- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 3125 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
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. 86936
Can't we just have a second referendum instead? I've had enough of this.
|>>|| No. 86937
Not going to happen. Labour are the only party promising that and they're going to crash and burn under Jezza.
|>>|| No. 86938
Like you think this will all be settled even after another election and/or referendum? This is us now, we need to own it.
|>>|| No. 86939
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.
|>>|| No. 86940
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.
|>>|| No. 86941
You sound like a right-wing person roleplaying a "Labour voter" in order to make them look bad.
|>>|| No. 86942
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.
|>>|| No. 86943
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.
|>>|| No. 86944
On the bright side, Labour will get refreshed - can't see the old man staying on after this.
|>>|| No. 86946
>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.
|>>|| No. 86947
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.
|>>|| No. 86948
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.
|>>|| No. 86949
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.
|>>|| No. 86950
>I [...] will be voting Tory
First against the wall when the revolution comes.
|>>|| No. 86952
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.
>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.
|>>|| No. 86954
Labour have adopted a written constitution rejecting antisemitism, but that doesn't stop them.
|>>|| No. 86958
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.
|>>|| No. 86959
What do you think Brenda from Bristol thinks of all this?
|>>|| No. 86960
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.
|>>|| No. 86961
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.
|>>|| No. 86962
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.
|>>|| No. 86963
Oh get over yourself. You support open dolphin rape against Jewish people and are being investigated by the EHRC.
|>>|| No. 86964
>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
|>>|| No. 86965
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.
|>>|| No. 86966
>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.
|>>|| No. 86967
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.
|>>|| No. 86968
I see this thread's predictably shite.
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.
|>>|| No. 86969
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.
|>>|| No. 86970
> 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.
|>>|| No. 86971
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.
|>>|| No. 86972
>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.
|>>|| No. 86973
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
|>>|| No. 86974
I'm not a Labour supporter, I'm making the point that the Tories are patently worse than the alternatives.
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!)
|>>|| No. 86975
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.
|>>|| No. 86976
"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?
|>>|| No. 86977
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.
|>>|| No. 86978
Good thing that this is .gs, and not an election campaign, then, isn't it? Why not respond to the substantive points being made?
|>>|| No. 86980
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.
|>>|| No. 86981
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.
|>>|| No. 86983
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?
|>>|| No. 86984
>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.
|>>|| No. 86985
>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.
|>>|| No. 86986
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.
|>>|| No. 86987
>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.
|>>|| No. 86988
>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".
|>>|| No. 86990
>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.
|>>|| No. 86992
>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.
|>>|| No. 86993
That's not about shame though, that's about things that will make their own lives worse.
|>>|| No. 86994
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.
|>>|| No. 86995
>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.
|>>|| No. 86996
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.
|>>|| No. 86997
>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?
|>>|| No. 86998
>things that are likely to be detrimental to the working class Tory voters
|>>|| No. 86999
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
|>>|| No. 87000
Maybe the whole "blaming the firemen for Grenfell" thing will turn a few heads.
|>>|| No. 87001
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.
|>>|| No. 87002
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.
|>>|| No. 87003
Just read the post by the otherlad who actually understood what I was saying.
|>>|| No. 87004
>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.
|>>|| No. 87005
I ain't reading shit, you hoe ass bitch.
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.
|>>|| No. 87006
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.
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.
|>>|| No. 87007
>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.
|>>|| No. 87008
>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.
|>>|| No. 87009
No, I would say that doesn't really constitute what I would call a "thought out" argument.
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.
|>>|| No. 87011
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?
|>>|| No. 87012
>No, I would say that doesn't really constitute what I would call a "thought out" argument.
... and you would be wrong.
|>>|| No. 87013
>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.
|>>|| No. 87014
I admire your honesty - but doesn't that approach just lead to the tribalism we see now?
|>>|| No. 87015
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.
|>>|| No. 87018
It's threads like these that make me grateful /pol/ is dead most of the time.
|>>|| No. 87019
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.
I wish I was dead most of the time.
|>>|| No. 87020
Unfortunately with the right wing media behind Bogjob, I think it will be incredibly hard for Jezza to get a majority.
|>>|| No. 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.
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.
|>>|| No. 87022
>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.
|>>|| No. 87023
>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.
|>>|| No. 87025
It's over. There's no hope for humanity. It's been nice knowing you both, lads.
|>>|| No. 87029
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?
|>>|| No. 87030
>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.
|>>|| No. 87031
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.
|>>|| No. 87034
Given the number of places Boris has been booed out of now, it's hard to understand who's actually voting for him.
Poe's law there.
|>>|| No. 87035
You too will find yourself against the wall, but you'll be much further down the queue. Your appointment will be in the post.
|>>|| No. 87038
Did this appear in an article with any kind of context? Not really surprised by media bias at this point.
|>>|| No. 87040
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.
|>>|| No. 87042
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.
|>>|| No. 87044
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.
|>>|| No. 87045
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.
|>>|| No. 87046
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.
|>>|| No. 87047
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.
|>>|| No. 87048
I should have been more specific. The new order is majorly pro-Tory, Dacre less so, but he's old news.
|>>|| No. 87051
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.
|>>|| No. 87054
Has there been an election in recent history where whoever Murdoch's papers', backed did not win the most seats?
|>>|| No. 87055
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.
|>>|| No. 87056
>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.
|>>|| No. 87057
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.
|>>|| No. 87058
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.
|>>|| No. 87059
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.
|>>|| No. 87060
>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.
|>>|| No. 87061
>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.
|>>|| No. 87062
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.
|>>|| No. 87063
You if you were American.jpg
>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.
|>>|| No. 87064
>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?
|>>|| No. 87065
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...
|>>|| No. 87066
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.
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.
>...tells you all you need to know
I don't think it does.
|>>|| No. 87067
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.
|>>|| No. 87068
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.
|>>|| No. 87070
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.
|>>|| No. 87071
Please, do remind us of the Dear Leader's illustrious record of contributions prior to his election as leader.
|>>|| No. 87072
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.
|>>|| No. 87073
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?"
|>>|| No. 87074
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".
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?
|>>|| No. 87075
>honest and genuine
Just to be clear, we're still talking about Jeremy Corbyn?
|>>|| No. 87076
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.
|>>|| No. 87077
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.
|>>|| No. 87078
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.
|>>|| No. 87079
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.
|>>|| No. 87080
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.
|>>|| No. 87081
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.
|>>|| No. 87084
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.
|>>|| No. 87085
>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.
|>>|| No. 87086
>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.
|>>|| No. 87087
>He certainly hasn't achieved much of anything on a national scale
>My constituency MP... [got] some potholes fixed
|>>|| No. 87089
The proven alternative:
>Please leave my town
>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.
|>>|| No. 87090
Go back to bed Eoin.
>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.
|>>|| No. 87092
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.
|>>|| No. 87093
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.
|>>|| No. 87094
>He campaigned vociferously for members of Militant not to be expelled from Labour.
Why was this a good thing again?
|>>|| No. 87095
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
15 December 2004
|>>|| No. 87097
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:
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":
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.
|>>|| No. 87099
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.
|>>|| No. 87100
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.
|>>|| No. 87101
Is he doing worse for the country by not exercising that power than Boris is doing with everything he can?
|>>|| No. 87110
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.
|>>|| No. 87112
>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.
|>>|| No. 87113
Well I'd vote for her. She should make that the main thrust of her campaign.
|>>|| No. 87116
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.
|>>|| No. 87117
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.
|>>|| No. 87118
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.
|>>|| No. 87119
>the moment you have a negative opinion
Saying "They should all be killed" is just a "negative opinion" is significant understatement.
|>>|| No. 87120
She didn't say that they should be killed, just that they need to be. Technically there's nothing wrong with that.
|>>|| No. 87121
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.
|>>|| No. 87122
What if it's a post made almost six years before they try to become part of the political establishment?
|>>|| No. 87123
Are they still the same person, who says things like that without thinking them through first?
|>>|| No. 87124
Then I suppose they should be given a chance to speak to it. Was it a joke? Do they still hold those views? etc.
|>>|| No. 87125
>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."
|>>|| No. 87126
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.
|>>|| No. 87127
That's precisely why parliament is stuffed with soulless, sanitised career politicians instead of people with actual personalities and character.
|>>|| No. 87128
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.
|>>|| No. 87129
Everyone should be careful about posting their opinions on Facebook. Just generally.
|>>|| No. 87130
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.
|>>|| No. 87131
>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.
|>>|| No. 87132
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.
|>>|| No. 87136
>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.
|>>|| No. 87137
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.
|>>|| No. 87138
He simply advocated talking to the IRA. Which is exactly what the Thatcher government would go on to do.
|>>|| No. 87139
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.
|>>|| No. 87146
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.
|>>|| No. 87147
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.
|>>|| No. 87149
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?
|>>|| No. 87150
>>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.
|>>|| No. 87152
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.
|>>|| No. 87154
>>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.
|>>|| No. 87156
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.
|>>|| No. 87157
If you do torch it, just remember that you should not remain inside, even if the fire brigade instructs you to do so.
|>>|| No. 87158
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.
|>>|| No. 87159
>>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.
|>>|| No. 87160
>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.
|>>|| No. 87162
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.
|>>|| No. 87163
Anyone who's ever been in a public place when any sort of emergency, or even just a false alarm kicks off, will know how quickly 'common sense' goes out of the window. People will just stand around waiting to be told what to do, famously in many first aid courses you're trained to pick out and directly tell someone in the crowd to call 999, as saying 'someone call 999' to a group of bystanders will result in everyone looking around waiting for someone else to do it. The same applies tenfold when your actual building is on fire.
|>>|| No. 87164
I find it really strange how this film came out around the same time as the Grenfell Tower fire. The ad was completely distasteful.
I'd spoiler the image for sensitivity if we had that function.
(A good day to you Sir!)
|>>|| No. 87165
>I'd spoiler the image for sensitivity if we had that function.
(A good day to you Sir!)
|>>|| No. 87166
So >>87164 was pretending Skyscraper was offensive, even though it came out 12 months after the fire and didn't start filming until September 2017. But then to compound how retarded and obvious this trolling was >>87165 jumps in and says a shitty meme because he's spent so much time as an chronic masturbator that he's actually cummed his grey matter onto the underside of his desk, leaving himself chronically thick.
Mods, please, I beg of thee, you must bin both posts. They add nothing to the thread and are an obvious attempt to derail it. If the posts deplete you must delete.
(A good day to you Sir!)
|>>|| No. 87170
I know I'm ready to collect my pension because I've no fucking clue how to engage with twitter in the first place. I don't know how to look at all the "trending" bullshit people are on about and I don't know how to get people to "follow" me to listen to my witty takes on said bullshit.
|>>|| No. 87172
>I don't know how to look at all the "trending" bullshit people are on about
You just type it into the search bar.
>I don't know how to get people to "follow" me to listen to my witty takes on said bullshit.
Same basic strategy as on the rest of the non-anonymous internet: consistently be the first to comment with the most obvious joke on posts by accounts already with a lot of followers. Probably best to find a "niche" subject or community so you can get a feel for what takes go down well with that crowd. Preferably something you're informed about to begin with.
Keep that up long enough (a couple of months) and you'll have enough followers to start spreading the witty takes you have on whatever shower-thought nonsense comes to mind.
This works and it really is that simple.
|>>|| No. 87173
>You just type it into the search bar.
Not to be confused with the tweet box, Mr Balls.
|>>|| No. 87174
Paedofinder General has announced he's standing down as an MP, seems to be an awful lot of them doing this.
|>>|| No. 87176
It's not unusual for lots of MPs to stand down at election time. This is the third in four years, so you wouldn't expect as many to be going as normally would. What is unusual if the profile of those who are leaving. As well as the long-serving ones with decades in the House, we're seeing a lot of those whose service is relatively short for their age. For instance, Justine Greening is retiring from the House after 14 years at age 50, while Nicky Morgan is going after 9 years at 47. The younger members leaving are also disproportionately female.
|>>|| No. 87178
Seems perfectly normal also you'll note the guardian isn't quoting because the guardian doesn't know how to write a quote. The fact that you've used the same 'dodgy' language to describe it however leads me to believe you are a shill.
|>>|| No. 87179
Also who feels the need to share an unremarkable tweet at 4:30 am. On an unrelated note did you know Moscow is 3 hours ahead?
|>>|| No. 87180
>>87179 I'd love to see a list of 'places worth spamming' that's exhaustive enough to have us on it. There must be some pretty specialist ones, might be interesting.
|>>|| No. 87182
We used to get a lot of spam for grey-area-and-explicitly-very-illegal-porn. It's not as though anyone has to go through a vetting process or sign up to anything to post here.
|>>|| No. 87183
Yes, but I don't think the three of us would have much effect on a general election.
|>>|| No. 87184
Thing about astroturf is you have to put it everywhere or real grass grows up through the cracks and around the edges.
|>>|| No. 87185
Maybe, but more to the point I hope Ian Austin gets raped and is discovered to be in the late stages of prostate cancer during the following medical exmination.
|>>|| No. 87186
>>87182 That never seemed very targetted, though, just a firehose of filth aimed at chans on a list. This looks as if it was hand typed, by someone who's read at least a few threads here. That's a lot more effort, if so. (The text string doesn't show up on a google search - although, nor do most things on .gs - are we unsearchable? I'm sure we used to be?)
|>>|| No. 87187
Astroturfing and troll farms have come a long way since back then, it's all quite sophisticated now. Sophisticated enough that they wouldn't make the mistake of posting in Russian daylight hours.
|>>|| No. 87188
>Ian Austin left the Labour Party nine months ago. He was then appointed by the Tories as Prime Ministerial Trade Envoy to Israel. As of yesterday, he is neither a MP nor a candidate for election. He is a minor politician who achieved only the most junior ministerial rank, PUSS, and for only seven months. He is best known for heckling Jeremy Corbyn while Jeremy Corbyn was delivering the official Labour response to the Chilcot Report on the illegal invasion of Iraq, shouting “Sit down and shut up” and “You stupid disgrace” at Corbyn for criticising the war.
|>>|| No. 87189
I think he just hates Arabs, he gets off on dead Arabs. I imagine he has "fap folders" full of dismembered Palestinians. There can be no other explanation for his derrangement on these issues.
|>>|| No. 87190
>I imagine he has "fap folders" full of dismembered Palestinians.
You mean you don't? What kind of monstrosity are you?
|>>|| No. 87191
Presumably a Labour voter, therefore his fap folders are full of pictures of the holocaust (which he denies happened.)
This post is 100% facetious, because I know someone is going to misinterpret it.
|>>|| No. 87194
It's more like they're hoping that the "Non-Jewish Community" is that thick.
|>>|| No. 87195
>He has insulted “Zionists” — the word used by antisemites when they mean “Jew” because they think it allows them to get away with it — as lacking understanding of “English irony”.
Yeah and what does it mean when diaspora Jews use it? Fuck off.
|>>|| No. 87205
Maybe I've been radicalised by the internet but I don't see why detesting a profit motive is a bad thing.
|>>|| No. 87206
Jeremy Corbyn hates aspiration. If you're successful then he will tax the fruits of your hard work and distribute it to workshy layabouts. Jeremy Corbyn wants everyone to suckle on the teat of the state, to become dependent on it and docile.
I don't think it really matters whether it's right or not. It depends upon whether people are largely motivated by individualism and what is best specifically for them.
|>>|| No. 87207
BBC podcast's attempt to define 'shitposting' leaves viewers baffled
The BBC has been accused of shitposting on shitposting, after a podcast attempt to explain the online term left millennial viewers baffled.
A discussion on IIIWWcast, the flagship political podcast shown on BBC1 on Thursday evening, saw political editor Laura Kuenssberg define the scatological phrase to her confused colleagues. “Political parties or campaign groups make an advert that looks really rubbish and then people share it online saying, ‘Oh I can’t believe how shit this is’ and then it gets shared and shared and shared and shared and they go, ‘Ha ha ha, job done’.” The explanation confused many, since it bears little relation to the more common usage of shitposting.
According to Google Trends, “shitposting” was first used online in about 2011, but took until 2015 to start becoming a relatively mainstream term. Its modern usage is typified by Chan culture, the internet communities that grew up around sites such as 4Chan, where the anonymity of posters means there is little social downside to shitposting.
In the past month, however, the word has taken on a new salience in British politics thanks to accusations that the Conservative party is adopting a “shitpost strategy”, using the aesthetics of shitposting; in particular, low-effort images and videos to provoke reactions and further distribution. One notorious example saw the party gain thousands of interactions simply by posting its campaign slogan in the comic sans typeface.
Two political campaigners hired by the Tories, Sean Topham and Ben Guerin, had trialled the approach in Australia earlier this year, where their “boomer memes” were credited with helping lead the ruling coalition to reelection. But if shitposting takes on a new meaning thanks to its political use, Britain may have to learn another phrase. A “skunked term”, according to lexicographer Byran Garner, is a word that becomes difficult to use because it is in the middle of transitioning from one common meaning to another.
|>>|| No. 87208
I overheard a boomer trying to explain what a snowflake is to his greatest generation parents on the train last year. He was equally as wrong.
|>>|| No. 87209
There was a decent thread on /iq/ last year or so about snowflakes and how the word has lost all meaning because it's being used to mean different things by so many different people.
Anyway, nothing is going to top Angela Eagle talking about chronic masturbators in parliament (>>/news/18758)
|>>|| No. 87210
I think we can all agree Kuenssberg is one of the worst humans right now.
|>>|| No. 87212
We have to go back, Marty! It's your entire socio-political sphere, something's happened to your entire socio-political sphere!
|>>|| No. 87213
Why? She's given a perfectly cromulent definition in the context of political strategy. Commentators are hypocrites for for attacking her on this considering what they did to the term trolling.
|>>|| No. 87216
>ONE REASON debate over Israel gets heated is that both sides question each other’s motives. Supporters of Israel note that anti-Semites often cloak their prejudice in criticism of the Jewish state. They say some views—like saying that Israel should not exist—are by definition anti-Semitic. Pro-Palestinian advocates retort that charges of Jew-hatred are intended to silence them.
>Such mistrust has grown in Britain and America, as anti-Semitism has resurfaced at both political extremes. On the left, legislators in America have accused pro-Israel colleagues of dual loyalty, and implied that Jewish money bought Republican support for Israel. In 2012 Jeremy Corbyn, now the leader of Britain’s Labour Party, defended a mural depicting hook-nosed bankers.
>The right has used similar innuendo, often by linking liberals to George Soros, a Jewish investor. Muddying matters more, Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, has also denounced Mr Soros. In America right-wing anti-Semitism also takes a more explicit, occasionally violent form. In 2017 marchers in Virginia chanted “Jews will not replace us.” And in 2018 a shooter at a synagogue in Pittsburgh killed 11 people.
>Can criticism of Israel be disentangled from anti-Semitism? Two recent polls in America and Britain that tried to do so reveal a pattern: hostility to Israel and to Jews are correlated, and the link is much stronger on the political right than on the left.
Jez definitely wants to bring back the gas chambers though. Those lovely sensible centrist Blairites who abandoned ship and then formed a disastrous attempt of a new party told me so. He's purged all the real good guys, just like Stalin!
|>>|| No. 87218
All this talk of are Jez wanting to turn the ovens back on has only convinced me to vote for him. Is this part of Labour's secret plan to attract the Mohammedan and right wing vote?
|>>|| No. 87219
I don't think Labour need to do much more pandering for Muslamics; that vote seems pretty much wrapped up with the whole blind eye to the diddlin' and showering them with benefits.
|>>|| No. 87233
>Holy shit, we're in second, time to fire up the bar charts!
- Everyone in LD South West Regional Office.
|>>|| No. 87234
Basically it's the Scots fucking us all over, really, isn't it.
Set of pricks.
|>>|| No. 87235
I heard a theory that basically everything that has happened in recent British politics began with the clusterfuck of the 2007 Scottish elections where nearly 150,000 votes ended up invalid. This was the election where the SNP took over from Labour in Scotland and in doing so becoming the default party in the mind of many Scots.
Imagine no Scottish independence referendum and resultant expansion of devolution to Wales and Scotland. No SNP boogieman to chase voters away from Labour in the 2015 election and as a result we might get a Labour government with no EU referendum and Corbyn still being an unknown MP. Sounds fanciful but with electronic ballot counting anything is possible.
|>>|| No. 87236
>It's your entire socio-political sphere, something's happened to your entire socio-political sphere!
|>>|| No. 87237
No, this is fine. "Okay Boomer" is an understandable reflex to years of arguments from aged right-wingers and "centrists" that amount to stuff like "oh, you think Corbyn's a socialist, even though he owns a house?" or "heh, you want to tackle climate change and yet there you sit eating food? Hypocrite". It's an attempt to sever the grip of the post-9/11 orthodoxy once and for all, in its own way.
|>>|| No. 87241
Sorry but what is this nonsense? Please, please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that in neither 2015 nor 2017 did Labour and SNP seats add up to a majority. Therefore even if all those SNP seats were Labour, the Tories would still have formed a government.
|>>|| No. 87249
I bet we will hear very little about this and it'll basically go ignored.
If it was the Labour party we'd hear people calling for them to be tried for treason.
|>>|| No. 87251
There's now three tactical voting Remain campaigns, each with wildly differing lists of who to vote for. What a shambles.
|>>|| No. 87252
It's almost as if someone with a track record of dishonest political advertising is using false-flag attacks to undermine tactical voting efforts.
|>>|| No. 87253
>Under current plans, Miller’s site will back about 50 Liberal Democrat candidates. Another major site already up and running, run by the Best for Britain campaign, recommends about 180 Lib Dems. Remain United’s model suggests that the Lib Dems are likely to win only 33 seats if there is a significant tactical voting drive. A third site, run by the People’s Vote campaign, also launched this weekend with its own set of recommendations.
Sounds like they're perfectly capable of undermining each other.
|>>|| No. 87254
Looking at the sites they're arriving at different conclusions depending on methodology. For what it's worth, People's Vote seem to have the right idea in that they haven't published their list yet because it's too early to tell (and they obv want to harvest emails in the meantime).
>someone with a track record of dishonest political advertising
Well that narrows it down a bit.
|>>|| No. 87255
>Well that narrows it down a bit.
I'd imagine he's on about People's Vote, seeing as it's full of BLOODY BLAIRITES like Alastair Campbell.
Speaking of which, I know someone who went to university with Campbell's daughter; apparently she is the worst person he's ever met.
|>>|| No. 87256
I can't remember if i've said it here before but my only concern regarding IIIWW is developing closer relations with the USA. We don't need any more of their influence, thank you!
|>>|| No. 87257
Ha, China's buying British Steel. This county's doomed.
|>>|| No. 87258
That saville speech was the saddest thing I've seen in my life.
|>>|| No. 87260
Never watched it. Plus I meant "sad" as in "pathetic". The speech didn't upset me in the least bit.
|>>|| No. 87261
It's an interesting cop-out just to go after Labour seats. There was no way in the world he was ever going to conduct a full campaign and stand, he's too lazy and can't be fucking arsed.
He's helped the Lib Dems I think.
|>>|| No. 87262
>He's helped the Lib Dems I think.
People who would have voted for Nige will now vote Lib Dem?
|>>|| No. 87265
Can someone tell the journos to background check all the PPCs earlier next election so we can skip the fortnight of "this PPC called Elton John a 'bumder' and this other one said 'poor people should be fed to eels'" that we're currently going through?
|>>|| No. 87266
It's now the normal way to start elections, but I totally agree with you. You would think by now that the parties made a point of combing through old social media, but no, every time we have this parade of people who once used the word poof and so they can't possibly be a parliamentarian.
|>>|| No. 87268
Or, you know, nosey cunts could stop prying into what someone posted on the internet 20 years ago. There are two sides to this. On the one hand, stuff sticks around on the internet. On the other, ancient posts don't find themselves.
Why can't those journos fuck off and do some real journalism for a change? There's corruption in town halls up and down the country. There's a report on Russian interference that needs leaking desperately. There are active threats to our democracy happening right fucking now and the press is distracting us with trumped-up antisemitism charges and PPCs who once looked at a cat in a funny way.
|>>|| No. 87269
I don't know. I still want to know. I never posted anything weird under my own name, so if someone is stupid enough to do that, I would like to know.
|>>|| No. 87270
>Why can't those journos fuck off and do some real journalism for a change?
'cause editors won't feature it 'cause people won't buy it to read in such numbers.
|>>|| No. 87271
You sound like the sort of cunt that goes rummaging through the fridge at work.
|>>|| No. 87273
>Why can't those journos fuck off and do some real journalism for a change?
They can't afford to, because people have stopped buying papers. A really good investigative journalist might produce one story every couple of months; a good local politics journalist might produce one story every couple of weeks; someone sitting at their desk rewriting bullshit they found on the internet can knock out several stories a day. When you're chronically understaffed and increasingly reliant on interns and trainees, you get superficial low-effort churnalism.
|>>|| No. 87274
Ironically it's the high end journalism that might have made papers still worth reading.
Don't fall into the idea that it was all down to the internet, though. Neoliberal economics demanded the usual "downsizing" even while newspapers were still profitable. In many cases it's actually more profitable (in the short term, at least) to put out a worse paper.
|>>|| No. 87275
The Grauniad is wholly owned by a non-charitable trust and has no shareholders to answer to, but it's still shite. They have been pissing money for years and might just barely start breaking even now that they've turned into an aggressive beggar. Digital advertising is just much, much less profitable for publishers than print advertising, not to mention the fact that people used to actually pay money to read the news.
On the other side of the table, paywalled newspapers have an incentive to pander to their own particular demographic, because it's easier to retain an existing subscriber than attract a new one.
GRETA THUNBERG IS GREAT, NOW GIZ A QUID.
|>>|| No. 87276
THIS MAN HAS NEVER MADE A CUP OF TEA BEFORE IN HIS LIFE.
|>>|| No. 87277
Looking at my social media, it seems every pro-labour post is about policies, taxes, and the NHS, with specific numbers backing them up, and pro-tory posts are pictures of Corbyn looking homeless or Dianne Abbot being thick. It's no surprise that the latter will be more effective but it's weird seeing tories do memes.
|>>|| No. 87278
I don't understand how insular someone's life must be to not see the harm being done to this nation by Conservative Party policies. They've made local government even more inert and whored Britain to China and the US. It's a nose to tail humilation, but Corbyn's got a hat on, so I suppose it's hard to call it either way.
|>>|| No. 87281
It's odd, and the majority of people I see supporting these tory policies are squarely working class, I really don't understand how they don't see they're going to vote against their own interests and well-being. It just reminds me of the Americans in poverty who still seem willing to fight to the death to prevent socialised healthcare.
I fully understand why many people would have an aversion to Corbyn, but if we're voting purely on the reliability and character of the leader of the party, it's hardly fathomable that the alternatives could be seen as better. I have always felt I'm quite an empathetic person, but I genuinely can't understand why people want the conservatives in this form, my only conclusion being spite or selfishness against anyone who isn't your immediate family, or bootlicking the elite, which doesn't feel like a fair evaluation, but I've got nothing else.
Perhaps it's really true that you get more blinkered as you grow older, and once you're past a certain age you can no longer even tolerate the idea that the 'other side' might be right. I've never really seen it like that, I wouldn't describe myself as a socialist or a corbynist or even a labour supporter, I just vote in that direction as it makes sense to me, and I'd vote tory if it made sense to me regardless of how many posh weirdos inhabit their ranks.
|>>|| No. 87282
Haidt The Righteous Mind p334.png
They are not "going to vote against their own interests".
It is in the average man's interest to live in a country with a meritocratic hierarchy, strong law and border enforcement, free speech, low taxes, sensible regulation of industry, a small social safety net that doesn't enable long term dependence.
Now we can debate whether the Conservative party will actually deliver those things and point out massive hypocrisies, but Labour and the Lib Dem parties actively speak out against them.
|>>|| No. 87283
But even with conservative promises, there aren't any lower taxes for the lower classes, at least nothing relevant or meaningful for the majority. There is no meritocracy for the working poor. Industry is only to be regulated sensibly from the perspective of the chap that owns the factory. A small social safety net means that those who genuinely need long term support cannot have it.
Whether they deliver it or not, even their plans don't line up with anyone who might have to worry about paying their leccy bill. So as usual, it's all about the immigrants and hanging carpet-baggers.
|>>|| No. 87284
>So as usual, it's all about the immigrants and hanging carpet-baggers.
The Social Democrats in Denmark got into power after they came out against mass immigration. Why don't more left-wing parties do the same?
|>>|| No. 87285
The thing that troubles me is how people who voted for IIIWW in order to regain sovereignty are going to happily give their votes to someone who it is plain to see does not have Britain's best interests at heart.
It's going to do us a fat lot of good having control over our borders and our laws when everything within those borders, and every person governed by those laws, have been bought out by either a Chinese or American corporation, or a Russian oligarch.
Boris Johnson is an enemy of the state.
|>>|| No. 87286
>It is in the average man's interest to live in a country with a meritocratic hierarchy, strong law and border enforcement, free speech, low taxes, sensible regulation of industry, a small social safety net that doesn't enable long term dependence.
Hi, Boris. Don't you need to learn how to make a cuppa properly?
|>>|| No. 87287
Except the Conservatives aren't promising any of that nor are Labour threatening to undermine those things. If the last ten years haven't shown you what a dead-end the current economic and financial systems are then by all means, embrace the coming decade of suck, but I'd quite like to avoid it if at all possible.
Course I live in the sodding Chinese bit. I hate that bastard Xi.
|>>|| No. 87288
People seem to believe they are however which is the problem. Boris has cribbed Trump's propaganda playbook which he cribbed from the Russians who seem to be tied to both of them.
|>>|| No. 87289
Are we talking about that Liberal Democrat who smeared racial abuse all over his facebook? I must admit it looked pretty innocent in how BBC reported it as they dared not even suggest what he had actually posted (lest it brainwash us all into a race war).
Because political parties in general have been captured by loons disconnected to normal society. The new ones that emerge with such a platform would themselves obviously implode as the loons infiltrate.
|>>|| No. 87292
It was the redaction in the ministerial response in the progogation case - "by the girly swot Cameron". Which, bear in mind, he committed to paper in his own hand on a government document.
|>>|| No. 87293
It's only a sample size of two, but both the people I've spoken to about Swinson can't stand her. Has anyone else heard similar reactions? Or perhaps differing ones? I'm really interested in how this election is going to turn out for the Lib Dems because their party's in such a unique place and had such a strange make up of MPs.
|>>|| No. 87294
I read somewhere, could even be earlier in this thread, that they've realised they're far more likely to take seats from the Tories than anyone else. Consequently, she's had to do things like shit all over Corbyn because otherwise Tory voters are unlikely to vote Lib Dem out of fear it will lead to a Labour-led coalition.
Then again, her voting record is pretty poor and there doesn't seem to be much about her.
|>>|| No. 87295
She's fairly new in Parliament, and was a minister in the coaliation, so her voting record will be skewed by having to vote for bad things in that time.
|>>|| No. 87298
Getting really bored of bellends desperate for their 5 seconds of fame by being rude to Johnson as he swans about. Oh wow, a modern day Pankhurst you are not by saying 'why didn't you do this?'
I am finding those on the left really quite smug and self assured. I am centre-left, I used to be a Labour member but I find myself in the weird position where I can't really abide those I agree with and get on much better with those I don't.
Also a village floods, terribly sad, and priorities are a huge thing, but I love how people think the PM doesn't have other stuff to worry about just because their main concerns on the reg are getting in front of the TV in time for Corrie.
|>>|| No. 87300
>Also a village floods, terribly sad, and priorities are a huge thing, but I love how people think the PM doesn't have other stuff to worry about just because their main concerns on the reg are getting in front of the TV in time for Corrie.
I don't think anyone really thinks the PM doesn't have other things to worry about, but I think people are quite right to be disgusted by his blase attitude to it.
"You’ve got to face the reality that places like this are vulnerable to flooding – we’re going to see more of it.
It is not looking like something we need to escalate to the level of a national emergency"
Boris is happily doling out by the bucketful more and more things which reinforce the contempt that many people in the country hold towards the Tories.
|>>|| No. 87301
I hate to say it but I agree. In my old job I used to regularly deal with people who would buy lovely houses that they wouldn't otherwise afford but for the fact they were on flood plains. Guess what happens when the 1 in 100 year flooding happens, they lose their shit.
It's terribly sad and I wouldn't wish it on anybody but a few villages having their houses ruined does require army help, national media coverage and should elicit sympathy, but he's right, it's not a national emergency.
I don't even like the bloke either but the outrage factory is tiring. You'd have thought at this rate he's the one that made the rivers overflow himself.
|>>|| No. 87303
Floodplains further up stream have been built on. More and more houses and shops and warehouses are being built on catchment areas. Houses already built are paving over every square bit of free space with block paving.
All this means that rain gets into the rivers in 10 minutes instead of 10 days, and that's the main reason it's flooding.
Yes planting more trees in catchment areas will go part of the way towards helping. Yes maybe climate change is affecting the weather. Just blaming people for choosing to live on floodplains isn't the answer because we have a systematic failure of land management and planning policy.
Government policy tends to be flawed and flip-flops every few years, but is generally bent on pushing councils towards building more. Regulations are lax and developers are generally free to bend or break them entirely with little consequence. Councillors are at best grossly unqualified to make the decisions that they are paid to do, at worst they are outright corrupt.
|>>|| No. 87304
>Getting really bored of bellends desperate for their 5 seconds of fame
Could not agree more. A bit like the bloke who is constantly interrupting news broadcasts with signs/chants of stop-IIIWW, outside Parliament. I'm a remainer, but he's a fucking bellend and of no use to the discourse at all.
The interweb has made all this worse. Much worse.
|>>|| No. 87305
Cool well obviously that gives you justification to vote against what you know to be right, as a tiny minority of vocal people who make you uncomfortable would want you to so you have to spite them.
|>>|| No. 87306
Corbyn just tweeted that
>The SNP leader suggested she's prepared to let Boris Johnson in through the back door.
that... that can't be unintentional, right?
|>>|| No. 87307
also what the fuck corbyn I don't appreciate that image
|>>|| No. 87308
To be fair, he's going to arsefuck the nation and she's always complaining about being left out.
|>>|| No. 87309
The best weapon against a tory is reminding them that poor people exist. It knocks them off stride.
|>>|| No. 87310
He / his people have been doing some pretty decent one liner posts on Twitter etc.
|>>|| No. 87311
>Labour pledges free broadband for all
>Labour has promised to give every home and business in the UK free full-fibre broadband by 2030, if it wins the general election. The party would nationalise part of BT to deliver the policy and introduce a tax on tech giants to help pay for it.
>Shadow chancellor John McDonnell told the BBC the "visionary" £20bn plan would "ensure that broadband reaches the whole of the country". But Prime Minister Boris Johnson said it was "a crackpot scheme".
>The plan includes nationalising parts of BT - namely its digital network arm Openreach - to create a UK-wide network owned by the government. Mr McDonnell said the roll-out would begin with communities that have the worst broadband access, followed by towns and smaller centres, and then by areas that are currently well served.
I mean there's fuck all chance of it being implemented even if Corbyn becomes PM but it certainly seems to have gone down like a wet fart. Can just you imagine how bad that internet service will be?
|>>|| No. 87312
It's a fine idea in concept, but, I just cant imagine it being as good as it should be.
|>>|| No. 87313
>Can just you imagine how bad that internet service will be?
I can't remember how to embed with a timestamp, so skip to 8:50.
|>>|| No. 87314
>Can just you imagine how bad that internet service will be?
No, I can't. Could you enlighten us?
|>>|| No. 87317
Until the privatisation of BT and the deregulation of the telecoms market in the early 80s, the phone network was a state-owned monopoly. There was invariably a waiting list to get a phone line installed, usually of several months and often of well over a year. You couldn't buy your own phone handset, but had to rent one from the GPO. When computer modems and fax machines arrived in the late 70s, you couldn't just buy one and plug it into a phone socket because a) there were no phone sockets and b) it was illegal to connect your own equipment to the phone network.
Corbyn and McDonnell's plan takes us back to the bad old days of the GPO, the "take it or leave it" option of telecoms. Nationalising Openreach and offering free universal broadband would almost certainly kill off private sector competition, whether by accident or design - it's very difficult to maintain viable economies of scale when you're competing with a free product.
Our current broadband market is imperfect in many ways, but most customers have a meaningful choice of services, from whatever bargain-basement broadband is cheapest through to specialist providers like A&A and Zen. Broadband providers are kept at least somewhat honest by the threat of competition - if your broadband is unspeakably shit, you can switch to another provider. Regulation by OFCOM gives you the right to do this without penalty charges if you don't get the speed you were promised by your provider.
If Corbyn's British Broadband takes over the market and kills off the competition, what are you supposed to do if they fail to invest in infrastructure and your broadband slows to a crawl? What do you do if you've got a fault but can't get an engineer out? What do you do if wireless routers offered by British Broadband are all dogshit? What if you need redundant failover or bonded lines? What's to stop them from blocking websites at will, without any oversight from parliament or the courts?
Deregulation and privatisation was a huge step forward for the telecoms industry in the UK. We got cheaper calls, better service and new technology. I can't see how renationalisation could be anything but a retrograde step.
The government could choose to fund the roll-out of fibre-to-the-home on a competitive basis, recoup the cost of the investment through loan agreements or network access charges and keep the market honest with minimum speed and maximum price regulations. That's exactly how South Korea became the world leader in broadband.
As far as I can see, this plan is at best naive and at worst an authoritarian power-grab veiled in a tacky bribe.
|>>|| No. 87318
>You couldn't buy your own phone handset, but had to rent one from the GPO. When computer modems and fax machines arrived in the late 70s, you couldn't just buy one and plug it into a phone socket because a) there were no phone sockets and b) it was illegal to connect your own equipment to the phone network.
And what on earth makes you think a national fibre network would even remotely compare to this? The closest comparable project is in Australia, where under the NBN project FTTC was installed to vast swathes of the country, and while it's been less than ideal, nothing even remotely close to what you're suggesting has happened there.
>Nationalising Openreach and offering free universal broadband would almost certainly kill off private sector competition, whether by accident or design - it's very difficult to maintain viable economies of scale when you're competing with a free product.
Nationalising Openreach means no more gouging for profit and the network can be expanded based on politics rather than whether some company can be bothered to pay for it. Remember, Openreach is itself a monopoly. BT plc were basically gifted an existing national asset, which over the years they have demonstrably abused. Any sort of network issue has to go through Openreach, and they already have no incentive to fix anything, because if a telco doesn't like the service it's not as if they can switch network providers.
>What do you do if you've got a fault but can't get an engineer out?
I don't know. What do you do right now if you've got a fault but can't get an engineer out?
>What do you do if wireless routers offered by British Broadband are all dogshit?
The same thing you do if wireless routers offered by your current ISP are all dogshit - buy your own. It's not like they're going to go back to banning you from using your own kit. There are EU rules about that, you know. Oh, right.
>What if you need redundant failover or bonded lines?
You mean where right now you wait for Openreach to get off their fat arses and pick a random date in the future to provision it?
>What's to stop them from blocking websites at will, without any oversight from parliament or the courts?
The same as what's stopping your current ISP from blocking websites at will, without any oversight from Parliament or the courts.
>We got cheaper calls, better service and new technology.
There's nothing to suggest we wouldn't have got those anyway. Especially the new technology, which is overwhelmingly delivered by the public sector or by public funding.
>The government could choose to fund the roll-out of fibre-to-the-home on a competitive basis
We already tried this once with FTTC. How did that work out? Openreach hustled all the contracts and proceeded to take the piss.
|>>|| No. 87320
Very good, very good.
Now do the one about why the trains are better, cheaper and more efficient since privatisation!
|>>|| No. 87321
>Exactly my point made
My closest friends voted Leave and tend to have Tory leanings, usually along the lines of 'personal responsibility' and that sort of thing but nothing too extreme, because I find them to be the most reasonable and agreeable people to get along with. I'm generally quite left leaning but I find a lot of people with similar views to my own to be completely insufferable.
I know people go on about how working class people shouldn't vote Tory, but I can see quite easily how some will become hardened into that mindset if you've ever spent a decent amount of time around a council estate and encountered the not inconsiderable number of scratters who reside there.
|>>|| No. 87322
This is where the idea of left unity comes into play.
The left is famously it's own worst enemy- Part of that is inherent, because as a leftist, you already know the other side are just horrible rich bastards. You don't have expectations of them. But when it comes to Labour, or just your average internet lefty posting condescending memes, you feel disappointment and frustration that they're not living up to the ideals you feel they should be.
Elections are most definitely not the time to let that rule your feelings. We have to suck it up and show solidarity, even with the annoying student lads, even with the mentalist identity police lot; because our common enemy doesn't share this problem. The right has no need for an ideology beyond vaguely defined concepts of individualism and aspiration, and we live in a country where that position is assumed to be the default.
If we managed to bring a lot of those alienated working class Tory voters back into the fold, suddenly the British left as a whole wouldn't have this image problem of being for smug student bumders and immigrants. It's a self-perpetuating cycle.
|>>|| No. 87323
>If we managed to bring a lot of those alienated working class Tory voters back into the fold, suddenly the British left as a whole wouldn't have this image problem of being for smug student bumders and immigrants. It's a self-perpetuating cycle.
This is a bit of an oversimplification, but in my eyes most people in this country are either socially conservative and fiscally liberal or socially conservative and fiscally conservative. The Tories have been able to hoover up a lot of 'traditional' working class voters, particularly with UKIP acting as a gateway drug, because a lot of socially conservative Labour voters have felt alienated by the party's gradual creep to being both socially and fiscally liberal.
|>>|| No. 87324
Oh I agree, you probably summarised better than I could.
I do understand why some people feel hard done by when they break their balls at work all day and the same types of people who have never worked go in and out of the doctors etc with nothing better to do.
I have a few single, never worked, probably never will work mums on my Facebook as a relic from school.
They are consistently posting about going to the doctors etcbecause their wee one has a cough etc. They are also always going on days out and one of them seems to have a house for no other virtue than having had a kid.
There's bigger issues at play but I can see why your average man and woman struggling to make ends meet might get a bit annoyed at that, particularly when you can't see your GP because somebody with nothing better to do is back at the doctors.
There's a huge thing >>87322 touches on too, my working class family, friends,people back home, who were life long Labour voters will no longer vote Labour because they just feel too left behind with the whole identity thing.
They see Labour as just not the party for them now and i don't think that will ever change. They've made their own bed.
|>>|| No. 87325
I wouldn't call renationalising rail, water, electricity and broadband "liberal".
Generally though I think what we've seen over the last 20-30 years is a complete consensus between parties that the neo-liberal economic model is the only way of doing things. This has left the debate in politics to end up focusing entirely on social issues, with economics not just ignored, but treated as immovable universal constants, as unchanging and fundamental as the rocks underneath us.
You see that a lot in Yank politics. The choice there is essentially between pro-gun conservatives, or pro-abortion conservatives. People get incredibly passionate and angry about things like LGBT rights, when they make practically no difference to the actual running of the country or its prosperity. I think through the Internet a lot of that mindset has drifted over through osmosis, with people not understanding that we liven under a radically different economic consensus as recently as the 1970s.
As a result it's very easy for someone like Daveycambles to come along and tell everyone he's modernising the Conservative party by letting gay people get married, and people swallow it. They can wholesale steal the bits that will get them votes and the illusion of progressivism from the left, and still drive forward with their plans to cull homeless people and sell the entire country to China.
|>>|| No. 87326
I think the crab pot mentality also comes into play somewhat. A lot of people vote Labour simply because that's what their parents and others from their background do, without questioning it. If people break this mould by thinking for themselves then they're shamed for doing so, getting ideas above their station and thinking they're better than everyone else. They need bringing back down to the crab pot.
I get it enough for voting Lib Dem, I've lost count of the amount of times I'm told I should vote Labour to keep the Tories out, so fuck knows what it's like for an actual Tory voter.
|>>|| No. 87327
You know it's dire when you disagree with a lot of what the tories do but weirdly feel sorry for them.
It's even more dire when I know saying I feel sorry for them I'll attract the predictable 'but you don't feel sorry for the people they kill through cutting JSA? You're just a shy Tory' is incoming.
|>>|| No. 87328
>And what on earth makes you think a national fibre network would even remotely compare to this? The closest comparable project is in Australia, where under the NBN project FTTC was installed to vast swathes of the country, and while it's been less than ideal, nothing even remotely close to what you're suggesting has happened there.
Not him but the Australian internet is regarded as one of the worst on the planet both in terms of speed and cost. I think
it's exactly the kind of example of how things will go - complete with the inevitable pornographic absurdity.
BT is a shithouse but that's not going to be fixed by the inevitable botched government takeover.
>The same as what's stopping your current ISP from blocking websites at will, without any oversight from Parliament or the courts.
The market for alternatives and capacity to challenge the decision in the courts as a breach of contract.
>Part of that is inherent, because as a leftist, you already know the other side are just horrible rich bastards.
I like how this was made in a post trying to agree with Labour being shrill.
|>>|| No. 87329
It's a bit different when the crab is voting to have boiling water poured into the bucket, though.
|>>|| No. 87330
What actually is so bad about voting Tory if you're working class or lower middle class?
|>>|| No. 87331
>The market for alternatives and capacity to challenge the decision in the courts as a breach of contract.
Comedy gold, m7.
|>>|| No. 87332
In the past four years they've failed to build any of the 200k starter homes they said they would, introduced universal credit which reduced, crippled, or stripped benefits from a great many, changed the rules on benefits (and working tax credits) for people with more than two children, and bereavement support for cohabiting couples to their detriment. They lifted the cap on tuition fees (and of course, before that, raised them significantly during the coalition), spend a quarter of a million quid to propagandise unversal credit (leading the ASA to call their adverts misleading and wholly innacurate), removed nurses bursaries, tried to spend 14 million quid on ferries that don't exist, were reprimanded by the Supreme Court for introducing 'unlawful' fees for employment tribunals, and slashed policing budgets to the tune of about 20,000 officers.
So I can't really think of anything tbh, I'm only voting labour because my grandad was a miner
|>>|| No. 87335
Then all the things he said except for the middle bit of the first sentence.
|>>|| No. 87336
Yeah, but what if one is working and doesn't want one's salary garnished to fund layabouts and ne'er-do-wells.
|>>|| No. 87341
I'll stop you here, because where your whatabouts are eventually going to lead is "yeah but what if you're rich and want more money" which neatly underlines exactly why working and lower middle class people shouldn't vote Conservative.
There's not really any justification for voting for a party that did everything on this list other than 'none of this directly affects me' which is fine, you can vote selfishly, that's the good thing about voting, but not really relevant to the original question as it still won't benefit even someone "who is working and doesn't want one's salary garnished" because you have to make a lot more than a working or lower middle class person makes to avoid such a thing under the tories.
|>>|| No. 87342
You had your statutory right to an hour's lunch break slashed to twenty minutes- You never had retail staff doing nine hour shifts with scarcely long enough to eat their lunch before Callmedave. You had your legal right to a minimum of contracted hours taken away- Zero hours contracts and shady shit like Uber were never a thing before Camebourne. You had the right to legal aid which would have enabled you to take your employer to a tribunal if you were unfairly dismissed or discriminated against taken away- This is why modern day workhouses like Capita can get away with sacking people indiscriminately for having a day off sick. They pretended they were giving you a tax cut by increasing the personal allowance, but raised VAT and tax on fags and booze with the other hand, taxes which disproportionately affect the working class. And when global competition becomes too fierce, they will let your industry collapse or be bought out by the Chinese, so don't be too confident you won't need those bennies one day.
Even if you've never claimed a benefit or used the NHS in your life, the Tories are still demonstrably harmful to working people's day to day conditions, and long term security.
>but what if I'm a special boy destined to be rich and not just a bucket crustacean like the rest of the smelly paupers I grew up with
Then by all means vote for the Tories
>hurr you're being smug nobody will ever support you for being smug
Tough tits mate.
|>>|| No. 87343
There isn't a Green candidate standing in my area. Only two of the six candidates actually live in the area.
|>>|| No. 87344
A few greens are standing down so Labour have a better chance, not sure if that's true for your area, but it's worth noting.
|>>|| No. 87345
Not very many, as they did that for Labour before in return for promises which were never fulfilled so they're justifiably pissed off with them.
|>>|| No. 87348
And unless they've brought their usage policy into the 21st century they're the perfect choice if you only use the internet for Facebook.
Also, if they decide to u-turn on that policy, you have no legal recourse.
|>>|| No. 87351
I'm just repeating what I was told by a Green party candidate I was speaking to.
|>>|| No. 87358
I saw the advert online this morning, so evidently they haven't been forced to pull it over inaccuracies and we all know that shit sticks.
It's things like this that will win the Tories the election. We're increasingly moving from a collective to an individualistic society and the Tory message of what's best for the individual is received better than the identity politics Labour indulge in, i.e. someone is more concerned about higher take home pay than ensuring all FTSE 100 board rooms have at least one black disabled trans lesbian attack helicopter.
|>>|| No. 87360
>someone is more concerned about higher take home pay than ensuring all FTSE 100 board rooms have at least one black disabled trans lesbian attack helicopter.
This is fair and clearly it's working on you, but if you think about it for longer than three seconds you'll realise that Labour isn't going to have every single taxpayer in the country pay the same amount of extra tax, and indeed people who really need to worry about take home pay will pay less.
Also show me the policy pledge about black lesbians.
|>>|| No. 87361
Your summary at the end there sounds far more Lib Dem than Labour.
Jez has purged all the centrists, Blairites and Jews who were interested in pushing identity politics instead of genuine economic inequalities.
He's obviously not going to win the election but I think in the long term he might have saved Labour, give it a few years for the actual message to sink in and he will be part of what helped save the party's image.
|>>|| No. 87363
>I think in the long term he might have saved Labour, give it a few years for the actual message to sink in and he will be part of what helped save the party's image.
Albeit purely unintentionally.
|>>|| No. 87369
So how long do you lads reckon the next extension will be for?
>Starts with ADSL and 200GB/month download for £25.00
I can't imagine I've ever needed 200GB, my ISP would probably cut me off all the same at that point, and I fully accept I'm probably being a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal but they can fuck right off.
>Also, if they decide to u-turn on that policy, you have no legal recourse.
That would put them into breach of contract.
So he's got rid of Dianne Abbot?
|>>|| No. 87370
>That would put them into breach of contract.
No, it would not.
Stop doing that. It isn't clever and it isn't funny.
|>>|| No. 87371
200G isn't even that much these days. My TV alone uses about 30GB a month just on streaming services. A modern video game is 80 gig or more - Red Dead 2 is something like 150.
|>>|| No. 87372
>Youth campaigners have stepped up efforts to oust Boris Johnson from his constituency
>increasingly hopeful they can make history by ensuring he is the first prime minister to lose their seat at a general election.
>A report by centre-right thinktank Onward found that a constituency is likely to be won by a party other than the Tories if its ratio of younger to older residents rises above 1.1.
>the seat is significantly beyond that tipping point, with younger voters outnumbering older by an estimated 2.1 ratio
>Johnson’s majority was cut from 10,695 in the 2015 general election to 5,034 in the 2017 election and is now the smallest of any prime minister since 1924.
Boris is definitely making himself a place in the history books with all his firsts.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]