people would vote for Labour (and those things you highlight) if he were not at the head.

>>87056
I don't see why any British politician would want to do an electoral alliance with the SNP or even hint at one. It's not just that they have usurped a Labour heartland but you're surrendering a fight on unionism and thereby giving Scots no alternative but the Tories.

And what exactly do you even get out of it - the SNP will demand another referendum either way and hold a vested interest in pulling your pants down to sell independence.

>>87057

Because he's been ridiculed, smeared, and dismissed as unelectable from the moment he started gaining genuine grassroots support.

Solving the kind of problems otherlad is talking about now falls outside of the strictly enforced boundaries of mainstream British media. There are media watchdogs that who follow this, and even run studies counting the number of articles pushing a particular message versus another -- but even a quick glance at Laura Kuenssberg's coverage as political editor of the BBC should show this.

The problem isn't Corbyn. Labour's current policies would not have shocked any historical British politician, but we've drifted so far to the right now he's explicitly portrayed as a threat. It would happen to anyone who deviates even slightly from the established consensus, now.

>>87059
>The problem isn't Corbyn

It is. There's far too many reasons people won't vote for him.

• His fixation with and ridiculous fudge over Trident where we build the submarines but don't put any nukes on them.

• His links to the IRA.

• His friends in Hamas.

• His rampant cronyism.

• Saying that shoot to kill should only be used in exceptional circumstances, whilst making it sound like a daft militant wog attack in Britain wouldn't be one of those scenarios.

• Saying that we should open a dialogue with Argentina over the sovereignty of the Falklands.

• His complete lack of understanding of the political situation in Scotland.

• Wanting to pull out of NATO.

• Unlimited immigration.

• The whole anti-Semitism whitewash followed by the peerage for Shami.

• Everything since the EU Referendum.

• His lack of ability to understand the majority of policies he puts forward.

Corbyn is an absolute deal breaker for far too many people. I'll probably vote Labour, but I doubt Corbyn is competent enough to actually put most policies in place effectively and instead will vacillate into a compromise that isn't satisfactory for anyone. You've got to trust the person delivering the message.

>>87059
>Because he's been ridiculed, smeared, and dismissed as unelectable from the moment he started gaining genuine grassroots support.

That happened with Milliband and to a lesser extent Gordon true, but Corbyn is already ridiculous, greasy and unelectable without any effort.

>>87060

Your bulletpoints exactly reflect the talking points and misrepresentations of Corbyn's career put out by corporate journalists -- if anyone else had adopted his platform their positions would have been spun into something that sounded equally threatening.

What does "link" or "friend" mean in their proper context? If you look at his career, the positions are crystal clear because he's been outspoken and consistent about them for decades: he has said unequivocally in interviews that he did not support the IRa, but wanted to bring about peace talks with them. He supports the Palestinians, who are being brutalised, and made reference to something that even Mossad recognises: that groups like Hama's and Hezbollah must be brought into discussions to establish any kind of meaningful peace agreement. He's openly protested against nuclear weapons and violent intervention in other countries, hence the position on NATO and Trident. This is all in line with the fact that he is a prominent anti-war activist, and always has been.

There was a study from the Jewish Institute for Policy Research finding that the antisemitic views in the Labour party were no different than the general population (including centrist and conservative), and unsurprisingly highest in the far-right: https://cst.org.uk/data/file/7/4/JPR.2017.Antisemitism%20in%20contemporary%20Great%20Britain.1504799735.pdf

I was going to address the other points but honestly my thumbs are getting tired here. Every point there has more to it that's worth considering, and to reduce it to a bulletpoint is extremely misleading -- which is the desired effect that our news outlets have when constructing headlines.

>>87059
>Labour's current policies would not have shocked any historical British politician

The necessity of the 1949 Parliament Act says otherwise. Questions of nationalisation are just as divisive as our relationship with Europe and your media persecution complex doesn't change that no matter how much you parrot it.

>>87062
>if anyone else had adopted his platform their positions would have been spun into something that sounded equally threatening

But doesn't that suggest that it isn't just the media "misreporting" him, but that actually he holds some views and positions that many find abhorrent/threatening?

>>87062
That sounds like something a daft militant wog sympathiser who hates our country would say.

The fact Corbyn invited people involved with the IRA to the Houses of Parliament shortly after the Brighton bombing and that he is on record on numerous occasions being unable to outright condemn the IRA unless he qualifies it by also condemning the British tells you all you need to know.

At best you can say that Corbyn isn't very bright, is insensitive and lacks tact. At worst...

>>87063

This isn't just a personal view, it's also the view of researchers at the London School of Economics: http://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/research/research-projects/representations-of-jeremy-corbyn

>Our analysis shows that Corbyn was thoroughly delegitimised as a political actor from the moment he became a prominent candidate and even more so after he was elected as party leader, with a strong mandate. This process of delegitimisation occurred in several ways: 1) through lack of or distortion of voice; 2) through ridicule, scorn and personal attacks; and 3) through association, mainly with terrorism.

"Divisive" implies that nationalisation was at least part of the scope of debate a generation or two ago, whereas now it isn't even a consideration.

>>87064

My point was that any politician suggesting something even slightly outside the (predominantly economic) consensus would lead to the kind of media attacks we've seen on Corbyn.

I have no doubt people find certain views abhorrent and threatening, but the point is Corbyn does not hold those views. He repeatedly makes his actual views very clear.

>>87065
>...tells you all you need to know

I don't think it does.

For a little bit of homework, lads, how about you go up to somebody in your workplace cafeteria and ask them what they reckon about Corbyn.

I can guarantee you it will be "WELL HE WANTS TO KNOCK DOWN BUCKINGHAM PALACE AND SELL OUR NUCLEAR SUBMARINES TO THE ARGIES DON'T HE" and almost certainly not "I find his stance on Britain's relationship with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation questionable."

People dislike him because they believe what the papers say about him; and most of them didn't even bother to read what exactly the papers did say about him in the first place. That's how effective media smears are. People skip all the politics because it's boring, go straight to the footy results and they still base their opinion on it because the headline was there on the front page- "JEZZA BACKS SECOND HOLOCAUST".

He might be lukewarm at best but I still like him better than the malfunctioning plastic robo-politicians Labour was lining up against him. Rather ironically I like Rees Mogg for the same reason- Politically I disagree with near enough everything he stands for, but you know he's actually genuine about standing for it.

>>87067
I did that at my last place of work. Straw poll of three middle aged women in their 40s who were all dyed in the wool working class Labour supporters.

They all disliked him. "Vile", "simply dreadful" and "a nasty little man" are the descriptions I remember given. When I dug down into it the reasoning for this is that they view him as a throwback who hasn't moved on from the 80s and is driven by retribution, settling old scores and petty spite.

I think I can see where they're coming from. The message given by Corbyn tends to be more negative than aspirational.

>>87067
>I still like him better than the malfunctioning plastic robo-politicians Labour was lining up against him

>>87069

Ah yes, the Cambridge graduate, Bank of England official's daughter whose main political contribution to the country was the smoking ban.

Just the kind of salt of the earth candidate Labour needs to galvanise the working classes.

>>87070
Please, do remind us of the Dear Leader's illustrious record of contributions prior to his election as leader.

>>87067

You have been hyperbolic. But let's be honest, the man clearly doesn't want British rule in northern Ireland, there is no reason to believe he would defend the Falklands. I don't trust him to protect british interests in any capacity anywhere ever. He is the personification of self flagellating White guilt and crab bucket socialism. And I am basing that purely on his own actions.

>>87072
See, I wouldn't mind entering into negotiations with the Argies over the Falklands. Our negotiating position would be "We'll consider handing them back to Spain if the people want it, which they clearly don't. So what are you offering us to not sink your ships again?"

>>87071

You seem to be under the misapprehension that I'm a supporter of his. I'm not- But I still think he represents a more honest and genuine breed of politician, and I definitely think the media campaign against him can be very charitably described as "unfair".

>>87072

That's a fair point, but thankfully we're not a dictatorship. People elected a hard right government on the basis they wanted to leave the EU tomorrow and damn the consequences, and they've seen how much trouble it's caused. So why do they fear electing a left wing government as if it would be able to just roll out the hammer and sickle banners and confiscate everyone's savings overnight?

>>87074
>honest and genuine

Just to be clear, we're still talking about Jeremy Corbyn?

>>87074

The conservatives aren't 'hard right' they are quite possibly more left wing than the US Democrats. They are obviously right wing but by no stretch of the imagination is Boris as far right as Corbyn is left. Now that May has gone no one wants the secret police monitoring porno watching perverts.

The conservatives have essentially been dealt a hand none of them (who are remotely sensible) want, leave the EU, if they keep winning it will destroy the party.

You can obviously point the finger of blame at Cameron (which is fair), but he gave the public a choice between cake or death, the fact that the majority wanted death, is of course something that made him realise humanity is so ludicrous he fell on his sword, washed his hands and fucked off out of public life.

>>87075

Yes, we are. No, he's not a paragon of truth and virtue, but this conversation is in the context of comparison to weathervanes like Liz Kendall.

>>87076
Let's take an axiom from the late 2000s that was never exactly accurate to begin with and then shove it into the modern political landscape against all logic and reason.

>>87076

I would disagree. By the UK's standards (I think comparison to US politics is unhelpful) the modern conservative party is more economically right wing than we have seenin decades. They were so desperate to privatise something, and we have so little left to privatise, they resorted to the bloody post office.

Just because they let gay people get married or whatever, doesn't make one jot of difference. Of course the sensible ones were against IIIWW, but we've seen the old fashioned roots of the party come crawling out since the vote.

>>87077
I wouldn't say Corbyn is more honest or likely to give a straight answer. He simply isn't as slick and media trained as they are.

One way or another Corbyn is likely to go down in history as the last major politician of the all-too-brief 'Democratic Era' who expressed any genuinely-held principles.

>>87080

I genuinely don't understand where this image comes from. His record alone should show that he's a principled politician, even if you disagree with him. About style, in interviews he's often dealt with extreme hostility about as well as anyone can.

>>87071

What do you consider to be contributions in the world of politics?

In the Indie: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/jeremy-corbyn-radical-lay-wreath-foreign-policy-labour-a8514491.html
Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/16/jeremy-corbyn-leadership-david-cameron-libya-labour
Independent blog: https://theworldturnedupsidedownne.wordpress.com/2015/07/29/15-times-jeremy-corbyn-was-on-the-right-side-of-history/

Here he is speaking against the Iraq war:

As someone currently aiming to work in the EU, I don't necessarily agree with him on every point, but as far as being "honest" goes, he's a pretty rare case in UK politics.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tories-fracking-election-ploy-20794859

>>87081
Corbyn will be remembered as the modern day Michael Foot, nothing more. Juvenile, facile politics that did nothing whatsoever to improve the country, but made a few people feel better about themselves.

>>87082

>What do you consider to be contributions in the world of politics?

It takes more than "being on the right side of history", i.e. holding whatever opinions the writer considers to be correct.

My constituency MP is pretty poor, but they have a laundry list of local achievements, from attracting millions in investment to getting some potholes fixed. Corbyn has spent his career saying that bad things are bad and good things are good, but I can't for the life of me see what he's actually done. He certainly hasn't achieved much of anything on a national scale, given the fact that he has never been in the cabinet or shadow cabinet.

>>87085
>Corbyn has spent his career saying that bad things are bad and good things are good, but I can't for the life of me see what he's actually done

He campaigned vociferously for members of Militant not to be expelled from Labour. He's also been heavily involved in activism, such as participating in a demonstration to show solidarity with IRA bomber Patrick Magee during his trial.

>>87085
>He certainly hasn't achieved much of anything on a national scale
>My constituency MP... [got] some potholes fixed

>>87086
Highly amusing.

The very definition of "damning with faint praise".

The proven alternative:
>Jennifer Arcuri
>Please leave my town
>Lost majority
>Lost 15 votes
>Lost own brother
>Lost in Supreme Court
>Filthy piece of toe-rag
>Failed to IIIWW
>No death in ditch
>Lied to the Queen
>Worse deal than May's
>Sold out the union
>Still sent the letter
>Happy first 100 days Boris Johnson

'course, you'd rather vote for that than someone associated with PC-Gone-Mad.

>>87089
Go back to bed Eoin.

Also
>Filthy piece of toe-rag

It's a tow-rag. They were originally the little bits of cloth that Royal Navy sailors wiped their arses with on board ships. These bits of rag were than towed behind the ship for cleaning.

>>87090
You're wrong but do you have anything of substance to say in rebuttal?

But who else are you voting for and why, never-Corbyn lad(s)? I wrote >>87055 because I wanted to explain that it's clear to me there isn't another party that has a plan or the desire to fix things. And even if Corbyn started wearing a Tudor ruff, appointed a shadow minister for ghost hunting and claimed there wasn't a thing wrong with Arsenal's defense, he's still be the only man with a plan for how to get the fucking homeless camps out of Crewe town centre. Johnson doesn't care and never will, Swinson spent five years not caring and now only shows an interest in a single issue and I'm not Scotch. There isn't another party worth voting for.

I haven't posted ITT since btw, so anyone who called you a name in the meantime wasn't me.

>>87085

It's still unclear what you mean by achievements. Could you give an example?

>Corbyn has spent his career saying that bad things are bad and good things are good, but I can't for the life of me see what he's actually done.

There's remarkably few politicians who are able to do just that. Many of the votes on violent intervention such as bombing Libya or invading Iraq, which most MPs now express regret over, Corbyn was one of the few to vote against.

>>87086
>He campaigned vociferously for members of Militant not to be expelled from Labour.
Why was this a good thing again?

>>87093
>Muh Iraq

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Corbyn opposes military intervention and anything which he sees as British imperialism. He denied Slobodan Milosevic committed war crimes and was against intervening to stop him in Kosovo. He flat out denied genocide. This is the most egregious example, but he also opposed intervention in places like Sierra Leone.

I don't understand how denying genocide somehow makes Corbyn principled. There's no way you can blame this on the media, either:

JOHN PILGER AND KOSOVO

...congratulates John Pilger on his expose of the fraudulent justifications for intervening in a 'genocide' that never really existed in Kosovo

Signatures

Corbyn, Jeremy
Labour
15 December 2004

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/26919

>>87095

You've wilfully missed the other items on the list. But alright, looking at Kosovo: the worst of the crimes in Kosovo largely took place after the NATO bombing began. This appeared in the Wall Street Journal in 1999:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB946593838546941319
http://www.danielpearl.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/123199_Body_Count.pdf

It's fascinating that you say this one can't be blamed on media, because Kosovo is actually a perfect example of papers drumming up support for violent intervention. Thousands of articles were written using the word "genocide". People were killed and terrible things happened, but simply not in the way that was reported at that time. If you'd actually read what Corbyn says, he quotes Emilio Perez Pujol, head of one of the forensic teams searching for mass graves, who said that "a military action prejudices truth and I want to stress that trying to manipulate an international court does not benefit anyone":
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/99/11/Kosovo3.html

Bombing itself killed hundreds of civilians. The point isn't about denial of real crimes, it's that our intervention was retroactively justified by the mess NATO created, and even then only partially.

I hate you arseholes.

>>87097

Before anyone says, I wanted that second source to be the Sunday Times, Nicholas Rufford, 'Cook accused of misleading public on Kosovo massacres', but Google gave the only readable version of the article on that website, which I don't want to be associated with.

Even searching on the Times site didn't do me much good.

If anyone can provide a copy of the article hosted elsewhere, or on the original Times site, I'd be grateful.

Okay, so if we accept the points that he stands by his principles, is a good and honest man, and a lot of the criticisms against him have been largely fabricated by the media... He is a still a weak leader.
As much as the media is free to selectively quote him and not give him a platform, Corbyn makes it easy for them to do so as he doesn't use the two main platforms he has access to as the leader of the opposition: He doesn't make use of the party whip to present a unified message through votes. He doesn't use PMQs anywhere near as effectively as he could.
He's been up against an ailing and infighting minority government for christs sake. Whatever the media say about him and whatever the public perception of him, he has real power in parliament that he isn't using.

>>87100
Is he doing worse for the country by not exercising that power than Boris is doing with everything he can?

>>87101
A government needs an effective opposition to keep them in check.

>>87102
So Boris & co shouldn't be allowed to be the opposition?

https://twitter.com/ProfRHarris/status/1190989601743233026

>>87104
>RHarris

Like I'm going to trust the opinion of a carpet-bagger.

YELLOW RED SURGE.

>>87105
It's not an opinion it's a recording of Boris.

>>87106
Red scourge more like.

>>87107
This is the problem with most lefties, no sense of humour whatsoever.

>>87105
You're thinking of a different one. This one is an actual professor, and therefore much better at it, as evidenced by him not having been caught.

Can't even make a joke about scroungers without people getting all uppity about it.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/03/tory-candidate-francesca-obrien-wrote-people-benefits-street-should-be-put-down

We should just ban people from having opinions in case they become involved in politics several years down the line.

>>87111

>We should just ban people from having opinions

"these people need putting down" is not a healthy opinion for anyone to have, let alone someone in public office.

>>87112
Well I'd vote for her. She should make that the main thrust of her campaign.

>>87113

Careful not to nick yourself on those edges.

>>87114

He's not being subversive, that's just what tories like.

>>87112
I know the likes of Benefits Street were highly exploitative, but the country would objectively be a better place without people like them in it.

>>87116

The world would be a better place if we stopped looking at people as resource drains that could be eliminated.

I think the world would be a much worse place if we ended up with genocide as a solution to our problems, regardless of the objective benefits.

Remember when we were talking about how people accuse right wingers of being evil? This is why.

>>87117
That's the problem, the moment you have a negative opinion of the minority of benefit claimants who are undoubtedly wasters some start painting you as right wing.

It's the failure to address inconvenient facts like this and branding others right-wing for fairly uncontroversial opinions that is the problem. Keep calling people right-wing when they're not then they might end up fucking voting for a right-wing party.

>>87118
>the moment you have a negative opinion
Saying "They should all be killed" is just a "negative opinion" is significant understatement.

>>87119
She didn't say that they should be killed, just that they need to be. Technically there's nothing wrong with that.

I mean you can reasonably easily talk the average person into supporting eugenics if you want to. Just say something like "Everyone from (well known rough estate in your town) should be sterilised" or "People can't be trusted with kids these days, we should have child licenses" and you'll be surprised how easily people will go along with the idea befire they've realised the implications of such a policy in real life.

Of course, it's one thing for your average person to half-facestiously support an idea you know will never happen, and for someone who's supposed to be responsible as a part of the actual political establishment to talk about it. I don't think it's unreasonable to hold them to a higher standard.

>>87121
What if it's a post made almost six years before they try to become part of the political establishment?

>>87122
Are they still the same person, who says things like that without thinking them through first?

>>87122

Then I suppose they should be given a chance to speak to it. Was it a joke? Do they still hold those views? etc.

>>87123
>who says things like that without thinking them through first?

"I should be careful posting my opinions on my own Facebook page in case several years down the line someone decides to dredge it up when I decide to try and become an MP."

>>87122

If they were a journalist or a video game developer, a doctor or a NASA scientist, I'd let them off for having edgy views as a teenager or some trolling they did back before everyone realised the Internet was a part of real life.

When it's a politician I find it pretty hard to let go of. These people, wether it's fair or not, are going to have their entire lives scrutinised from start to finish, and that's pretty much unavoidable. It speaks to the nature of someone's upbringing and life experience that they once held those views; I wouldn't call for her to be sacked because she once held questionable views but I'd almost certainly never vote for them.

>>87126
That's precisely why parliament is stuffed with soulless, sanitised career politicians instead of people with actual personalities and character.

>>87127

Spot on - people get outraged that politicians have lived less than perfect lives and refuse to vote for them and can't fathom the idea they've moved on (as if there is a person in the world who hasn't once said something they wouldn't want to repeat publicly) then get upset when the Commons is full of odd people with no real character.

>>87125
Everyone should be careful about posting their opinions on Facebook. Just generally.

>>87127

So what you're saying, then, is that people like Jeremy Corbyn are the sorts of politician we need more of?

He might have flirted with the IRA and Hamas but that's because he's a real person with an actual personality and character.

>>87118

>the moment you have a negative opinion of the minority of benefit claimants who are undoubtedly wasters some start painting you as right wing.

She's in the conservative party though isn't she?

>Keep calling people right-wing when they're not then they might end up fucking voting for a right-wing party.

She's already working for a right-wing party.

>>87130

Exactly this. Corbyn's obviously moved on, just because he supported a couple of daft militant wogs ten years ago, doesn't mean we should write him off now for some old opinion of his.

>>87130
Having a personality doesn't mean you aren't boring and dull.

You need someone who can fill the personality vacuum by telling it like it is.

>>87129
Do you go around raiding the fridge at work too?

>>87130
>He might have flirted with the IRA and Hamas

If you're the same poster from earlier in the thread, you are just being dishonest, now. Address the points in >>87062, or stop with this "daft militant wog sympathiser" nonsense.

>>87136

Nah, I'm a Jez supporter demonstrating the hypocrisy with which conservatives condemn Corbyn for his past yet defend a Tory for expressing the view that poor people should be put down.

>>87130
He simply advocated talking to the IRA. Which is exactly what the Thatcher government would go on to do.

>>87138
I recently read the autobiography of John Major - if you were around during those years and remotely politically engaged, it is a fascinating book and contains a lot of detail around how they actually sent messages back/forth to the IRA during those early years. I can't say I was ever that interested in him as a person, but it's a good read; he did far more than Thatcher.

Can't even say that people in a burning building should have used common sense by trying to escape without everyone getting pissy about it.

People these days. Honestly.

>>87146
Because a lot of people did consider that, but were then told not to do so until it was too late by those answering the emergency calls. A Conservative Party cabinet minister insinuating the Grenfell victims were at fault is especially distasteful given his party's policies, or lack of them, are considered by many to be partially to blame for what happened on that night.

>>87147
I know lots of people are quick to overestimate their capability to tackle difficult situations they only hear about after the fact. For example tons of idiots said if they were on the 9/11 airliners they'd have prevented them from being flown into the towers. But like, would you have given that advice any credence? If I'd seen any flames with my own eyes I'm pretty sure I'd leave before even thinking of calling. That'd alleviate the need to ignore official advice of course, but I'd hope I'd have done that too.

Maybe he shouldn't be the one to say it, but he's not wrong is he?

>>87149 So you'd go into the pitch-dark stairwell full of smoke (and maybe screaming and flames?)
Not convinced I would, until my flat was actually on fire, if people were telling me that staying put was safer because fire doesn't spread in modern blocks.
Building regs, my arse.

>>87149
Sage advice we can all follow.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KikI_ttYzC4

>>87150
I'm certainly not saying I'd walk through flames. But I don't think the situation was that desperate for a considerable amount of time else the official report wouldn't say people needlessly lost their lives due to the misguided advice from the fire service.

>>87152 but until the situation was desperate, why would you leave when you knew that the safe thing to do was stay put while the fire was extinguished?
This is all splitting hairs.
Wrapping tower blocks in flammable stuff is a shit idea. Building regs failed, inspections failed, self policing of building materials failed. Working out how much of the blame should fall on the fire people and the residents is a diversionary cunt's trick, and we shouldn't fall for it, because it's less than 1% of the total blame.

Hmm, the panel insulation in my new shed is the same stuff that was used in Grenfell. Wrapped in steel sheets rather than polystyrene-stuffed aluminium, and only 4m high not 67m, so I guess I'm not going to get the same towering inferno effect, but it's still interesting to note that it gives off cyanide when burned. Although, to be fair, loads of things do, so I think the plan should just be to not torch it.

>>87156
If you do torch it, just remember that you should not remain inside, even if the fire brigade instructs you to do so.

>>87152

It's not the flames, it's the smoke. Once the fire has reached the common areas of the building, the corridors and stairwells will rapidly fill with thick black toxic smoke. Even if you can find an escape route in total darkness, there's a strong chance that you'll lose consciousness and die due to smoke inhalation before you reach safety. Modern high-rise buildings are equipped with fairly sophisticated smoke control systems to maintain safe escape routes, but Grenfell lacked such a system.

The response by London Fire and Rescue Service was inadequate in many respects, but there was no good answer to the "keep put" policy problem. The fire at Grenfell spread much faster than the fire service had been told was possible, which presented them with a very narrow window of opportunity to revoke the policy and effect an evacuation. By the time anyone on scene realised that the situation was seriously out of control, the opportunity to evacuate with any degree of safety had been lost; anyone attempting to evacuate at that point had no real chance of escape.

The fire and rescue service made serious errors of judgement in their management of the scene and a number of lessons need to be learned, but the fundamental problem was the inadequate fire control systems at Grenfell.

>>87157 unless I'm entertaining JR-M, when I need to be sure to break both his legs and lock the doors on my way out.
The odds on me spending time with him in my shed are, admittedly, slim. Respect to him for being such an effective troll, but his books are beyond dire.

>>87158
>The fire and rescue service made serious errors of judgement in their management of the scene and a number of lessons need to be learned

Unsurprising when, let's face it, you put a woman in charge.

>>87152
Many people did actually attempt to flee the building early on. However, owing to confusion stemming from a general sense of panic, smoke filling the only stairwell and a lack of lighting it was thought the stairs themselves had caught fire. The idea that "common sense" was all that was needed to extracate oneself from a situation like the Grenfell fire is spectacular nonsense. Just an hour or so after their arrival there were firefighters in full breathing apparatus struggling to get to many floors and being unnable to see a thing once they had. The reason someone like Rees-Mogg can so flippantly cast doubt on the "common sense" of the victims is because he's never faced an ounce of hardship in his entire life; so wrapped in cotton wool and privilege is he that I doubt he's undergone the proper life experiences needed to feel empathy. I'm not suggesting that anyone with a double barrelled name and a public school background is psychopathic, but it's clear that he simply can't conceive of what took place that night in 2017.

Stormzy has claimed that he's an "actual alien" and for all intents and purposes a man like Rees-Mogg is. He's just not the sexy Bioware kind or the philosophically demanding Star Trek kind, he's a full-on, hard sci-fi, creature from another world, all but indecipherable in motive and meaning to us Earthlings.

If you want to know more about the events on the night of the Grenfell fire listen to https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p066rd9t/episodes/downloads but be aware you might cry when the firefighters start breaking down, or when someone recounts having to listen to a family member fade from consciosness over the phone (and there are 100+ episodes by now). Unless you're a Moggoid from the planet Rees, in which case I don't even know if you can hear our human vocal frequencies, let alone understand them.