I disagree.

No, there is another.

Her heart's in the right place, but I don't think she has the experience or the political savvy to be PM. She'd be a decent opposition to a Johnson government, she'd be an excellent DPM, but I worry that a Phillips premiership could be a road to hell paved with good intentions.

I still fancy the pants off her, mind.

>>87242
She's a TERF.

>>87350
So's your mum.

>>87350
Let's not forget "Until I get what I want, I don't give a toss about tackling the high male-centric rate of suicide" or words to that effect.

Keir Starmer or nothing, thanks.

I like RLB.

I saw a comment about her the other day which said she's the female equivalent of David Lammy. Good at calling out and fighting sexism, but has a bad habit of seeing sexism when it isn't there just so she's got something to be shouting about.

I've had a look on a few Momentum type pages. They seem to hate her because:-

- She's Rupert Murdoch's bitch.
- She's a red Tory.
- She gets along with Rees-Mogg.

>>87350
I saw a trans guy tweet that, in a meeting he was in with her and his cis female friends, they asked about MP selections and she said it was heavily biased towards Eton-educated men, but turned to the trans guy and said “you don’t have a uterus so you’d be fine”. And then everyone sat there in awkward silence.

She is TERFy and SWERFy and Blairy and even more uncharismatic than Corbyn and I really hope she doesn't win.

>>88616

Close political association with Murdoch is absolutely valid grounds for criticism. We haven't had a party in power not backed by the Murdoch press for decades.

David Yellend, former editor of the Sun, said during the Leveson Inquiry:
>"All Murdoch editors, what they do is this: they go on a journey where they end up agreeing with everything Rupert says but you don't admit to yourself that you're being influenced. Most Murdoch editors wake up in the morning, switch on the radio, hear that something has happened and think: what would Rupert think about this? It's like a mantra inside your head, it's like a prism. You look at the world through Rupert's eyes."

Criticism of the structure of media in the UK has been voiced by many journalists, arguably of quite different political backgrounds. Take what Peter Oborne says about The Telegraph and the BBC: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/british-journalists-have-become-part-of-johnsons-fake-news-machine/

The same problem also exists for non-Murdoch papers (see Jonathan Cook on The Guardian) and ties into a broader problem about government sourcing and concentration of media ownership.

By the way, paraphrasing others to make the argument sound hyperbolic is dishonest. If people do not support Jess Phillips because they disagree with her centrist economic policies, that is also valid.

I know plenty of people complain about Labour taking an explicitly socialist stance, but if Labour sacrifices its socialism in favour of creating an 'electable' appearance all we'll get is plastic politicians we can't trust and tepid campaigns.

Labour membership surged thanks to Corbyn and their honest and (for Britain) radical campaign was welcomed enthusiastically by the party. If the try to shove another neolib in the top spot all those people will just walk away, and I don't think Labour can win without them.

Neolibs just need to fuck off. Liberalism is either dead or dying and if people in power don't stop stepping in socialism's way we're just going to get fascism and it'll suck.

>>88619

>Close political association with Murdoch is absolutely valid grounds for criticism. We haven't had a party in power not backed by the Murdoch press for decades.

If, as many Momentum supporters claim, it's impossible to get elected without the backing of a corrupt and biased media, then Labour is faced with a stark choice - remain in opposition forever, or learn how to manipulate that media to their advantage and have a chance of actually winning an election. Do you want your pride, or do you want to become the party of government?

>>88621

>Labour membership surged thanks to Corbyn

That's a totally irrelevant metric. Labour's share of the vote collapsed under Corbyn, which is highly relevant.

>If the try to shove another neolib in the top spot all those people will just walk away, and I don't think Labour can win without them.

The Momentum takeover has massively degraded Labour's grassroots capacity, because it drove away experienced and hard-working local campaigners and replaced them with people who rarely go out canvassing or leafleting, but do spend a lot of time on social media telling people to fuck off and join the Tories. Quelle surprise, a large chunk of the electorate did fuck off and join the Tories.

I didn't even really know what Momentum was until everyone started blaming it post-GE. It was just a word I saw written on some Labour propaganda occasionally.

>>88622
>it drove away experienced and hard-working local campaigners
Why didn't they do it separately? There's nothing to stop you canvassing for whomever you feel like. Presumably the people you're talking about were part of the contingent who came up with Momentum and welcomed it into the party in the first place. Maybe they weren't driven off, maybe they figured they'd let the new and enthusiastic people do it for them so they could be lazy and sit this one out.
Either way, I don't remember* seeing you or anyone else warning of this happening beforehand. Equally the electorate who voted for the Tories are also culpable for making their decisions based on the behaviour of some retard on twitter rather than the party maifestos and personal track records. None of this finger-pointing really helps anyone.

*I do expect you to now dig up some pre-GE posts where someone did, I genuinely just don't remember.

>>88622
>If, as many Momentum supporters claim, it's impossible to get elected without the backing of a corrupt and biased media, then Labour is faced with a stark choice - remain in opposition forever, or learn how to manipulate that media to their advantage and have a chance of actually winning an election. Do you want your pride, or do you want to become the party of government?

I don't belong to Momentum, but I've presented some argument (which has nothing to do with Momentum) that the bias exists. So unless you address that, there's really not much reason to continue with that "if".

That aside, these are not the only two options. For one, there is no "manipulating the media to their advantage"; the economic policies of Corbyn's Labour (and other parties, such as Green) run counter to the agenda what the media are, institutionally. The only way to be treated sympathetically by that media is to move party policy towards an increasingly narrow consensus -- either way, we don't get to reach anything outside of neoliberalism.

For two, there are already many people working on media reform and making a considerable impact. With enough popular support the government can be pressured into changing its relationship with the media. That was partly the origin of the Leveson Inquiry, for example.

>>88623

>Presumably the people you're talking about were part of the contingent who came up with Momentum and welcomed it into the party in the first place.

Nope. Momentum is an entryist movement that is substantially at odds with the mainstream of the Labour party pre-Corbyn. A large proportion of the leadership of Momentum were previously members of Militant Tendency, a similar entryist group who were banned from the Labour party in the 1980s.

>Either way, I don't remember* seeing you or anyone else warning of this happening beforehand.

Several Labour MPs were warning that Momentum was an entryist coup by the hard left back in 2015. Momentum spent most of the following years seeking to push centre-left members and MPs out of the party, with no small amount of success.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/social-affairs/politics/news/68963/momentum-entryists-trying-take-over-labour-claims-tom

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-mp-deselection-momentum-nec-vote-conference-a8521141.html

Bookies favourites are between Lisa Nandy and Keir Starmer. I don't know where they seem to be getting the information for Keir considering he's not only a bloke from London but also far too closely associated with IIIWW to be viable.

I'm a little angry that the picture of Lisa Nandy in bed with another woman during her university days is so shit.

>>87362
>>88615
If I remember right, she actually pulled faces and laughed when an David Lammy spoke about male suicide in the context of international men's day. Her defence being that, of course, everyday is international men's day.

i.e. should she become leader the electorate will just conclude that she's a cunt.

>>88621
>Liberalism is either dead or dying and if people in power don't stop stepping in socialism's way we're just going to get fascism and it'll suck.

I had no idea that actual Bolsheviks posted on this site. Do you feel like a bit of a hypocrite spouting this while Labour's party line isn't a dictatorship of the proletariat?

>>88621
>If the try to shove another neolib in the top spot all those people will just walk away, and I don't think Labour can win without them.
They won without them before, and on current form they sure as shit aren't winning with them. In our electoral system, you play for the centre ground or you get played. If you aren't electable, you generally don't get elected, and if you don't get elected, all you're doing is screaming from the touchline.

>>88625
Interesting.

>>88625

>Momentum spent most of the following years seeking to push centre-left members and MPs out of the party, with no small amount of success.

Good. Look at how well the Change Party or whatever the fuck it ended up calling itself did to see just how much the public wants centre left MPs. They only had their seats in the first place because they represented Labour. Nobody wants them.

I'm no Momentum fanboy but if you want to find a way to criticise them, you'll have to do better than telling me they rooted out the centrists.

>>88628

>They won without them before, and on current form they sure as shit aren't winning with them

As has been pointed out to you plenty of times by now, this has more to do with social than economic policy. People care more, at the ballot box, about social issues than economic ones, so there's no rational reason for labour to compromise on economic leftism. The public supports that. What it absolutely cannot afford to do is offer the electorate more soft, wishy washy social liberalism.

The voting public doesn't want Tory-lite, when the last ten years of Tory rule have taught them that they can just vote full fat Tory and probably be okay- Because at least the Tories offer a perceived tougher stance on crime, immigration, etc. They'd vote for Lenin himself if he said I'LL LOCK UP EVERY daft militant wog AND THROW AWAY THE KEY.

If your only defence is to point at an election victory from more than two decades ago I really don't know what the fuck to tell you- Would you believe times change? You're getting it all completely backwards.

The problem with Long-Bailey, apart from looking like someone drew glasses on a potato, is that she's already been dubbed 'Wrong-Daily' and that's effective enough to stick.

>>88627

>Bookies favourites are between Lisa Nandy and Keir Starmer.

Rebecca Long-Bailey is the runaway favourite.

https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-labour-leader

>>88630

If you're arguing that centrism doesn't work for the Labour party, you'll need to explain why a) Blair won the largest Labour majority ever and b) why Labour currently has fewer seats than at any time since 1935.

Labour's move to the left is a failed experiment.

>>88633

>If you're arguing that centrism doesn't work for the Labour party, you'll need to explain why

Okay, well, to drastically simplify things:

>a) Blair won the largest Labour majority ever

Because the Tories were shit in 1997 and Blair wasn't socially liberal.

>b) why Labour currently has fewer seats than at any time since 1935.

Because of IIIWW and because Corbyn was socially liberal.

If you even remember the basics of GCSE science classes you'll know that you can't test a hypothesis without isolating a variable. You keep pointing to 1997 and comparing it with last week's election results as if that means fucking anything.

Why can't you be honest and admit that 22 years have passed and the issues people care about have moved on? It's like if I kept trying to tell you hard left Labour is electable because of their landslide in 1945.

>>88634

>I've been digging for ages and now I'm stuck in a big hole
>Stop digging m8
>YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT DIGGING GOT ME INTO THIS HOLE AND BESIDES IT'S JUST THE MURDOCH PRESS

>>88638

I'm the one that posted about the Murdoch press. Different lad. I think I made my point about that.

If centrist Blairites are so great why did the Conservatives knock them out of power in the first place?

>>88642
Because Ed Miliband was a bit weird.

>>88642

Because Labour had their time, and that time was up.

But also because they made the same mistake as the Conservatives in the 90s, and allowed a bland as fuck person to be the successor to an iconic figurehead, at a time when enthusiasm for the incumbent government was very clearly waning.

>>88645
I'd forgotten about ol' Cyclops, what with his terrifying forced smile and bigoted woman comments.

>>88642
Because Brown, and Miliband after him, did absolutely nothing to challenge the Tory narrative that Labour were responsible for the global financial crisis.

>>88645

>allowed a bland as fuck person to be the successor to an iconic figurehead

Ouch, that certainly sounds like it would be damaging.

>at a time when enthusiasm for the incumbent government was very clearly waning.

And why was that?

>>88646

>Brown, and Miliband after him, did absolutely nothing to challenge the Tory narrative that Labour were responsible for the global financial crisis.

And is that still relevant today?

>>88645

The irony is that someone as boring as John Major would have the nous to take some positive action, just to see an uptick in the public mood. He wouldn't care about the background of the beneficiaries, as long as there was an absolute measurable result. Yes, it's boring as fuck politics, but as a voter with Federalist tendencies and worker's rights in mind, i would love to see a stronger nation that works as a whole while considering the needs of the individual devolved regions, and the counties and cultures that comprise them. Every part of this country has great and unique things to offer, and it's worth boasting about the melding of tradition and new culture that has made all such as curries and doner meat pizza things that are British as Fuck. One of these days I will get the TransPennine Express to Scarborough and have a Parmo. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be a coherent plan for a United Kingdom that works together like any sort of "powerhouse", which is why I always scoff when I see the idea of a Northern one bandied about.

>>88660
>And is that still relevant today?

Absolutely. The Tories have been given free reign for years to etch into the nations psyche that Labour cannot be trusted with the economy because they're incompetent and they overspend. There is no way that hasn't influenced perceptions of Corbyn's spending plans.

>>88666

So what's to be done about it?

Should Labour challenge that perception and fight the case that there's a credible case against austerity and neo-liberalism? Or should Labour essentially validate that perception by lurching sheepishly towards the same?

>>88666

The Financial Crisis did not happen solely because Labour were shit with money though. It was the consequence of a global problem of Western governments turning a blind eye to the shenanigans of a free-wheeling banking and investment sector that was allowed to run free and throw all caution of what was widely considered prudent economic policy to the wind.

It did not happen because Labour were running out of other people's money, to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher.

>>88667

Reframe the argument to focus on growth and productivity, not spending.

Labour's 2019 election campaign was a laundry-list of free stuff and spending promises, but they only briefly mentioned stuff like the National Investment Bank; this disparity only served to reinforce what the Tory party and the tabloid press had been saying for years about Labour. The traditional Labour towns that swung to the Tories didn't see how their sense of pride and community could be restored by more generous handouts, but they were willing to gamble on the bright but vague future offered by Boris's IIIWW.

The big economic problem facing most voters is the cost-of-living squeeze - wages haven't increased in real terms since 2008, but inflation has been steadily ticking up. Promising to increase the minimum wage won't persuade most voters, because they're not on the minimum wage; promising to coerce employers into increasing wages gives the Tories an open goal to attack Labour as being anti-business Marxists.

Labour could have credibly won the economic argument by relentlessly focussing on productivity. "The Tories destroyed manufacturing in this country and gave the bankers free reign to gamble with our livelihoods. Labour wants to make Britain work for working people by investing in real jobs and real industry." A more relatable leader could have positioned themselves as the down-to-earth alternative to an out-of-touch posho who doesn't know how things work in the real world, but Corbyn couldn't carry that off.

If you promise a bunch of spending and then explain what taxes are going to fund it, you don't look economically prudent, you just play into a load of old Tory slogans about tax and spend. If you start with how you're going to grow the economy and then talk about all the things that a more productive economy can afford, it's infinitely more credible.

Labour's campaign lacked clarity and focus, so it ended up looking disorganised and reactive. Boris's simple slogans were reductive, but they very effectively controlled the terms of the debate.

>>88631
Do you have an argument or are you just going to go B-B-BUT THE TORIES all week?

>Would you believe times change?
I would, but I wouldn't be so fucking naïve as to believe that to be the reason for Labour's dire electoral performances since Corbyn took the job.

>>88670

I didn't do any B-B-BUT TORIES if you'd bothered to read, lad.

Calling a Labour centrist Tory Lite is entirely accurate, because the Tories have moved to entirely claim the same socially liberal middle ground as Labour, while still credibly holding the same economic position they've always held.

The old truism is that the Conservatives can always move to the left, but it's very difficult for Labour to move to the right- But that's a flawed viewpoint, because it relies on the assumption that the social and economic left/right are mutually exclusive.

>>88669

I like the sound of this, but at the same time, I wonder how they could do that without falling into the same trap, just using different posturing. "We're going to invest in industry!" "How?" "By erm... Giving it loads of money!" and then the papers slag them off for trying to bribe businesses and create unfair market forces or whatever.

I think at the end of the day we can't get over the issue without ultimately breaking through that taboo that public spending and investment is a bad thing. I think something that nearly works is when you point at the Nordic countries and everyone universally agrees that they're exemplary economies- Then you can pull the tablecloth out underneath them by pointing out the huge levels of taxation and cost of living balances that go hand in hand with it.

>>88671
>I didn't do any B-B-BUT TORIES if you'd bothered to read, lad.
... he says, right before adding
>Calling a Labour centrist Tory Lite is entirely accurate

>>88672

You still haven't got a counter argument though I see.

>>88676
You need to formulate a cogent argument before someone can counter it.

>>88683
That's not actually true though is it? A seriously flawed argument would be all the more easy to counter.

Thornberry is the first one to officially put themselves forward. If she's the answer then you're asking the wrong questions.

>>88685
Flawless and cogent aren't the same thing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

>>88667
Labours plan was to get the manifesto fully costed by economists (had the backing of 180 prominent economists, if I'm remembering rightly). The problem is most people don't give a shit about that, if enough 'regular people' challenge it with "It'll bankrupt us though!" they'll get scared and side with that rather than read the extensive report because "Those bloody professionals are at it again with their facts and figures and degrees and whatnot"

That added to the fact 'regular people' get most of their opinions from media owned by the ruling class or "Dave at work who seems to know a lot about politics" "Dave at work who presents a lot of biased opinions as fact"

Labour needed to do more than just tout professionals opinions, brandishing them like paper armour against fire breathing dragons, they needed to build that case, and then lay it out in simple terms. "Our renationalisation plan would pay themselves off in under 10 years, after that the income is just gravy and we can pay off the rest of our debt steadily (or give you free/cheaper train travel/electricity/water/etc.)"

>>88701
The problem with Labour's "fully costed" manifesto is that:-

- Almost immediately after it is launched the IFS will review it and say the plans aren't credible.
- The day after it was launched they appended on a pledge to giveaway £58billion to WASPI women that they'd initially forgotten about.
- Corbyn was interviewed admitting that it wouldn't just be the top 5% of earners paying for it all.
- The sheer number of spending plans made voters sceptical and canvassers felt they had too many to go through on doorsteps.
- The way the pledges were framed. John McDonnell even warned against how Labour were campaigning it (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/leaders-gangster-aides-stopped-john-mcdonnell-rescuing-campaign-ftnppxd5z).
- People may be interested in a redistribution of wealth, but they don't subscribe to Momentum's combative class war. It came off as anti-business and the politics of envy rather than a positive message to get behind.

>>88703
It was credible and it would be better for the country

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2019/11/is-labours-economic-plan-credible.html

>>88703
I think the turning point was making Broadband free. That seemed to be the main jump on for the FREE STUFF FROM LABOUR crowd.

>>88704
General election 2019: Tory and Labour spending plans 'not credible' - IFS

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50585818

It's the IFS analysis that makes the news, though.

Labour claims about savings under their policies are not credible

https://fullfact.org/election-2019/labour-claims-about-savings-under-their-policies-are-not-credible/

>>88703
>Corbyn was interviewed admitting that it wouldn't just be the top 5% of earners paying for it all.

Wasn't that about ending tax breaks for married couples, or something? The top 5% thing was about income tax only.

>>88707
The marriage allowance was only for couples where one was a basic rate taxpayer and the other had income that didn't exceed the personal allowance. It was claimed a lot by couples where one was working whilst the other raised their children or cared for elderly relatives.

Those worst affected by Corbyn's proposals would have been small business owners who drew most of their income as dividends.

Stalinist takes charge of Rebecca Long Bailey’s Labour leadership campaign

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/stalinist-takes-charge-of-rebecca-long-baileys-labour-leadership-campaign-q8pkp9qc6

Welp.

>>88743
Please post a screen cap, paywalllad.

>>88744
You get a small number of articles per week for free if you register. Anyway, it's repeated almost verbatim in The Mail:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7816009/Rebecca-Long-Bailey-appoints-self-proclaimed-Stalinist.html

I guess it confirms what would obviously happen anyway; any misstep by Wrong-Daily will be seized on by the media.

>>88745
So it's literally nothing and for some reason they aren't publishing the photo in question?

>>88746
I'd say the issue was more him being a self-declared Stalinist, but that's par for the course with Seumas still knocking around.

>>88747
I'm a bonehead, I didn't even realise that was the photo, apologies.

Don't fuck this, Jess.

>>88631
>The voting public doesn't want Tory-lite

You are aware that the only time Labour got in power in the last 40 years was because they became 'Tory-lite'?

>Speaking to the M.E.N., contender Ms Long Bailey said: “They say your experiences shape who you are and mine certainly have. I was born in Old Trafford to Irish parents and grew up locally. My Dad, Jimmy, worked on the Salford Docks and I grew up watching him worrying when round after round of redundancies were inflicted on the Docks.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/rebecca-long-bailey-replace-hazel-7296137

Rebecca Long-Bailey was born 22 September 1979.
Salford docks closed 1982.

Needless to say, the press have picked up on her telling porkies to show that she has working class credentials.

>>88747

>I'd say the issue was more him being a self-declared Stalinist


The only genocidist who's still somehow hip to follow.

Accepted belief among historians is that Stalin is responsible for more deaths of ethnic minorities than Hitler. In the Ukraine Famine alone, up to five million people died from starvation.

https://news.stanford.edu/2010/09/23/naimark-stalin-genocide-092310/

It would then only be fair if EDL supporters got to openly call themselves Hitlerists without having to fear repercussions.

>>88752

>Hitlerists without having to fear repercussions.

Hitler was a vegetarian, built the autobaun gave us the Volkswagen. And pulled Germany out of debt into a period of prosterity. He's okay in my book if you cherry pick the way people do with historical figures they like.

>>88752
Stalin actually had terrible skin. That picture has been doctored.

I suppose changing your name from Ioseb Jughashvili to Joe Steel isn't that different from Stephen Yaxley-Lennon to Tommy Robinson, come to think of it.

Do we really have to play the "who was more evil?" game with Hitler and fucking Stalin? That's possibly the daftest debate in the history of human civilisation.

>>88753

So you're saying, as long as someone has a tenable utopian vision, then what's a few million dead minorities here and there along the way?

>>88758
No he isn't saying that at all.

>>88758

It's staggering that you were able to read that and come to that conclusion. Did you just not read the whole post? It's only three sentences.

Ironic that you lot are missing the point about cunts being cunts on a thread praising Jess Phillips. She's not the progressive figure Labour needs, just another derisive, divisive foghorn.

Fairly comprehensive write-up here for those of you still intent on sipping the Kool-Aid:
https://gal-dem.com/heres-why-weve-got-no-time-for-jess-phillips/

>>88761
Can't you just not lie? Why are you pretending to think "she's not the progressive figure Labour needs"? Just say what you actually think which is probably the total opposite, you weird, transparently untruthful, oddball. It's very easy to tell when people are doing this strange fake opinion thing on .gs because there are only three of us here, so it sticks out like a sore thumb when people chat shit.

>>88761

A leader who annoys "an online and print publication committed to sharing perspectives from women and non-binary people of colour" is almost certain to have more electoral appeal than a leader who is lauded by them.

It's impossible to avoid being divisive, because we're a massively divided nation; the question is who you want to appeal to and who you're willing to alienate in the process. Corbyn has proven that he has very strong appeal for a small minority of the electorate while alienating the vast majority. That's not a winning strategy. Frankly, it doesn't matter what the readers of Gal Dem think, because they're a demographic rounding error.

>>88761
tl;dr version: Blair took us into Iraq, so going towards the centre is bad. Anyone who wants to control immigration is bad. Jess Phillips is bad because she's spoken out about Asian men grooming white children and also something about sex workers and trannies.

Most BAME people I know want immigration reduced. I don't know where they've got this notion that being non-white automatically means you oppose any controls on immigration.

>>88764
Oh, and the cardinal sin of not giving unwavering blind devotion to Jeremy "worst general election result since 1935" Corbyn.

>>88763

>because we're a massively divided nation

Isn't that true for every democratic country that ever was. The adage "We're such a divided country" has certainly been used for as long as I have been alive.


I maintain that true unity can only come about in communism or fascism, with a firm and resolute deep state that watches over what people say and think at every level, and which is prepared to use any repressive means necessary to dictate public opinion and maintain its own power. And even then, most people will only parrot official government propaganda for fear of being neutralised if they don't.

Hope I'm not giving you lot any ideas.

>>88767

>Isn't that true for every democratic country that ever was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-war_consensus

>>88767

The liberal democratic party has been in power in Japan nearly constantly since the mid 50s you can fit the time others parts have had control during into a decade.

Jess is also very self-serving. Remember when MPs were marching in support of the NHS a while back? Jess didn't, because she had a book signing that Saturday. She's always busy promoting her books and attention seeking in general.

Also, she's Rees-Mogg's best mate

>>88769

The Japanese don't seem like a people that would be divided to begin with. From what I have had to do with them, most of the time, it's hard to get any kind of frankly-stated opinion out of them at all.

>>88774
That's a big factor in why they'll release all sorts of crazy bollocks. Market research simply doesn't work there because people are too reserved to say what they really feel, so companies take a scattergun approach to see what actually sticks.

>>88779

That must be true also for their television programmes then.

Or maybe it's just their form of release. Brits get drunk on holiday, the Americans invade sovereign nations, and maybe all the batshit crazy weird stuff has to come from Japan because it's their way of counterbalancing a lifetime spent not sticking out or being in any way noteworthy as an individual.

>>88789
No one had heard of Corbyn, of course, so not like that matters.

>>88789
JESS JESS JESS

>>88790
How did that work out?

>>88792
One of the many reasons that Corbyn's leadership lost the election for Labour, Mr. Trite Moron, wasn't that no-one had heard of him when he was elected.

Long-Bailey has finally thrown her hat into the ring, with Rayner her choice for deputy.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/29/rebecca-long-bailey-labour-party-britain

>Keir Starmer has emerged as an early frontrunner in the Labour leadership race to succeed Jeremy Corbyn after a poll of members suggested he was the first choice in all regions of the UK, age groups and social classes.

>Polling by YouGov for the Party Members Project put Starmer as winning with a 61% vote share to 39% for the shadow business secretary, Rebecca Long Bailey, in the last round. Jess Phillips, the chair of the women’s parliamentary Labour party, who has yet to declare if she is running, was the third most popular choice among members, who were surveyed between 20 and 30 December.

>The results at this preliminary stage suggest that the winner is unlikely to come from the left of the party, according to Prof Tim Bale of Queen Mary University of London, who jointly ran the poll with the University of Sussex.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/01/poll-of-labour-members-suggests-keir-starmer-is-first-choice

>>88826
Oh, dog.

>>88826

Good.

Put someone like Kier Starmer up against a clown like BoJo in an election and it should be an easy win. Sad to say it but he just looks and sounds like a leader. I can picture people voting for him.

The rest of them are absolute no hopers on a magnitude several times greater than Corbyn. At least Corbyn had experience and principles on his side. These lot are not just out of touch lib-lefties, but empty careerist ones at that.

Style isn't everything but why do we pretend it's not important?

It has a huge role to play and people that look and act like leaders can bring people with them, which is half of the battle. I hate the pretence that we have to pretend that if you don't put on a suit and tie or have a scruffy beard then you're more 'real' than somebody who has made the effort.

By the way Jess Phillips would be an excellent choice but I fear the Labour membership will instead pick a bad one.

>>88828

Starmer is a boring bastard. Unless Boris catastrophically fucks up the next five years, he'll get hammered. Doesn't matter what his policies are, doesn't matter how clever he is, no swing voter will pay attention for long enough to listen to him.

He's less shit than RLB, but that's not exactly hard.

>>88831

>Unless Boris catastrophically fucks up the next five years

I'm about 70% certain he will, to be fair. Up til this point he's had "Get IIIWW Done (tm)" on his side, but afterwards what does he have?

Indeed, what will he have when he doesn't even Get IIIWW Done (tm) because the talks invariably end up going on for years and years despite anyone's best intention? That's still a very real outcome, and people will loathe him for breaking that one, single, solitary, exclusive reason thy elected him.

>>88832

>but afterwards what does he have?

Thanks to a decade of brutal austerity, he can radically improve public services by just moderately loosening the purse strings.

>what will he have when he doesn't even Get IIIWW Done (tm) because the talks invariably end up going on for years and years despite anyone's best intention?

If we do actually leave, everything else will be a boring technicality in the minds of most IIIWWeers. Most of the electorate still don't really understand how any of this stuff actually works. Interminable trade negotiations just aren't as newsworthy as the ticking time bomb of no-deal and A50 extensions. With a bit of PR savvy (which Bozza clearly possesses), a decade of excruciating trade talks could be more-or-less swept under the carpet, simply because they're too slow, boring and complicated to make for good headlines.

>>88833 everything else will be a boring technicality in the minds of most IIIWWeers.

It will also all be the fault of foreigners being spiteful (EU deals) and unreasonable (RoW), since trade deals are easy to get done(tm).

>>88831
>Starmer is a boring bastard. Unless Boris catastrophically fucks up the next five years, he'll get hammered. Doesn't matter what his policies are, doesn't matter how clever he is, no swing voter will pay attention for long enough to listen to him.

That's going to happen regardless of who is leader. The majority is simply too large to overturn in five years, particularly is Boris keeps playing to the centre ground with things like his minimum wage rise and pledges to the police and NHS.

>>88835

>That's going to happen regardless of who is leader. The majority is simply too large to overturn in five years

>>88836
The Tories had a majority of 21 in 1992 and were on a downward trend. Their majority in 2019 was 80. The landslide of 1997 was a lot more than five years in the making.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0hXgse0uBY

She's about as inspiring as a toenail clipping.

>>88843
Who do you like?

>>88843
That's just, like, your opinion man.

I think she would be brilliant and would vote for Labour, were she leader.

>>88844
There's only one Dan for the job.

Welp, we had a good run... don't even know what the collective noun for a group of Jess Phillips supports is, there simply wasn't time.

>>88847
Jessies, obviously.

Labour leadership moderates fear ‘stitch-up’ by hard-left Jeremy Corbyn allies

Moderate Labour leadership candidates fear Jeremy Corbyn’s allies will today attempt to “stitch up” the contest in favour of a hard-left candidate. The national executive committee, the party’s ruling body, will meet to decide the timetable and regulations for the race to succeed Mr Corbyn. There are concerns that supporters of Rebecca Long Bailey, who is seen as the “continuity Corbyn” candidate, will attempt to “rig” the contest.

Jess Phillips and Sir Keir Starmer are among the candidates attempting to attract as many moderates to the party as possible in an effort to broaden the base of their support. However, if the national executive committee (NEC) votes to truncate the window during which registered supporters can join or to increase the cost, it is likely to inhibit the chances of a moderate winning the contest.

Mr Corbyn and Jon Lansman, head of the pro-Corbyn activist group Momentum and a prominent backer of Ms Long Bailey, are members of the NEC. There are concerns among moderates that Claudia Webbe and Nav Mishra — former members of the NEC who were elected as MPs at the last election — could attempt to take part. Ms Long Bailey, one of three shadow cabinet members on the NEC, recused herself from the meeting after rivals said it would look like she was attempting to fix the contest if she attended.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/labour-leadership-moderates-fear-stitch-up-by-hard-left-jeremy-corbyn-allies-lrkfbdl76

>>88850
What are they meant to do? They can't all recuse themselves or there wouldn't be an NEC left, and even though I don't agree with either very strongly, very often, the NEC does represent the membership quite closely.

>>88851
It's just noise, but it'll be interesting to see what the NEC decide today.

So who's going to be facing off against Boris in PMQs until the contest? Corbyn can't do it as his position at this point is untenable.

>>88853
Everyone's content to leave him hanging out to dry. Probably not ideal, but no one wants to risk doing any differently.

>>87242
https://gal-dem.com/heres-why-weve-got-no-time-for-jess-phillips/

>>88858
>FROM WOMEN AND NON BINARY PEOPLE OF COLOUR
So like you have to be a bender AND brown? One's not good enough?

>>88858
Already posted that, lad. Keep up.

>>88861
It's all about one-upmanship in the Oppression Olympics™.

>>88863
And white women have to maintain the illusion they have not joined the oppressor class, so they'll keep the odd token around.

Quite a few Momentum supporters are getting angry about the £25 one-off fee so people who aren't full members can vote, saying it'll price people out. That more or less tallies up with my experience of Momentum; wasters who want everyone else to pay for things for them whilst they doss about.

>>88866
Joke's on them. I got a vote in the Welsh leadership race by being a member of Unison, and because I'm a lazy fucker I still haven't got around to cancelling it even though I left the NHS almost two years ago so I might get a vote this time around. RLB first, second and third just to make sure.

Jess Phillips’ car crash on Marr reveals her fragility.
The most soft ball, vanilla questioning imaginable, & she could barely string a sentence together or keep her breathing in check.

I hope Diane Abbott sat watching it with a celebratory mojito.

RLB confirming that she might be able to extend the Tory majority into three figures.

https://tribunemag.co.uk/2020/01/rebecca-long-bailey-labour-leadership-socialism

>>88870

She says a lot about socialism, which is fine, that's not what puts people off. There's a lot more in what she's trying her best to avoid saying, though, and people pick up on that.

Labour just needs someone your average bloke won't see as a soft cunt.

>>88872
She equates nationalism with the far-right and signs off with 'comrades'. That's enough to put people off.

>>88873 She's (they're all) talking to the faithful at this point, though? Comrades is fine for that audience. Got to get the job before unleashing your inner loon on the world at large.

>>88873
>>88874

Well I read an excerpt from an interview somewhere this morning that she's intending to support an open door immigration policy, so she's even more deluded and out of touch than I thought.

I just don't understand why they find it so hard to grasp. Even if the polls weren't so clear, the evidence of the election so stark, they just can't get their heads around it. It's not hard- You can be a socialist and people don't mind. People are in favour of surprisingly far left actual economic policy.But the red (ha) lines are immigration and British identity. Get those wrong and there's no point even trying.

It's almost a good job Starmer's going to walk it, really.

>>88873
Comrade is a standard party greeting/salutation that reflects the history of the movement. Like singing the Red Flag it's more of an anachronism that flabbergasts the newbies and, at least back when I was a member, made the cranks identify themselves.

Long Bailey, Nandy and Phillips now have enough nominations, joining Starmer.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51055663

>>88879

Phillips won't get anywhere, though, the membership despise her. I look forward to drinking her delicious tears

I find her really attractive but I don't know if it's just because she's a politician and that does it for me. Same with Angela Rayner, Pritti Patel, Penny Mordaunt etc.

>>88881

After being a cunt about international men's day, I lost respect for her. Very much enjoyed her in the HoC, thought she was speaking sense and generally had her head together, but condoning that kind of attitude really fucked me off.

>>88883

Shouldn't surprise anyone, she's about as rabid a fisherperson as they come.

>>88883
I think she's what the Yanks call a "shoot from the hip" type.

Spoiler: the man wins.

>>88886
It would be very typically-Labour to do that though.

I would like Jess to win, but I think Lisa Nandy is the one to watch.

>>88887
As long as it's not Thornberry or Long-Bailey I'm happy. Hoping for Starmer or Nandy.

>>88886

Four shrieking harpy mentalists against one mild, inoffensive posh bloke.

It's almost like they've done this on purpose just so the Guardian can moan about it when the obvious happens.

>>88889
I don't see Nandy as a mentalist although I probably just have faith in her as lass from Wigan. She just wants decent bus services and development in our towns with my own prejudice that she will probably explain everything in pie-analogies. "Less flaky crusts and more decent fillings" is an economic plan I could get behind.

>>88886
How demented do you have to be to think Thornberry can win a GE?

>>88889
Shut up, you sneering cretin.

>>88891

Can you imagine Thornberry as PM?

"Well Mr. Putin you rather have been a bit of a naughty boy in the Ukraine now haven't you?"

"Why of course Ms. Merkel, our people are really rather uneducated through no fault of my own, do deposit your EU army in the Marches without recourse from us."

"Well Mr. Trump you really are rather racist so I must insist that you not nuke Iran, the UK will not be joining you even if the oil we could gain would halve petrol prices for our citizens..."

"I have instructed the home office to order the police to arrest people who purvey and display that racist St. George flag, under my period this will be an inclusive country in which all migrants are safe and free to occupy any home they desire."

>>88892
Don’t @ me ever again.

>>88893

@BlueLabour

>>88892
Your post is a great reminder of the fact that on this site I can't tell the difference between morons and those trying to satirise morons.

>>88890

Actually yeah, you're right. She's one to watch. The other three definitely fit my assessment though.

>>88891
>>88895

Steady on the pinot, Emily, it's hardly even lunch time.

Survation polling has Long-Bailey pipping Starmer once second preferences are taking into account.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1217520616007503872

>>88897

Fuck me dead.

>>88897
When does that registration window close again?

>>88899
You've got until 5pm on Monday.

EXCLUSIVE: Long-Bailey backs stricter abortion laws

https://www.theredroar.com/2020/01/exclusive-long-bailey-backs-stricter-abortion-laws/

It's going to be like Tim Fallon all over again.

>>88897

Ah well.

Eventually I reckon the progressive lot will learn their lesson and realise idealism doesn't trump winning elections.

Same thing as is going on in America with the Democrats. Hilary fucked it so badly a person like Trump, who should have been easily defeated by a sensible candidate, ended up the president. And yet four years later they're convinced they should put another even less well known or experienced woman in the race, because clearly the problem isn't being progressive enough.

I was a Corbyn supporter since day one, but I always knew his chances for victory were slim to fantastical. I still maintain that if the centrist and zionist lot hadn't spent the last five years trying their level best to discredit Corbyn he would have performed better, too. But Long Bailey is just on another level of weakness as a candidate; and the last thing the party can afford to be seen doing is double down on something the electorate roundly rejected.

>>88902
>Hilary fucked it so badly a person like Trump, who should have been easily defeated by a sensible candidate
Obligatory reminder that Hillary Clinton got 3 million more votes, and that the election turned on a few thousand in some key places.

>>88903

The fact remains a sensible candidate would have won the election and occupied the office of President rather than just winning the moral highground in the name of progressiveness.

>>88904
What sensible candidate would you have suggested? An idiot says "Bernie Sanders".

>>88905

Jill Stein.

Twitter is a strange place.

https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1217118818360872961?

>>88907

Jesus wept.

What are they going on about this time? I can't make head nor tails of this entire shitshow any more tbh.

>>88909
Basically there's this fat women who lives on a council estate who spends all of her time re-tweeting pro-Corbyn messages and anti-Tory ones, to the point that she got invited to the House of Commons to receive a heroes welcome from Corbyn's inner sanctum and a personalised Christmas Card from the man himself. She's built up quite a following within those circles; even Owen Jones has wanked off over her. When she's not re-tweeting these she's tweeting that she doesn't have enough to make ends meet so starts begging strangers to pay her bills for her.

Anyway, she re-tweeted some demands for the Jewish equivalent of the Muslim Council of Britain that were quite unreasonable and ludicrous. Jess Phillips didn't like that so she tweeted that she should be kicked out of Labour for anti-semitism. Then there's the usual shitshow about Israel and anti-semitism and I've lost the will to go on.

Jess Phillips seems to be just shit-stirring on Twitter about everything she can, including Long-Bailey's views on abortion.

>>88910
>demands for the Jewish equivalent of the Muslim Council of Britain that were quite unreasonable and ludicrous
Some of them aren't that unreasonable. The ones at the bottom of the list are definitely ludicrous, though.

Also, the usual crowd are calling this antisemitic because apparently asking the self-selected representative group claiming to speak for all British Jews to do things is somehow the same as asking all British Jews to do things.

>>88914
I think we can post text now.

Trying to watch the debate but the accoustics are so FUBAR it's like they're shouting up at me from the bottom of a well.

>>88911

It crystallises what's gone wrong with Labour - they've forgotten that in a democracy, a political party is supposed to persuade voters and try to win elections. When the vast majority of British Jews think that you're anti-Semitic, issuing a list of demands before you'll speak to their main representative group isn't the most productive way of winning their votes. It goes back to the nonsense of "Corbyn won the debate" - it doesn't matter whether that's true or not, because his job was to win the election.

Christ, get a load of those gnashers.

YouGov polling has Starmer storming it.

>>88919

Shame about Thornberry, she gives me a right stonk on.

>>88920
Pervert.

>>88918
It's like a collection of the most offensively ugly people I've ever seen, along with one normal looking bloke. Long-Bailey is almost so majestically ugly I can't look away, is this what women feel when they see Michael Gove?

I enjoyed the part where Are Jess all but admitted Kier's the best bloke for the job, but that she thinks he should step aside anyway because he's got a knob and it's a woman's turn.

It's not like there was much doubt that ideological brownie points matter more than competence in her little world, but there we are.

>>88923
Usdaw have backed Starmer over Phillips, so she might not even end up on the final ballot. Her and Thornberry appear to be struggling for nominations.

I was excited by Phillips, but her showing so far has been a let down on all fronts; presentation and policies. I'm suprised she's doing quite so poorly, but there's really nothing her campaign is doing that's making anyone pay attention, other than a belated critique of the hustings that, due to its timing, comes across as sour grapes at worst and a weak excuse at best.

>>88922
I dunno what you're on about, none of these women are ugly, especially when being compared to the equally unremarkable Keir Starmer. Even Phillips, with those teeth, is borderline.

I remember a lad posting in /emo/ worried about his looks elicited a response along the lines of "genuinely physically repellent men are as rare as gold nuggets on Brighton beach". The same applies here. Politicians aren't models and you shouldn't expect them to be - unlike actors and musicians and television presenters getting where they are now had little to do with their looks. Maybe you just have some issues to deal with?

>>88925
Her entire shtick seems to be telling everyone how outspoken she is.

>>88926

Sadly in that case we were lying to save emolad's feelings. Of course nobody is expecting politicians to be supermodels but if you don't think Phillips or Thornberry (christ) are mutters I've no idea how low your standards are.

Then again we've got a thread of thirsty lads who fancy that neo-nazi lass too so perhaps I should temper my expectations here.

To be fair she's definitely enough of a mucky cow to make up for it. I suppose if you're into femdom Are Jess might hold the same appeal.

>>88928

They're not fit, but they're not munters either. If I gave you a few hundred quid you'd shag any one of them.

>>88928
I just think most lads here really don’t care one way or another.

>>88928

Your loss m8. I don't know why people are so proud of having a narrow, one-dimensional sense of aesthetics.

>>88929
> If I gave you a few hundred quid you'd shag any one of them.
6 pints and a few shots would do it

>>88931

I was having this conversation with someone recently, I think your tastes generally broaden as you get older.

>>88933
That's a funny way of saying i'm pretty desperate and any hole's a goal

>>88934
I'm increasingly finding I appreciate the looks of older female acquaintances despite not really having any desire to sleep with them.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51195059

Shrekt.

>>88934

I'll bet you're one of those people who thinks that the term "feminine penis" is an oxymoron.

>>88936
Watched her video about leaving the race, Christ she has a very boring, droning voice. It doesn't help that she looks like a shrunken head, either.

This is weird.

This is also weird.

>>88903

Yes, she also got incredibly complacent and made some stupid decisions and approached the election with a stifling sense of entitlement. She won the popular vote, but that's not what matters, and not what she should have been aiming for if she'd taken the election seriously.

I changed all my gaming servers to the US on the night of the election to bathe in the salt. DNC fucked over their chance of winning.

>>88905

What's your opinion on how he's polling? I saw an image of 'Who would you vote for if the election was today' nabbed from...CNN, maybe, with Biden at 29%, Buttigieg, Warren, and Klobuchar (never heard of the last one, shows how much I know) at 6% each, Trump at 20%, and 'Other' at 33%. Why is the media trying so hard to ignore Bernie? Admittedly Yang's figures are mixed in with his, and I can't remember how many other candidates are involved off the top of my head, but he's got a stellar record in Vermont and has his heart in the right place. Why do you think he's not a sensible candidate?

>>88937

"I've got a girly willy" doesn't really roll off the tongue.

>>88941
>girly willy What about "lady sausage"?

>>88942
That just reminds me of when we had the annoying 'ladylads' here.

>>88943

How long ago was that? Was it the IRC clique? Is there still an IRC clique?

So I've had the afternoon off and spent most of it arguing with morons on r/Labour. Why is the left so prone to infighting compared to the right, and why is it so polarising?

The reason I hate most of the Blairite candidates Labour has had so far is because they have mostly been either terminally boring or complete wet flannel looking spastics. See: Ed Miliband. Against someone like David Cameron, that shit would never fly, he was too slick and polished for them to stand a chance.

But that's not the case any more. The opposition is Boris fucking Johnson, an absolute clown. A boring, but well presented and strong looking managerial kind of Blairite would probably do very well indeed against that.

The problem with the likes of Long Bailey is she looks more like a primary school teacher than a leader. Look at Nicola Sturgeon as an example of a female party leader- An absolute fucking battleaxe of a woman you can't even try to have erotic fantasies about. Look at Angela Merkel. RLB simply can't carry it off.

>>88945
It was on the main boards a fair few years back, perhaps five or six. They couldn't decide whether they were to be called ladylads or lass mates, but they were annoying as fuck.

>>88946
I think it's because when it comes to the left it's more do with emotion and morals rather than reason. If someone has a different view then it's not uncommon to see them being painted as evil and morally wrong.

>>88947

Oh you mean /bint/

Lassmate is the obvious choice.

>>88948

That's like so prescriptivist. Ladylads, lassmates, ladlasses, lasslads and other have the right to choose their own pronouns without having their pronouns chosen for them by a majority stale, pale and male collective.

>>88948
No, not /bint/. Female posters on the main boards regularly pointing out they've got a clopper.

(A good day to you Sir!)

>>88951
Could I please petition the modlads to make tragic Facebook memes an instant ban? They really bring the tone of the place down.

>>88952
You can but you should use the report function to do it.

>>88952
I disagree.

>>88953
I don't know the rules.

>>88955
Well that's hardly any excuse, is it?

>Labour leadership candidate Emily Thornberry said she “hates the SNP” in an angry pitch for votes. The MP was cheered on by the crowd as she branded her rivals “Tories wrapped up in nationalist clothing” at the party meeting in Nottingham.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/labours-emily-thornberry-hates-snp-21369497

It's a shame Thornberry isn't going to make it on to the final ballot; it would have been hilarious to see her get around only 1% of the votes.

>>88963

Obvious bigot is a bigot, shocker. Let's face it she's always been a no-hoper, because all you can imagine if she won is Vangate in every paper from here to eternity. No chance of winning the next election in a million years.

Long Bailey, as much as the Corbynites love her, is a non-starter because she's obviously a mentalist god-botherer and it's only a matter of time until she slips up and says something like "I unreservedly support reproductive rights for women across this country, of course I do- But the Bible is very clear that all abortions go directly to hell".

What have they got on Kier? And what have they got on Nandy?

>>88964
As much as I hate Emily Thornberry, how is this bigoted?

>>88964
Starmer is tied to Labour's Brexit fudge. He was also involved in the decision not to prosecute the man responsible for the death of Ian Tomlinson and the decision to prosecute the Twitter airport bomb hoax.

Nandy is more under the radar, but she's said some very silly things about how Spain has cracked down on Catalan separatists.

>>88965
It's low-grade populism to the Labour faithful. If someone disagrees with you brand them Tory. Greens? Tories on bikes. Blairites? Red Tories. SNP? Porridge Tories.

>>88966

I mean, the thing is all the "dirt" I've seen anyone bring up about Starmer is stuff that would go down very well with the kinds of voter Labour needs to get back.

It's the BACK IN MY DAY YOU COULD LEAVE YOUR DOORS UNLOCKED crowd. The sort of people who unironically enjoy those paedo-vigilante Facebook pages. Both your examples sound like music to their ears.

>>88968
I disagree. I'd have thought the whole Twitter Joke Trial would see Starmer easily painted as LEFTY PC SNOWFLAKE WHO CAN'T TAKE A JOKE.

>>88969

Could go either way I suppose. Look at the response to that bloke with the Hitler pug. Very few people were outcrying the fact he got sent down for a joke, more of them saw it as YEEERRR SERVES 'IM RIGHT, MY GRANDAD DIED FIGHTING THAT HITLER, HE NEEDS TO LERN SUM RESPECT

>>88970

The guy who subsequently joined UKIP along with Paul Joseph Watson and Carl of Swindon? Oh yeah, definitely just good old boys having an innocent laugh. Ironic dolphin rape, like Carl's ironic anti-feminism. Like all the ironic dolphin rape on 4chan. You stupid prick.

>>88971

That's utterly and completely irrelevant to the point I was making though, you inbred little cretin. Fuck me.

Nobody was standing up for Nazi Pug Guy's freedom of expression at the time, before anybody who doesn't posses the gift of foresight knew he would go on to join UKIP and become an actual real life Nazi; so don't hold out much hope for Northern boomer voters to have much sympathy for people making totally epic jokes about bombing airports either.

Div.

>>88972

It's not irrelevant, he was always clearly doing it not as a joke but because he's actually racist and your characterisation of people who could see that when you couldn't is straight up deluded.

>>88973
Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm walking into this; are you saying it would be okay if I (not a Nazi) taught my dog to do a little Nazi salute, filmed the result, and then posted it online? Because I assure you that this isn't the case in the way CPS appears to operate. The case wasn't about being a Nazi, it was about a particular video that caused offence.

Essentially attacking Nazi Pug Guy on his character doesn't absolve the massive waste of police resources or the worrying precedent it sets. If anything it makes you a bootlicking idiot.

>>88973

When will we end this childish notion that saying racist things on the internet is bad?