[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
politics

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 87242)
Message
File  []
close
3045.jpg
872428724287242
>> No. 87242 Anonymous
10th November 2019
Sunday 10:49 am
87242 spacer
She's our only hope.
Expand all images.
>> No. 87243 Anonymous
10th November 2019
Sunday 11:02 am
87243 spacer
I disagree.
>> No. 87244 Anonymous
10th November 2019
Sunday 11:09 am
87244 spacer

maxresdefault (1).jpg
872448724487244
No, there is another.
>> No. 87248 Anonymous
10th November 2019
Sunday 4:30 pm
87248 spacer
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.
>> No. 87350 Anonymous
16th November 2019
Saturday 10:13 pm
87350 spacer
>>87242
She's a TERF.
>> No. 87352 Anonymous
16th November 2019
Saturday 10:51 pm
87352 spacer
>>87350
So's your mum.
>> No. 87362 Anonymous
17th November 2019
Sunday 11:12 am
87362 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88614 Anonymous
17th December 2019
Tuesday 12:08 pm
88614 spacer
I like RLB.
>> No. 88615 Anonymous
17th December 2019
Tuesday 12:14 pm
88615 spacer
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.
>> No. 88616 Anonymous
17th December 2019
Tuesday 12:24 pm
88616 spacer

79543848_10157952643923055_7213460589392166912_o.jpg
886168861688616
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.
>> No. 88617 Anonymous
17th December 2019
Tuesday 12:45 pm
88617 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88619 Anonymous
17th December 2019
Tuesday 1:08 pm
88619 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88621 Anonymous
17th December 2019
Tuesday 2:15 pm
88621 spacer
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.
>> No. 88622 Anonymous
17th December 2019
Tuesday 2:25 pm
88622 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88623 Anonymous
17th December 2019
Tuesday 2:43 pm
88623 spacer
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.
>> No. 88624 Anonymous
17th December 2019
Tuesday 3:15 pm
88624 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88625 Anonymous
17th December 2019
Tuesday 3:32 pm
88625 spacer
>>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
>> No. 88627 Anonymous
17th December 2019
Tuesday 5:41 pm
88627 spacer

article-2301802-18EF6722000005DC-519_634x886.jpg
886278862788627
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?
>> No. 88628 Anonymous
17th December 2019
Tuesday 5:42 pm
88628 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88629 Anonymous
17th December 2019
Tuesday 5:49 pm
88629 spacer
>>88625
Interesting.
>> No. 88630 Anonymous
17th December 2019
Tuesday 6:01 pm
88630 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88631 Anonymous
17th December 2019
Tuesday 6:11 pm
88631 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88632 Anonymous
17th December 2019
Tuesday 6:31 pm
88632 spacer

FcxxnzQ.jpg
886328863288632
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.
>> No. 88633 Anonymous
17th December 2019
Tuesday 6:35 pm
88633 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88634 Anonymous
17th December 2019
Tuesday 6:45 pm
88634 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88638 Anonymous
17th December 2019
Tuesday 7:01 pm
88638 spacer
>>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
>> No. 88641 Anonymous
17th December 2019
Tuesday 7:53 pm
88641 spacer
>>88638

I'm the one that posted about the Murdoch press. Different lad. I think I made my point about that.
>> No. 88642 Anonymous
17th December 2019
Tuesday 8:24 pm
88642 spacer
If centrist Blairites are so great why did the Conservatives knock them out of power in the first place?
>> No. 88643 Anonymous
17th December 2019
Tuesday 8:26 pm
88643 spacer
>>88642
Because Ed Miliband was a bit weird.
>> No. 88645 Anonymous
17th December 2019
Tuesday 9:02 pm
88645 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88646 Anonymous
17th December 2019
Tuesday 9:10 pm
88646 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88660 Anonymous
17th December 2019
Tuesday 9:42 pm
88660 spacer
>>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?
>> No. 88662 Anonymous
17th December 2019
Tuesday 9:45 pm
88662 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88666 Anonymous
17th December 2019
Tuesday 9:57 pm
88666 spacer

1_KT67OGiV2Q_ERCMXp3sgFQ.jpg
886668866688666
>>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.
>> No. 88667 Anonymous
17th December 2019
Tuesday 10:54 pm
88667 spacer
>>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?
>> No. 88668 Anonymous
17th December 2019
Tuesday 11:30 pm
88668 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88669 Anonymous
18th December 2019
Wednesday 12:59 am
88669 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88670 Anonymous
18th December 2019
Wednesday 1:19 am
88670 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88671 Anonymous
18th December 2019
Wednesday 2:01 am
88671 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88672 Anonymous
18th December 2019
Wednesday 2:20 am
88672 spacer
>>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
>> No. 88676 Anonymous
18th December 2019
Wednesday 1:19 pm
88676 spacer
>>88672

You still haven't got a counter argument though I see.
>> No. 88683 Anonymous
18th December 2019
Wednesday 2:41 pm
88683 spacer
>>88676
You need to formulate a cogent argument before someone can counter it.
>> No. 88685 Anonymous
18th December 2019
Wednesday 5:00 pm
88685 spacer
>>88683
That's not actually true though is it? A seriously flawed argument would be all the more easy to counter.
>> No. 88686 Anonymous
18th December 2019
Wednesday 5:23 pm
88686 spacer

C3m9brlWcAMptGR.jpg
886868868688686
Thornberry is the first one to officially put themselves forward. If she's the answer then you're asking the wrong questions.
>> No. 88688 Anonymous
18th December 2019
Wednesday 6:51 pm
88688 spacer
>>88685
Flawless and cogent aren't the same thing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
>> No. 88701 Anonymous
19th December 2019
Thursday 1:10 am
88701 spacer
>>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.)"
>> No. 88703 Anonymous
19th December 2019
Thursday 7:11 am
88703 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88704 Anonymous
19th December 2019
Thursday 10:04 am
88704 spacer
>>88703
It was credible and it would be better for the country

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2019/11/is-labours-economic-plan-credible.html
>> No. 88705 Anonymous
19th December 2019
Thursday 10:54 am
88705 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88706 Anonymous
19th December 2019
Thursday 10:55 am
88706 spacer

_109781240_dm22nov.jpg
887068870688706
>>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/
>> No. 88707 Anonymous
19th December 2019
Thursday 12:15 pm
88707 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88708 Anonymous
19th December 2019
Thursday 12:27 pm
88708 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88743 Anonymous
21st December 2019
Saturday 10:18 am
88743 spacer
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.
>> No. 88744 Anonymous
21st December 2019
Saturday 10:36 am
88744 spacer
>>88743
Please post a screen cap, paywalllad.
>> No. 88745 Anonymous
21st December 2019
Saturday 10:41 am
88745 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88746 Anonymous
21st December 2019
Saturday 11:00 am
88746 spacer

Screenshot_2019-12-21 Rebecca Long Bailey appoints.png
887468874688746
>>88745
So it's literally nothing and for some reason they aren't publishing the photo in question?
>> No. 88747 Anonymous
21st December 2019
Saturday 11:18 am
88747 spacer

methode_times_prod_web_bin_6c695c74-2354-11ea-bf0a.jpg
887478874788747
>>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.
>> No. 88749 Anonymous
21st December 2019
Saturday 12:43 pm
88749 spacer
>>88747
I'm a bonehead, I didn't even realise that was the photo, apologies.

Don't fuck this, Jess.
>> No. 88750 Anonymous
21st December 2019
Saturday 9:43 pm
88750 spacer
>>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'?
>> No. 88751 Anonymous
22nd December 2019
Sunday 10:33 am
88751 spacer
>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.
>> No. 88752 Anonymous
22nd December 2019
Sunday 12:30 pm
88752 spacer

5cd6844b3409c.jpg
887528875288752
>>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.
>> No. 88753 Anonymous
22nd December 2019
Sunday 12:44 pm
88753 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88754 Anonymous
22nd December 2019
Sunday 12:49 pm
88754 spacer

UUvBS.jpg
887548875488754
>>88752
Stalin actually had terrible skin. That picture has been doctored.
>> No. 88755 Anonymous
22nd December 2019
Sunday 1:01 pm
88755 spacer
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.
>> No. 88756 Anonymous
22nd December 2019
Sunday 1:05 pm
88756 spacer
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.
>> No. 88758 Anonymous
22nd December 2019
Sunday 3:01 pm
88758 spacer
>>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?
>> No. 88759 Anonymous
22nd December 2019
Sunday 3:09 pm
88759 spacer
>>88758
No he isn't saying that at all.
>> No. 88760 Anonymous
22nd December 2019
Sunday 4:27 pm
88760 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88761 Anonymous
22nd December 2019
Sunday 4:51 pm
88761 spacer
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/
>> No. 88762 Anonymous
22nd December 2019
Sunday 5:17 pm
88762 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88763 Anonymous
22nd December 2019
Sunday 5:21 pm
88763 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88764 Anonymous
22nd December 2019
Sunday 5:27 pm
88764 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88765 Anonymous
22nd December 2019
Sunday 5:29 pm
88765 spacer
>>88764
Oh, and the cardinal sin of not giving unwavering blind devotion to Jeremy "worst general election result since 1935" Corbyn.
>> No. 88767 Anonymous
22nd December 2019
Sunday 9:32 pm
88767 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88768 Anonymous
23rd December 2019
Monday 12:41 am
88768 spacer
>>88767

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-war_consensus
>> No. 88769 Anonymous
23rd December 2019
Monday 2:33 am
88769 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88771 Anonymous
23rd December 2019
Monday 6:19 am
88771 spacer
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
>> No. 88774 Anonymous
23rd December 2019
Monday 12:48 pm
88774 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88779 Anonymous
23rd December 2019
Monday 2:07 pm
88779 spacer

0f865844719224f0d70e8745548454d9.jpg
887798877988779
>>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.
>> No. 88787 Anonymous
23rd December 2019
Monday 7:32 pm
88787 spacer

aG9wrL5_460s.jpg
887878878788787
>>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.
>> No. 88789 Anonymous
24th December 2019
Tuesday 8:14 pm
88789 spacer

BritainElects.jpg
887898878988789

>> No. 88790 Anonymous
25th December 2019
Wednesday 8:53 am
88790 spacer
>>88789
No one had heard of Corbyn, of course, so not like that matters.
>> No. 88791 Anonymous
25th December 2019
Wednesday 4:59 pm
88791 spacer
>>88789
JESS JESS JESS
>> No. 88792 Anonymous
25th December 2019
Wednesday 8:51 pm
88792 spacer
>>88790
How did that work out?
>> No. 88793 Anonymous
25th December 2019
Wednesday 10:31 pm
88793 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88794 Anonymous
29th December 2019
Sunday 11:28 pm
88794 spacer
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
>> No. 88826 Anonymous
2nd January 2020
Thursday 6:54 am
88826 spacer
>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
>> No. 88827 Anonymous
2nd January 2020
Thursday 12:35 pm
88827 spacer
>>88826
Oh, dog.
>> No. 88828 Anonymous
2nd January 2020
Thursday 12:53 pm
88828 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88829 Anonymous
2nd January 2020
Thursday 1:26 pm
88829 spacer
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.
>> No. 88830 Anonymous
2nd January 2020
Thursday 1:26 pm
88830 spacer
By the way Jess Phillips would be an excellent choice but I fear the Labour membership will instead pick a bad one.
>> No. 88831 Anonymous
2nd January 2020
Thursday 1:39 pm
88831 spacer
>>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.


>> No. 88832 Anonymous
2nd January 2020
Thursday 2:05 pm
88832 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88833 Anonymous
2nd January 2020
Thursday 2:20 pm
88833 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88834 Anonymous
2nd January 2020
Thursday 3:11 pm
88834 spacer
>>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).
>> No. 88835 Anonymous
2nd January 2020
Thursday 3:50 pm
88835 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88836 Anonymous
2nd January 2020
Thursday 6:51 pm
88836 spacer

nah.png
888368883688836
>>88835

>That's going to happen regardless of who is leader. The majority is simply too large to overturn in five years
>> No. 88837 Anonymous
2nd January 2020
Thursday 7:27 pm
88837 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88843 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 7:33 pm
88843 spacer

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

She's about as inspiring as a toenail clipping.
>> No. 88844 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 7:59 pm
88844 spacer
>>88843
Who do you like?
>> No. 88845 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 8:02 pm
88845 spacer
>>88843
That's just, like, your opinion man.

I think she would be brilliant and would vote for Labour, were she leader.
>> No. 88846 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 8:24 pm
88846 spacer

0f5325e1-0a33-440c-9495-9762a9c7d890.jpg
888468884688846
>>88844
There's only one Dan for the job.
>> No. 88847 Anonymous
5th January 2020
Sunday 9:35 pm
88847 spacer
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.
>> No. 88849 Anonymous
5th January 2020
Sunday 10:01 pm
88849 spacer
>>88847
Jessies, obviously.
>> No. 88850 Anonymous
6th January 2020
Monday 8:31 am
88850 spacer
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
>> No. 88851 Anonymous
6th January 2020
Monday 8:34 am
88851 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88852 Anonymous
6th January 2020
Monday 9:08 am
88852 spacer
>>88851
It's just noise, but it'll be interesting to see what the NEC decide today.
>> No. 88853 Anonymous
6th January 2020
Monday 9:53 am
88853 spacer
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.
>> No. 88854 Anonymous
6th January 2020
Monday 10:07 am
88854 spacer
>>88853
Everyone's content to leave him hanging out to dry. Probably not ideal, but no one wants to risk doing any differently.
>> No. 88858 Anonymous
6th January 2020
Monday 6:18 pm
88858 spacer
>>87242
https://gal-dem.com/heres-why-weve-got-no-time-for-jess-phillips/
>> No. 88861 Anonymous
6th January 2020
Monday 6:22 pm
88861 spacer
>>88858
>FROM WOMEN AND NON BINARY PEOPLE OF COLOUR
So like you have to be a bender AND brown? One's not good enough?
>> No. 88862 Anonymous
6th January 2020
Monday 6:31 pm
88862 spacer
>>88858
Already posted that, lad. Keep up.
>> No. 88863 Anonymous
6th January 2020
Monday 6:42 pm
88863 spacer
>>88861
It's all about one-upmanship in the Oppression Olympics™.
>> No. 88865 Anonymous
6th January 2020
Monday 6:44 pm
88865 spacer
>>88863
And white women have to maintain the illusion they have not joined the oppressor class, so they'll keep the odd token around.
>> No. 88866 Anonymous
6th January 2020
Monday 6:57 pm
88866 spacer

Leadership Contest.jpg
888668886688866
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.
>> No. 88867 Anonymous
6th January 2020
Monday 7:05 pm
88867 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88869 Anonymous
6th January 2020
Monday 11:09 pm
88869 spacer
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.
>> No. 88870 Anonymous
6th January 2020
Monday 11:14 pm
88870 spacer
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
>> No. 88872 Anonymous
7th January 2020
Tuesday 3:03 am
88872 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88873 Anonymous
7th January 2020
Tuesday 6:49 am
88873 spacer
>>88872
She equates nationalism with the far-right and signs off with 'comrades'. That's enough to put people off.
>> No. 88874 Anonymous
7th January 2020
Tuesday 8:04 am
88874 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88875 Anonymous
7th January 2020
Tuesday 12:57 pm
88875 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88876 Anonymous
7th January 2020
Tuesday 1:10 pm
88876 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88879 Anonymous
9th January 2020
Thursday 8:29 pm
88879 spacer
Long Bailey, Nandy and Phillips now have enough nominations, joining Starmer.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51055663
>> No. 88881 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 8:40 pm
88881 spacer
>>88879

Phillips won't get anywhere, though, the membership despise her. I look forward to drinking her delicious tears
>> No. 88882 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 9:01 pm
88882 spacer
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.
>> No. 88883 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 10:01 pm
88883 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88884 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 12:19 am
88884 spacer
>>88883

Shouldn't surprise anyone, she's about as rabid a fisherperson as they come.
>> No. 88885 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 12:23 am
88885 spacer
>>88883
I think she's what the Yanks call a "shoot from the hip" type.
>> No. 88886 Anonymous
13th January 2020
Monday 6:53 pm
88886 spacer

3444.jpg
888868888688886
Spoiler: the man wins.
>> No. 88887 Anonymous
13th January 2020
Monday 7:18 pm
88887 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88888 Anonymous
13th January 2020
Monday 8:08 pm
88888 spacer
>>88887
As long as it's not Thornberry or Long-Bailey I'm happy. Hoping for Starmer or Nandy.
>> No. 88889 Anonymous
13th January 2020
Monday 8:14 pm
88889 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88890 Anonymous
13th January 2020
Monday 11:20 pm
88890 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88891 Anonymous
14th January 2020
Tuesday 12:07 am
88891 spacer
>>88886
How demented do you have to be to think Thornberry can win a GE?

>>88889
Shut up, you sneering cretin.
>> No. 88892 Anonymous
14th January 2020
Tuesday 12:13 am
88892 spacer
>>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."
>> No. 88893 Anonymous
14th January 2020
Tuesday 12:55 am
88893 spacer
>>88892
Don’t @ me ever again.
>> No. 88894 Anonymous
14th January 2020
Tuesday 3:35 am
88894 spacer
>>88893

@BlueLabour
>> No. 88895 Anonymous
14th January 2020
Tuesday 12:39 pm
88895 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88896 Anonymous
14th January 2020
Tuesday 12:47 pm
88896 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88897 Anonymous
16th January 2020
Thursday 7:02 am
88897 spacer
Survation polling has Long-Bailey pipping Starmer once second preferences are taking into account.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1217520616007503872
>> No. 88898 Anonymous
16th January 2020
Thursday 11:36 am
88898 spacer
>>88897

Fuck me dead.
>> No. 88899 Anonymous
16th January 2020
Thursday 12:10 pm
88899 spacer
>>88897
When does that registration window close again?
>> No. 88900 Anonymous
16th January 2020
Thursday 12:49 pm
88900 spacer
>>88899
You've got until 5pm on Monday.
>> No. 88901 Anonymous
16th January 2020
Thursday 1:18 pm
88901 spacer
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.
>> No. 88902 Anonymous
16th January 2020
Thursday 1:48 pm
88902 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88903 Anonymous
16th January 2020
Thursday 2:12 pm
88903 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88904 Anonymous
16th January 2020
Thursday 3:07 pm
88904 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88905 Anonymous
16th January 2020
Thursday 3:11 pm
88905 spacer
>>88904
What sensible candidate would you have suggested? An idiot says "Bernie Sanders".
>> No. 88906 Anonymous
16th January 2020
Thursday 3:18 pm
88906 spacer
>>88905

Jill Stein.
>> No. 88907 Anonymous
17th January 2020
Friday 6:22 am
88907 spacer
Twitter is a strange place.

https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1217118818360872961?
>> No. 88908 Anonymous
17th January 2020
Friday 7:18 am
88908 spacer

Untitled.png
889088890888908
>>88907

Jesus wept.
>> No. 88909 Anonymous
17th January 2020
Friday 1:01 pm
88909 spacer
What are they going on about this time? I can't make head nor tails of this entire shitshow any more tbh.
>> No. 88910 Anonymous
17th January 2020
Friday 1:22 pm
88910 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88911 Anonymous
17th January 2020
Friday 1:55 pm
88911 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88913 Anonymous
18th January 2020
Saturday 12:35 pm
88913 spacer

codpiece.jpg
889138891388913

>> No. 88914 Anonymous
18th January 2020
Saturday 12:36 pm
88914 spacer

Seumas-Milne-02-GQ_23Mar16_b.jpg
889148891488914

>> No. 88915 Anonymous
18th January 2020
Saturday 12:40 pm
88915 spacer
>>88914
I think we can post text now.
>> No. 88916 Anonymous
18th January 2020
Saturday 12:45 pm
88916 spacer
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.
>> No. 88917 Anonymous
18th January 2020
Saturday 5:02 pm
88917 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88918 Anonymous
18th January 2020
Saturday 8:10 pm
88918 spacer

2905.jpg
889188891888918
Christ, get a load of those gnashers.
>> No. 88919 Anonymous
19th January 2020
Sunday 8:21 am
88919 spacer

EOjqzppXUAEi_0x.png
889198891988919
YouGov polling has Starmer storming it.
>> No. 88920 Anonymous
19th January 2020
Sunday 4:23 pm
88920 spacer
>>88919

Shame about Thornberry, she gives me a right stonk on.
>> No. 88921 Anonymous
19th January 2020
Sunday 4:26 pm
88921 spacer

thornberry.jpg
889218892188921
>>88920
Pervert.
>> No. 88922 Anonymous
20th January 2020
Monday 9:48 pm
88922 spacer
>>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?
>> No. 88923 Anonymous
20th January 2020
Monday 10:36 pm
88923 spacer
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.
>> No. 88924 Anonymous
21st January 2020
Tuesday 6:44 am
88924 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88925 Anonymous
21st January 2020
Tuesday 12:16 pm
88925 spacer
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.
>> No. 88926 Anonymous
21st January 2020
Tuesday 12:43 pm
88926 spacer
>>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?
>> No. 88927 Anonymous
21st January 2020
Tuesday 12:56 pm
88927 spacer
>>88925
Her entire shtick seems to be telling everyone how outspoken she is.
>> No. 88928 Anonymous
21st January 2020
Tuesday 1:06 pm
88928 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88929 Anonymous
21st January 2020
Tuesday 1:45 pm
88929 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88930 Anonymous
21st January 2020
Tuesday 1:48 pm
88930 spacer
>>88928
I just think most lads here really don’t care one way or another.
>> No. 88931 Anonymous
21st January 2020
Tuesday 2:27 pm
88931 spacer
>>88928

Your loss m8. I don't know why people are so proud of having a narrow, one-dimensional sense of aesthetics.
>> No. 88932 Anonymous
21st January 2020
Tuesday 2:48 pm
88932 spacer
>>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
>> No. 88933 Anonymous
21st January 2020
Tuesday 2:56 pm
88933 spacer
>>88931

I was having this conversation with someone recently, I think your tastes generally broaden as you get older.
>> No. 88934 Anonymous
21st January 2020
Tuesday 3:58 pm
88934 spacer
>>88933
That's a funny way of saying i'm pretty desperate and any hole's a goal
>> No. 88935 Anonymous
21st January 2020
Tuesday 4:08 pm
88935 spacer
>>88934
I'm increasingly finding I appreciate the looks of older female acquaintances despite not really having any desire to sleep with them.
>> No. 88936 Anonymous
21st January 2020
Tuesday 4:15 pm
88936 spacer
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51195059

Shrekt.
>> No. 88937 Anonymous
21st January 2020
Tuesday 4:30 pm
88937 spacer
>>88934

I'll bet you're one of those people who thinks that the term "feminine penis" is an oxymoron.
>> No. 88938 Anonymous
21st January 2020
Tuesday 4:43 pm
88938 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88939 Anonymous
21st January 2020
Tuesday 5:35 pm
88939 spacer

EO0UiFwWsAMz23c.jpg
889398893988939
This is weird.
>> No. 88940 Anonymous
21st January 2020
Tuesday 5:36 pm
88940 spacer

EO0apSrXkAEqWQr.jpg
889408894088940
This is also weird.
>> No. 88941 Anonymous
21st January 2020
Tuesday 6:47 pm
88941 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88942 Anonymous
21st January 2020
Tuesday 9:55 pm
88942 spacer
>>88941
>girly willy What about "lady sausage"?
>> No. 88943 Anonymous
21st January 2020
Tuesday 11:56 pm
88943 spacer
>>88942
That just reminds me of when we had the annoying 'ladylads' here.
>> No. 88945 Anonymous
22nd January 2020
Wednesday 6:18 pm
88945 spacer
>>88943

How long ago was that? Was it the IRC clique? Is there still an IRC clique?
>> No. 88946 Anonymous
23rd January 2020
Thursday 6:39 pm
88946 spacer
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.
>> No. 88947 Anonymous
23rd January 2020
Thursday 6:55 pm
88947 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88948 Anonymous
23rd January 2020
Thursday 7:05 pm
88948 spacer
>>88947

Oh you mean /bint/

Lassmate is the obvious choice.
>> No. 88949 Anonymous
23rd January 2020
Thursday 7:10 pm
88949 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88950 Anonymous
23rd January 2020
Thursday 7:16 pm
88950 spacer
>>88948
No, not /bint/. Female posters on the main boards regularly pointing out they've got a clopper.
>> No. 88951 Anonymous
23rd January 2020
Thursday 7:21 pm
88951 spacer

File
removed

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 88952 Anonymous
23rd January 2020
Thursday 7:27 pm
88952 spacer
>>88951
Could I please petition the modlads to make tragic Facebook memes an instant ban? They really bring the tone of the place down.
>> No. 88953 Anonymous
23rd January 2020
Thursday 7:55 pm
88953 spacer
>>88952
You can but you should use the report function to do it.
>> No. 88954 Anonymous
23rd January 2020
Thursday 8:07 pm
88954 spacer

75231896_2893922807308037_1604310837860761600_n.jpg
889548895488954
>>88952
I disagree.
>> No. 88955 Anonymous
23rd January 2020
Thursday 10:40 pm
88955 spacer
>>88953
I don't know the rules.
>> No. 88956 Anonymous
23rd January 2020
Thursday 10:47 pm
88956 spacer
>>88955
Well that's hardly any excuse, is it?
>> No. 88963 Anonymous
27th January 2020
Monday 5:20 pm
88963 spacer
>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.
>> No. 88964 Anonymous
27th January 2020
Monday 5:27 pm
88964 spacer
>>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?
>> No. 88965 Anonymous
27th January 2020
Monday 5:52 pm
88965 spacer
>>88964
As much as I hate Emily Thornberry, how is this bigoted?
>> No. 88966 Anonymous
27th January 2020
Monday 6:14 pm
88966 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88968 Anonymous
27th January 2020
Monday 6:18 pm
88968 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88969 Anonymous
27th January 2020
Monday 6:52 pm
88969 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88970 Anonymous
27th January 2020
Monday 6:55 pm
88970 spacer
>>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
>> No. 88971 Anonymous
27th January 2020
Monday 11:18 pm
88971 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88972 Anonymous
27th January 2020
Monday 11:24 pm
88972 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88973 Anonymous
27th January 2020
Monday 11:49 pm
88973 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88974 Anonymous
28th January 2020
Tuesday 12:16 am
88974 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 88975 Anonymous
28th January 2020
Tuesday 12:19 am
88975 spacer
>>88973

When will we end this childish notion that saying racist things on the internet is bad?
>> No. 88976 Anonymous
28th January 2020
Tuesday 12:52 am
88976 spacer
>>88973

It is irrelevant, but you don't seem to be able to understand what the actual point of debate was. We're not talking about whether or not it's good or bad to arrest people for saying things on the internet, much less whether those people were in the wrong for the things they said and/or did.

The point at contention here is voter's attitudes, and how it bodes for our next Dear Leader. Otherlad suggested that Kier Starmer will get a bad rep as a "snowflake lefty" who bans people IRL for saying mean things on the internet; I posited that to the contrary, your average voter loves a bit of pointless authoritarianism, so it actually reflects well on him.

Nazi Pug Guy represents a good counter example because he sets the precedent that yes, you can bang someone up for Saying Things On Internet, and the public likes it. So much the better if it turns out they actually might have deserved it- But I think you and I both know that locking up actual criminals is more of a side effect than an intention of our justice system.
>> No. 88977 Anonymous
28th January 2020
Tuesday 1:11 am
88977 spacer
I’m going to blow my fucking brains out if you idiots are still relitigating this shit come the morning.

Do “Should Clarkson Have Been Sacked” again, YOU DAMNED ANIMALS!
>> No. 88978 Anonymous
28th January 2020
Tuesday 1:13 am
88978 spacer
>>88977

Cheer up mate, you can have a Jaffa biscuit in the morning.
>> No. 88979 Anonymous
28th January 2020
Tuesday 1:44 am
88979 spacer
>>88973

The decision to prosecute someone or not for doing something racist based on whether or not you believe they are actually racist or not is just another way of saying 'thought crime'.

I basically agree with your sentiment but in practice it's a very dangerous precedent.
>> No. 88980 Anonymous
28th January 2020
Tuesday 1:49 am
88980 spacer
>>88979

Precedent? Mate it's current police policy. Precedent drowned itself long ago after it realised what it had done.



>Harry Miller is a former police officer and co-founder of Fair Cop. He set up the campaign group after being investigated by police over a limerick he posted on Twitter
>> No. 88981 Anonymous
28th January 2020
Tuesday 9:45 am
88981 spacer
>>88976

You might have been talking about that, I was specifically talking about how you still think that the guy who did a racist thing did it entirely innocently and not because he's racist, which you agree he is, but that's just a coincidence.
>> No. 88982 Anonymous
28th January 2020
Tuesday 9:52 am
88982 spacer
>>88981

Yeah but you're a bit of a prick mate. It's like you want to make a pragmatic discussion about which bloke is the best labour leader all about unrelated dolphin rape. You can lament X, Y and Z all you want and I'm sure the bloke you're replying to will agree with you, the problem is the discussion wasn't about X, Y or Z at all, it was about how the public perceived the response to simultaneously-racist-and-non-racist-nazi-pug guy's arrest and prosecution and how that plays in to the approval rating of the bloke who's going to be leading the labour party come April.

If you want to have a different discussion maybe you should not do that in a thread and conversation purely about how the public perceives Blair 2.0 based on his support for various public dramas, which happened to tangentially graze the racist bloke your gash is frothing over. Is it because he has a green screen now?
>> No. 88984 Anonymous
28th January 2020
Tuesday 9:55 am
88984 spacer
>>88982

I'm not taking part in the conversation about the labour leaders, I'm specifically talking about how
>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
is a pants-on-head retarded statement, separately.

>If you want to have a different discussion maybe you should not do that in a thread
How about you suck my dick, derailing threads is entirely acceptable outside of /emo/ and you don't get to pretend it isn't just to try and avoid seeing how thick you're being.
>> No. 88985 Anonymous
28th January 2020
Tuesday 10:09 am
88985 spacer
>>88984

Yeah god no mate it's well acceptable it's just you look like a massive cock doing it in this case.
>> No. 88986 Anonymous
28th January 2020
Tuesday 10:14 am
88986 spacer
>>88985

You're a very sore loser, have you considered anger management counselling?
>> No. 88987 Anonymous
28th January 2020
Tuesday 11:35 am
88987 spacer
I had a meeting this morning with someone who looked like a fitter version of RLB, except with a voice that didn't make her sound like a moron. Right petite and a little bit minxy. I'd have shagged her until I was raw.
>> No. 88988 Anonymous
28th January 2020
Tuesday 12:58 pm
88988 spacer
>>88981

>I was specifically talking about how you still think that the guy who did a racist thing did it entirely innocently and not because he's racist

Except I don't and didn't think that. I never offered my own opinion on it, I was instead giving a low grade parody of a Mail reader's opinion, because that was what was relevant to discussion.

Even if you do want to get into it, it makes absolutely no difference wether a racist man made a sincere racist joke or a non-racist makes an insincere one, the principles that led to him being arrested and imprisoned for something he said on the Internet are the same. If you don't see how that represents a threat to freedom of expression, and you can articulate a reason why it shouldn't that doesn't boil down to BUT HATE SPEECH ISNT FREE SPEECH, then there's no point in me continuing to engage with you.
>> No. 88989 Anonymous
28th January 2020
Tuesday 1:09 pm
88989 spacer
>>88988

Yes, you characterised people who disagreed with your viewpoint as being illogical and hysterical.

>something he said on the Internet
It wasn't just something he said on the Internet though, despite you repeatedly framing it that way. It's "just" something he said on the Internet in the same way that doing graffiti swastikas on a wall, taking a photo of it and putting it on twitter is "just" something you've said on the Internet. Then the court comes along, looks into who he is and if he's sincere about those views or just a kid being stupid and makes a decision based on that. Turned out he is actually a racist making racist jokes because he's racist and based on that, he was fined for it.

>HATE SPEECH IS FREE SPEECH
Away an boil your head mate.
>> No. 88990 Anonymous
28th January 2020
Tuesday 2:19 pm
88990 spacer
>>88989
>Turned out he is actually a racist making racist jokes because he's racist
Do you people actually believe this?
Lying about everyone being racist is backfiring massively on the left. Even if he WAS racist, most people still believe you are entitled to say what you like, even if it is vulgar. You might want to re-think your strategy of slander and censorship.
>> No. 88991 Anonymous
28th January 2020
Tuesday 2:29 pm
88991 spacer
>>88990

You're right, he probably just joined UKIP for shits and giggles too.
>> No. 88992 Anonymous
28th January 2020
Tuesday 2:55 pm
88992 spacer
>>88991
See this is exactly what I am talking about.

I attended the UKIP Young Independence conference when Dank and Sargon were speaking. There were speakers and attendees of all races, the leader of the party was an English man with an Asian immigrant wife, the winner of the speech writing contest was mixed race (and he seemed to win through actually being the best writer, rather than the segregated shortlists and "positive discrimination" that the left love).
At no point during the day was there even a hint of dolphin rape. I think the only mention of race at all was David Kurten, joking about how the all-white Hope Not Hate protesters outside were trying to shut down a black man's right to speak.
Yet you think joining UKIP is a sure sign that someone is racist. Your worldview simply doesn't seem to match up with reality.
>> No. 88993 Anonymous
28th January 2020
Tuesday 3:54 pm
88993 spacer
It is often the delusion of authoritarian left wingers that they are liberal and reasonable.

I suspect we have one of those bash the fash sorts in our midst. The kind who doesn't see the irony or hypocrisy in their controlling actions and belligerence because it is for 'the right reasons'.
>> No. 88994 Anonymous
28th January 2020
Tuesday 4:08 pm
88994 spacer
>>88992

Ok mate.


>>88993

I'm just saying I trust Karl Popper more than Count Dankula.
>> No. 88995 Anonymous
28th January 2020
Tuesday 5:57 pm
88995 spacer
>>88989

Listen mate. Was he charged and arrested for the offence of just being a racist in general, or was he arrested and charged because of a specific video he posted on the internet that caused offence? Merely being a racist isn't against the law, nor should it be.

You want to go away and have a good long think about what life would be like if the shoe was on the other foot, and you lived somewhere (like, say, China) where expressing support for democracy, gay rights, or pacifism on the internet is enough to get you locked up.
>> No. 88996 Anonymous
28th January 2020
Tuesday 6:12 pm
88996 spacer
>>88995

>Merely being a racist isn't against the law, nor should it be.

Thought crimes are a bit difficult to prosecute. The freedom to be a racist doesn't count for anything if you don't also have the freedom to espouse racist views. It's like arguing that you have the freedom to be Christian, but you're not allowed to open a church or hold prayer services or proselytise; it makes a mockery of the word "freedom".

>You want to go away and have a good long think about what life would be like if the shoe was on the other foot, and you lived somewhere (like, say, China) where expressing support for democracy, gay rights, or pacifism on the internet is enough to get you locked up.

None of these would get you locked up in China. The party really aren't that bothered what you say on the internet and are only mildly bothered about what you read; they are extremely bothered about mass demonstrations of any sort, after the disastrous aftermath of the '89 student protests. You would get locked up for printing bibles without a license, insulting Muslims or scaremongering about coronavirus. Effectively no-one in the west understands the motivations for or practical implementation of censorship in China.
>> No. 88997 Anonymous
28th January 2020
Tuesday 6:51 pm
88997 spacer
>>88996

What a fresh, novel and interesting claim. China really isn't all that bad, just misunderstood. They only really do censorship to protect the muslims they're starving to death from mean words on the internet.

What utter fucking drivel. At this point I can only assume you're an actual nutcase who deliberately spreads falsehood to further an ideology. I respect you for it, the world needs more people like you working for a cause rather than despair mongering contextless truth tellers, but it's not going to work here you daft cretin. We see right through you and the ideology you're peddling has never had hooks in any of us.
>> No. 88998 Anonymous
28th January 2020
Tuesday 7:20 pm
88998 spacer
>>88996

>None of these would get you locked up in China. The party really aren't that bothered what you say on the internet and are only mildly bothered about what you read; they are extremely bothered about mass demonstrations of any sort, after the disastrous aftermath of the '89 student protests. You would get locked up for printing bibles without a license, insulting Muslims or scaremongering about coronavirus. Effectively no-one in the west understands the motivations for or practical implementation of censorship in China.

This is interesting. Perhaps you could tell us more?

I'm fairly sure I've heard tales specifically of people being reprimanded for stuff like pro-LGBT campaigning, and I've even read some stuff about Chinese students in the UK being very unwilling to go along with the typical student lefty kinds of politics because it might cause their family at home trouble.

Of course I'm willing to take whatever I read with a healthy scepticism if presented with opposing evidence. You seem to be more in the know about this than us, do you have first hand knowledge what it's like?
>> No. 88999 Anonymous
28th January 2020
Tuesday 9:00 pm
88999 spacer
>>88996

Tell this to people who practise falun gong over there.

Except you can't, because they were harvested for organs.
>> No. 89000 Anonymous
28th January 2020
Tuesday 10:40 pm
89000 spacer
>>88996
Hah you have to deal with them now. Not it.
>> No. 89001 Anonymous
28th January 2020
Tuesday 11:11 pm
89001 spacer
>>88998

China has a centuries-old reputation for being ungovernable. It has more than twice the landmass of the EU, nearly three times the population and a remarkable degree of geographic and cultural diversity. The Chinese Communist Party are painfully aware that a) their ability to effectively govern the whole of China is extremely fragile and b) the consequences of a breakdown of the rule of law are potentially catastrophic.

The stereotype is that the Chinese Communist Party brutally crack down on any opposition to their rule, but that's not really true; they brutally crack down on anything that could cause substantial unrest. You're completely free to rip the piss out of Xi Jinping online, but if your critique starts trending then they'll just make it vanish; if you start trying to organise a protest rally, you'll get a knock from the secret police before the end of the day. The party are hyper-sensitive to anything that might inflame ethnic tensions, to the extent that they effectively cancelled the Year of the Pig in case it offended Muslims. Being gay isn't illegal in China and you'll find plenty of gay clubs in the major cities, but something like a Pride parade would be completely off-limits for fear of causing discord with more conservative elements. There's no gay marriage in china, nor is there officially any form of civil partnership, but any two adults can sign a guardianship agreement which entitles them to identical legal rights to a married couple. It doesn't really look like it from a Western perspective, but the approach is more kid gloves than jackboots.

The situation in Xinjiang isn't particularly new, nor is it in any meaningful sense motivated by religious or ethnic discrimination. Uyghurs have long enjoyed a relatively privileged position, with substantial religious and cultural freedoms; the recent crackdown is partly due to instability across the border with laplanderstan, partly due to growth in the independence movement and partly due to generally heightened sensitivities to unrest due to the economic slowdown. Xinjiang is very large, very isolated, predominantly Muslim and riddled with Jihadis; while that doesn't justify human rights abuses, it does explain them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_2009_%C3%9Cr%C3%BCmqi_riots

Likewise, the situation in Tibet isn't really about the Tibetans, but about India. Tibet and Xinjiang form the Western frontier with Jammu/Kashmir, the dispute over which has brought India and laplanderstan to the brink of nuclear war. Tibet also has a southern border with India, the status of which has been disputed since 1914. From the Chinese perspective, an independent Tibet would be an existential threat to China, because an independent Tibet would be completely incapable of repelling an incursion by India or laplanderstan.

I don't want to come across as a cheerleader for Beijing, but I really can't imagine that I'd do anything radically different if I was in charge. Despite an incredibly precarious geopolitical situation, the Chinese government have overseen an unprecedented half-century of peace and prosperity. That has undoubtedly been at the expense of human rights, but I cannot say with a straight face that the Chinese people would be better off if the government adopted a laissez-faire approach. By any conventional logic, China should be in a state of perpetual crisis; the fact that they aren't is nothing short of miraculous.

>They only really do censorship to protect the muslims they're starving to death

They aren't starving anyone to death. They've saved more people from starvation than any government in human history, but that's really besides the point. Xinjiang is undoubtedly being subject to an oppressive police state right now, Uyghurs are being detained and subjected to re-education on a vast scale, but it's entirely realistic to say that the alternative could be the takeover of Xinjiang by the laplanderstani Taliban. Would that be better for the Uyghurs? Would that be better for the Chinese people as a whole?
>> No. 89002 Anonymous
28th January 2020
Tuesday 11:19 pm
89002 spacer
>>88997

Have you considered that perhaps the situation is a tiny bit more complicated than CHINA BAD?
>> No. 89003 Anonymous
29th January 2020
Wednesday 12:08 am
89003 spacer
>>89002

That's the laziest straw man I've ever seen and I post on britfa.gs.
>> No. 89004 Anonymous
29th January 2020
Wednesday 1:10 am
89004 spacer
So, about that Labour leadership contest, eh?
>> No. 89005 Anonymous
29th January 2020
Wednesday 1:34 am
89005 spacer
>>89004

Let the derailing flourish mate, we decided weeks ago Kier would win it and I'll chew off my own ear if he doesn't.
>> No. 89006 Anonymous
29th January 2020
Wednesday 2:32 am
89006 spacer
>>89005
>I'll chew off my own ear if he doesn't.
We'll hold you to that when Nandy gets all RLB's support after she fails to make the ballot.
>> No. 89007 Anonymous
29th January 2020
Wednesday 7:07 am
89007 spacer

EPXDfkaWoAAGsiN.png
890078900789007
The Tories are now almost polling at 50% against the corpse of Corbz.
>> No. 89008 Anonymous
29th January 2020
Wednesday 8:42 am
89008 spacer
>>89001

>Would that be better for the Uyghurs? Would that be better for the Chinese people as a whole?

Human rights abuses are fine as long as they're to preserve the state is what you're saying. I actually agree, but most people won't. The thing is this does indeed mean CHINA BAD, if I were in their position doing the same I would accept that I was bad.

According to my morals you're saying doing bad things for a good reason is good. That's wrong. According to majority morals you're saying doing bad things for a bad reason is good. That is super wrong. You are a cheerleader for Beijing and I have nothing against you for that, I'm simply telling you it's not going to work here.

I wish my evil oppressive cousins in the CCP all the best of luck going forward. I'm not going to try to fame them as heroes for starving muslims to death though. It's much less effort to just shoot them.
>> No. 89009 Anonymous
29th January 2020
Wednesday 2:00 pm
89009 spacer
>>89001
Thanks for an interesting post, it's refreshing to get a different perspective. I remember there being a lad here many moons ago who was living in China, an erudite sort too, I wonder if that was you.

Could you tackle >>88999's point about Falun Gong? Do you think the state's response was proportional to the "threat" posed? I have never seen a charitable interpretation.
>> No. 89010 Anonymous
29th January 2020
Wednesday 2:55 pm
89010 spacer
>>89009
AIUI the live harvesting is mostly conjecture, though we do know they take organs from newly-dead prisoners regardless of consent.
>> No. 89011 Anonymous
29th January 2020
Wednesday 4:23 pm
89011 spacer
>>89009

The picture is really muddy because of propaganda from both sides, so I'll try to be as uncontroversial as possible.

Falun Gong was established in 1992 as a government-registered school of Qigong and enjoyed substantial state support. In 1996, for reasons that aren't entirely clear, Falun Gong withdrew from the official Qigong organisation and rejected government oversight. During the late 1990s, the Party became increasingly concerned about the size and scope of Qigong organisations, who had tens of millions of members and were veering into cult-like behaviour.

The whole sorry mess started when the state media began publishing a number of critical articles about Qigong, in an attempt to damp down interest in the practice and send a warning to Qigong organisations that they would be subject to greater scrutiny. Most Qigong organisations took it on the chin and cleaned up their more cultish aspects, but Falun Gong vociferously protested. Obviously this didn't go down well with the Party (especially given that it was less than a decade since the '89 student protests), which incited a vicious cycle. The protests increased the concerns of the Party, which led to more critical articles and more scrutiny from the security services, which led to more protests. By the end of 1999, the situation had become an all-out impasse, with a hardcore of devotees refusing to back down against a Party that couldn't be seen to be losing control.

Falun Gong maintain that they are a non-religious and non-political wellness movement, but the Party see it differently, if only for the mere fact that they have so doggedly resisted state control. Falun Gong rejected the opportunity to operate within the legal and regulatory system, so their continued resistance makes them de-facto agents of chaos, which is the one thing that the Party cannot tolerate.

It sounds like a crass comparison, but I'm reminded of Stephen Gough, the naked rambler. He has spent most of the last decade in and out of prison because he refuses to wear clothes. He is in a very real sense being persecuted, but it's a strange and purposeless sort of persecution, a pig-headed battle of wills between a state that cannot ignore the law and a man who refuses to obey it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Gough

>>89010

Yep, pretty much. If the allegations about systematic organ harvesting are true then it's an abhorrent and indefensible abuse of human rights.
>> No. 89012 Anonymous
29th January 2020
Wednesday 4:52 pm
89012 spacer
>>89011

>but I'm reminded of Stephen Gough, the naked rambler. He has spent most of the last decade in and out of prison because he refuses to wear clothes

No, no no no no no. The crime of not wearing clothes is not equivalent to the crime of refusing to be an instrument of the state and denying the state's right to compel one to inform on one's own members. The response of gently pushing a nutter in to a police car is not the same as the response of cracking skulls and sending people to brainwashing camps which use physical torture to modify behaviour.

>Falun Gong rejected the opportunity to operate within the legal and regulatory system, so their continued resistance makes them de-facto agents of chaos, which is the one thing that the Party cannot tolerate.

Your argument that it's more complicated than just CHINA BAD seems to be falling apart through your own words. China can't tolerate an organisation existing that doesn't voluntarily submit to CCP infiltration? If we can't both agree that 1984 style screens in every home which can't be turned off is bad then one of us very clearly wrong. If the UK government demanded that all massage parlours appoint an MI5 representative to inform on its employees tomorrow we would quite rightly resist. You keep presenting facts as if they're not good or bad, simply "necessary" but the reality you don't specify is they're necessary to achieve something society long ago decided was bad. You do see this right? You know what you're doing? Again I don't have a problem with it I'm just slightly pissed off that you're attempting to drum up pro-China sentiment on a website about Huel Meal Replacement in such a beautifully underhanded fashion.
>> No. 89013 Anonymous
29th January 2020
Wednesday 5:06 pm
89013 spacer
This is worth watching, once you get past the annoying Canadian presenting it. tl;dw: China Bad, Falun Gong Bad.


>> No. 89014 Anonymous
29th January 2020
Wednesday 6:05 pm
89014 spacer

maxresdefault.jpg
890148901489014
>>89013

Is that lad sitting on a space hopper or something?
>> No. 89015 Anonymous
29th January 2020
Wednesday 7:53 pm
89015 spacer
Got invited to speak at the same meeting as Richard Burgon* or whatever his name is. All these labour bods seem positive momentum is a good thing and Corbyn did nothing wrong.

*I'm attending but not speaking.
>> No. 89016 Anonymous
29th January 2020
Wednesday 8:03 pm
89016 spacer
He's a good speaker but nothing behind the eyes. Bit scary.
>> No. 89017 Anonymous
29th January 2020
Wednesday 8:05 pm
89017 spacer
>>89016
I can't recall actually watching or reading anything he has said, but I've seen countless people online say that Burgon is exceptionally clueless and inept.
>> No. 89018 Anonymous
29th January 2020
Wednesday 8:16 pm
89018 spacer
>>89017
He talks like he's just reciting a speech which I guess he is but something about it's making me uncomfortable. It's like one of those people they bring in at school occasionally who says their job is being a "storyteller" and the have an assembly where this person tells a long boring story in a weirdly intense and projected tone of voice.
>> No. 89019 Anonymous
29th January 2020
Wednesday 8:18 pm
89019 spacer
>>89017
That said, new MP Zarah Sultana seems to be giving him a run for his money in the stupidity stakes.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/01/mp-refuses-vote-select-committee-elections-because-she-does-not-understand-rules
>> No. 89020 Anonymous
29th January 2020
Wednesday 10:13 pm
89020 spacer
>>89014
Yes, he does his videos sat atop an exercise ball. Yes, it's really fucking annoying.
>> No. 89029 Anonymous
7th February 2020
Friday 12:59 pm
89029 spacer
>Labour must end the “parachutes” and “stitch-ups” when picking candidates to be MPs and stop nominating peers for the House of Lords altogether, the leadership candidate Lisa Nandy has said.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/06/council-chiefs-deserve-role-in-labour-shadow-cabinet-says-lisa-nandy

Think I could get behind Nandy.
>> No. 89031 Anonymous
7th February 2020
Friday 1:15 pm
89031 spacer
>>89029

Shame she cocked up royally by referring to a disabled man as a vegetable.

Long Bailey's campaign looks like it's on life support too, lots of infighting and she's the bottom of the public polls, below even Thornberry.
>> No. 89032 Anonymous
7th February 2020
Friday 1:28 pm
89032 spacer
>>89031
>Shame she cocked up royally by referring to a disabled man as a vegetable.

That was RLB.

https://news.sky.com/story/labours-rebecca-long-bailey-sorry-for-calling-man-with-brain-damage-a-practical-vegetable-11925656
>> No. 89033 Anonymous
7th February 2020
Friday 1:32 pm
89033 spacer
>>89032

Ah, my memory is getting worse.

Well she's double fucked it then hasn't she.
>> No. 89038 Anonymous
8th February 2020
Saturday 6:57 pm
89038 spacer
Corbyn's CLP have backed Starmer over Long-Bailey.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/08/jeremy-corbyns-local-labour-party-backs-keir-starmer-for-leadership
>> No. 89039 Anonymous
8th February 2020
Saturday 8:42 pm
89039 spacer
>>89038

49% of the electorate would vote Conservative if there were an election according to latest opinion polls with 407 seats in the HOC.
>> No. 89041 Anonymous
8th February 2020
Saturday 9:03 pm
89041 spacer
This week RLB went on telly arguing that people should have the right to not answer work emails while they're at home.

Yeaahhh... It's a good suggestion but I think the type of people who own work mobiles are probably not the type of people labour needs to try and win back votes from.
>> No. 89042 Anonymous
8th February 2020
Saturday 9:55 pm
89042 spacer
>>89041

She also promised to support all strikes and industrial actions, "no questions asked". That'll definitely reassure the electorate that Corbyn's Labour isn't going to drag us back to the 70s.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51417041
>> No. 89043 Anonymous
8th February 2020
Saturday 10:16 pm
89043 spacer
>>89042
She needs to learn that these strikes are wrong when negotiations are still going on. The government has acted in a reckless and provocative manner and both sides have been let down. She should urge all sides to put aside the rhetoric, get round the negotiating table, and stop it happening again.
>> No. 89044 Anonymous
8th February 2020
Saturday 10:20 pm
89044 spacer
>>89041
It's another nice idea, yes, but don't put it in the fucking manifesto. Don't tell anyone in fact, not until you've got a majority of massive proportions and the last three Tory MPs have to hold hands to stop themselves fleeing in shame and terror. To a great number of folks free broadband and the right to ignore your cunt boss are such triffling matters they hit most people's ears like a bad joke. Set out half-a-dozen, at the absolute most, stonking big policies and bellow them out onto the airwaves and online like Russel Crowe in Les Mis. Take a look at Bernie Sanders' in 2016: at the start of his primary campaign hardly anyone knew who he was, but he had a handful of big policies that spoke to a broad range of people and their concerns, with those he dragged himself up the polls and was pipped at the last by Hilary Clinton, one of the most well-known figures in US politics, and a news media that treated him like he was from Mars. Those policies are defining much of the ongoing 2020 Democratic Primrary when they were hardly on the radar five years ago. Or even Johnson in the GE that ended eight weeks ago; what did he do? He got his entire party on a tight, focused message and blanketed the country with it. Well, he didn't, Cummings did, but regardless the Tories now have a majority so big the the last three Labour MPs have to hold hands to stop themselves fleeing in shame and terror.

When you attack it has to be with purpose, precision and power. Sun Tzu knew this shit two-and-a-half-thousand years ago, why can't Labour figure it out? I'm not saying I'm a political savant and this would have assured victory, but Labour's 2019 plan amounted to good vibes and ideas that, however well thought at they might have been, sounded half-baked and got in one another's way. It felt as though they thought you had to put everything in the manifesto or you weren't allowed to do it once you formed a government. However, yesterday I received the agenda for my local Party's meeting on Thursday, and between "welcome and apologies" and "regional council report" I don't think I'm going to get my chance to turn Labour into the sledgehammer shaped political tool I want it to be any time soon, which is fair enough because I'm just a cunt with an opinion, but that seems to be more than some big hats in Labour have right now.

Now, I'm all full of red meat and frustration so I'm going to mainline oats and honey to get things moving again before my job interview on Monday. I think the DWP sanction you if you shite yourself in an interview.
>> No. 89045 Anonymous
8th February 2020
Saturday 10:32 pm
89045 spacer
>>89044

I spoke to a few Corbynites in the Corbyn era, apparently message discipline is a Blairite thing and everyone should be free to express their opinions, not be stuck to a rigid narrative.

My explanations that rigid narratives lead to winning elections while inane Abbottlogues lead to nothing but electoral devastation were met with unreturned calls. I'm glad the kids got to "believe in a cause other than winning an election" for a few years, though I do hope they grow out of it sharpish. To be fair a few of the oldlads were really on board the Corbyn battle-bus with very unwieldy slogans about Article 4 but they had a look in their eyes like a naughty school child when it was pointed out that their self indulgent socialist fantasies were going to lose us the election. I suppose everyone needs to recharge now and then.
>> No. 89046 Anonymous
8th February 2020
Saturday 10:36 pm
89046 spacer
>>89043

I agree, she should urge all sides to put aside the rhetoric, get round the negotiating table, and stop it happening again.
>> No. 89047 Anonymous
8th February 2020
Saturday 10:49 pm
89047 spacer

bp.jpg
890478904789047
>>89044

Yeah, the problem we really have is that the party is full of dickheads and wishy washy liberal types who haven't moved on from their university debate club. These people have no concept of working together towards a unified goal, their only real agenda is wasting everyone's time by moaning about it when their personal pet policy isn't given enough attention, or something isn't inclusive enough for left handed people, or whatever the fuck is doing the rounds on Twitter that week.

>>89045

I think a lot of people knew Corbyn wasn't going to win the election, but felt that a forceful dragging of the party back to more home-ground was necessary, lest the party just lurch on turning into the party you vote for if you want the Conservatives in another colour. I agree with that perspective, broadly speaking, because there was fuck all chance of anybody else in the party winning those elections either. I don't think there is any divergent timeline where Labour won a Brexit election, because let's face facts. Labour is the party that likes immigrants, and nobody is voting for the immigrant party until we've done the Brexit.

Look at this for example. Well done Lisa, nice sassy response there, but what did you achieve? Fuck all, all you've done is make yourself look like a smug, cocky condescending lefty for no tangible benefit. You didn't explain why he was wrong or defend the idea of the policy, you just allowed him to have that territory. People can and will read that as a tacit admission he's right.

This is exactly the sort of thing Labour needs to be doing its level best to avoid right now.
>> No. 89048 Anonymous
8th February 2020
Saturday 11:22 pm
89048 spacer
>>89047

I think her point is quite clever, if Toby Young is just a normal British person with no ties to the aristocracy or lots of money from fucking the working class he's never likely to see an OBE much less get one. Labour MPs don't want a return to the Empire, they want to destroy the Empire, and to do that they want to remind poor people that the aristocracy hate the poor people.

Labour's brief stint as the the working man's party was just that, a brief stint. They're a communist party pure and simple, the Labour everyone wants to return to was antithetical to the roots and goals of the Labour party as formed and orchestrated. Nandy isn't trying to get back the working classes, she's trying to convince the working classes to abandon the Empire. But that should be easy since the Empire abandoned them first.

There are 3 perceptions of Labour today, The Working Man's Paradise, in this beer comes in cartons at kicking out time and a single worker's wage can support a household, to do this we need to close the borders and bring back laws which govern morality along with hanging. Then we have The Blairite Manoeuvre in which we all get along with the cosmopolitan new world and try to have laws stopping the corporations trampling poor people in to the ground in this country without alienating the corporations, while we do this we give generously to the underclass so they don't go all communist and start smashing the machines, or in the modern vernacular, the shopfronts. Finally, there is what I believe the modern Labour Party to be, Communist Lite, the idea that we need to fully embrace the revolution but without violence. Under Communist Lite we do what the global stage tells us to do with open borders and sharing resources like countries are counties within a country to a larger power and hope that when everywhere is Communist Lite we aren't in too bad a position. Communist Lite requires that all other types of existence are demonised or discouraged, like Nandy did in that tweet.

The main problem with all 3 of these hypothetical parties is that we've lost our streak of individualism. It's been trampled down by the police and entertainment gadgets. Whichever type of people hold the reins of power we as a people are entirely reliant on them to look out for our best interests. No solution will work for us when we're sheep. The distinction between Blue Labour, New Labour and Red Labour is irrelevant when we're all just waiting around to see who's going to ship us off to the abattoir.
>> No. 89049 Anonymous
15th February 2020
Saturday 5:45 am
89049 spacer
Emily Thornberry has been eliminated from the Labour leadership race after failing to secure enough nominations.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51505547

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>> No. 89050 Anonymous
15th February 2020
Saturday 6:30 am
89050 spacer
>>89048

We live in a representative democracy. The current Labour party doesn't represent the views of most of the electorate, nor are they in any way effective in shaping the views of the electorate. Ideological navel-gazing doesn't really matter to anyone - the brass tacks of politics are conversation, persuasion and compromise.

The Blairite Manoeuvre wasn't ideologically led, which is why it was electorally effective; rather than starting from an ideological position and trying to move towards the electorate, it started with the electorate and moved towards an ideological position. It was the kind of incrementalism that ideologues are rabidly opposed to, but it delivered tangible improvements in the living standards of the vast majority of the electorate. We didn't get a revolution, but we did get SureStart and the minimum wage and record spending on schools and hospitals.
>> No. 89051 Anonymous
15th February 2020
Saturday 10:46 am
89051 spacer
>>89050

The thing is people try use this exact argument when they want another Blairite. Another Blairite isn't what we need, because times are different now and the electorate is never fooled by the same trick twice. But we do need to heed the lesson of where the initial Blairite success in 1997 came from.

Nandy is a perfect example of Labour once again learning the wrong lesson. She correctly observes Labour's utter thrashing under a hard lefty like Corbyn, and thinks something about that must put the electorate off. So she's had a think and come out saying things that sound like a move towards the economic centre ground- "We made promises we couldn't keep" and so on.

But the electorate really doesn't care about that. The electorate isn't thick, it knows there hasn't been a government in history that's ever kept it's spending promises. Maybe promising free broadband was a step too far, but that isn't what lost the election. They just want a Labour party that doesn't spend half its time sticking up for foreign criminals, doesn't call it's voters bigots, and MPs who aren't physically sick at the sight of a St George's cross.
>> No. 89052 Anonymous
15th February 2020
Saturday 12:45 pm
89052 spacer
I'm happy Burgon's peace plan was a non-starter, by far the silliest thing I heard at the Deputy Leader hustings except maybe the Scottish chap who started rambling about "apps".
>> No. 89053 Anonymous
15th February 2020
Saturday 4:47 pm
89053 spacer
>>89051
>But the electorate really doesn't care about that.

They don't care about left-wing economic bollocks either as the last election actually demonstrates. Nandy has her head screwed on because she's talking policies people can understand and knows the areas labour lost in the last election.

Free broadband was laughable and, while the election was already lost at that point, it cemented the Labour manifesto as hogwash.
>> No. 89054 Anonymous
15th February 2020
Saturday 6:45 pm
89054 spacer
>>64935
Yeah but the Conservatives just nationalised the trains. It couldn't have been that bad.
>> No. 89055 Anonymous
16th February 2020
Sunday 2:08 am
89055 spacer
>>89051
>The thing is people try use this exact argument when they want another Blairite.
I know, right? How dare they come here and try to argue using facts and logic instead of hollow ideology and feelings.
>> No. 89056 Anonymous
16th February 2020
Sunday 2:27 am
89056 spacer
>>89053

That's not true though. If it was the conservative party wouldn't be rushing to implement as much as it can get away with stealing from a Labour manifesto to keep hold of the new northern voters.

Polls indicate support for left wing economics. They also indicate support for centre right social policy. People vote based more on the latter than the former. This is black and white fact backed up by numbers. You can't just pick at half of it and ignore the rest.

>>89055

You mean like you're doing right now? Stop clinging to outdated soc-dem ideology, it's not going to win the next election.

What we need is an old fashioned Clement Atlee type of patriotic people's man. Conjure up some of that wartime imagery. Good old fashioned socialism where we all had to muck in. People fucking love that shit, but the politicos are scared shitless of being caled a nationalist.

We've lost Scotland to nationalism, and we're not getting it back any time soon. Time has come to actualy try and win some English support.
>> No. 89057 Anonymous
16th February 2020
Sunday 3:08 am
89057 spacer
>>89056
We haven't lost Scotland until they vote out. And they ain't getting another vote anytime soon.
>> No. 89058 Anonymous
16th February 2020
Sunday 3:19 am
89058 spacer
>>89057

That's not what he meant you mong.
>> No. 89059 Anonymous
16th February 2020
Sunday 4:18 pm
89059 spacer
So who's everyone hoping for then, given that by the OP's reckoning we're already doomed? I'm still in camp Nandy.
>> No. 89060 Anonymous
16th February 2020
Sunday 4:19 pm
89060 spacer
>>89059
Anyone other than the awful RLB - even Sir Kier. But I am with you, and think Nandy is the best of a bad bunch.
>> No. 89061 Anonymous
16th February 2020
Sunday 5:00 pm
89061 spacer

_110911301_chartnothornberrybbc.jpg
890618906189061
>>89059
>>89060
I don't get why Nandy continues to poll so low compared to Keir. Is it her awful posture? That lisp she has?

>>89056
>If it was the conservative party wouldn't be rushing to implement as much as it can get away with stealing from a Labour manifesto to keep hold of the new northern voters.

Those are policies. The Conservative party isn't proposing a wave of nationalisation, they're talking concrete measures to cement popularity in the North of England.

>>89056
>Stop clinging to outdated soc-dem ideology, it's not going to win the next election.

How many elections has Labour lost now? Even Red-Ed failed at the ballot box.

>We've lost Scotland to nationalism, and we're not getting it back any time soon.

Bullshit, the SNP is up-to it's neck at this point. Labour in Scotland has just been a shitshow for decades and there's no other unionist party Scots will broadly rally around.
>> No. 89062 Anonymous
16th February 2020
Sunday 6:16 pm
89062 spacer
>>89061

>I don't get why Nandy continues to poll so low compared to Keir. Is it her awful posture? That lisp she has?

Maybe because nobody wants her for precisely the reasons I outlined?

Starmer's getting it, lad, just deal with it.

>How many elections has Labour lost now? Even Red-Ed failed at the ballot box.

... Yes, exactly. He was a through and through soc-dem. The only thing I remember from his campaign was "Erm... We'll get rid of the bedroom tax, I guess?"

>Bullshit, the SNP is up-to it's neck at this point. Labour in Scotland has just been a shitshow for decades and there's no other unionist party Scots will broadly rally around.

Well, this I would certainly like to hear more about. The SNP has 48 seats in Scotland, nearly all of which were Labour losses.
>> No. 89063 Anonymous
16th February 2020
Sunday 8:01 pm
89063 spacer
>>89056
>Good old fashioned socialism where we all had to muck in. People fucking love that shit
Yes, which is why good, solid working-class areas like Blyth Valley voted overwhelmingly for Corbyn's old fashioned socialist manifesto.

[checks notes]

Oh, right.
>> No. 89064 Anonymous
16th February 2020
Sunday 8:08 pm
89064 spacer
>>89062
If Labour didn't want "soc-dem" then they would be backing RLB. But they're not outside of a twitter echo-chamber.

>Well, this I would certainly like to hear more about.

I'm not sure what to add. From the first time the SNP become the largest party in Holyrood it's been stated many times that Scots vote for them not because of indie but because they're the party they trust to represent their interests and, later, provide competent government.

The problem now is the SNP is mired by scandal (not just Salmond, they even had a quasi-noncing story a few days back), party factionalism, over-centralisation along the central belt and long-running socio-economic problems that have only gotten worse under their rule. Flagship policies like minimum alcohol pricing have also floundered with the car-crash press announcement from Sturgeon over the importance of the quality of life index just as it was reported that Scotland fell down in just such a ranking. That leaves the SNP with Brexit but objectively Scotland needs access to the UK market more than it needs access to the EU so they desperately need new press lines.

Not that Scottish Labour is fairing much better considering it's been on a death spiral for a long time now and realistically lacks a talent pool as a result.
>> No. 89065 Anonymous
16th February 2020
Sunday 8:48 pm
89065 spacer
>>89063

If we're going back to ignoring how those areas were all overwhelming Brexit supporting areas, and pretending as if it wasn't a completely single issue election, fair enough.

>>89064

Still, I think it would be a massive underestimation of the Scottish national character to think they're going to return to voting for an English party over a few little scandals. The UK needs the EU more than it needs a piss poor trade agreement with the USA, but that hasn't stopped people resoundingly voting to fuck off, has it.

Either way, Labour really needs to build its strategy in the near-term with the assumption that Scotland is long gone and isn't coming back.
>> No. 89066 Anonymous
16th February 2020
Sunday 9:56 pm
89066 spacer

vCwI4.png
890668906689066
>>89065
>If we're going back to ignoring how those areas were all overwhelming Brexit supporting areas, and pretending as if it wasn't a completely single issue election, fair enough.
Do you need to be reminded that Brexit was not even close to being the top reason people switched away from Labour again?
>> No. 89067 Anonymous
16th February 2020
Sunday 10:21 pm
89067 spacer
>>89066

Well you've scored an own goal there because you've posted proof that it's definitely not left wing economic policies scaring them off, as started this debate to begin with.

>So she's had a think and come out saying things that sound like a move towards the economic centre ground- "We made promises we couldn't keep" and so on.

>They don't care about left-wing economic bollocks either as the last election actually demonstrates.
>> No. 89068 Anonymous
16th February 2020
Sunday 10:25 pm
89068 spacer
>>89067
>you
Swing and a miss there, lad.
>> No. 89069 Anonymous
16th February 2020
Sunday 10:43 pm
89069 spacer
>>89066

It has to be said though, that poll is very interesting, because if what it appears to show is true, then it's a very fucking curious coincidence that nearly every Conservative gain at the last election was a Brexit voting constituency. Not saying it can't be coincidence, just saying it's a big one.

>>89068

Yeah and he's not me either, go figure.
>> No. 89070 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 3:16 am
89070 spacer
>>89069
It's been said here before that Labour canvassers on the doorstep were being told repeatedly by voters that they just didn't want Jeremy Corbyn as PM. I've not looked at polling relating to 2017, but I imagine it was a significant contributing factor to being unable to win enough seats to cobble together a coalition despite being presented the keys to No 10 on a fucking platter.
>> No. 89071 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 6:07 am
89071 spacer

EOZyenCXsAAoFcB.png
890718907189071
We had a massive thread about the general election at the time. I can't believe we're retreading it because a Corbynite doesn't want to face reality.

Labour lost because fewer of their supporters actually turned out to vote than usual. The primary reason for this was Jeremy Corbyn.
>> No. 89072 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 7:35 am
89072 spacer
Not to be, once again, smarter than everyone else here to the extent that I can't be bothered demonstrating it more often than not, but would it not be fair to point out that Corbyn was more popular in 2017 because of a firm Brexit position, the lack of which in 2019 undermined him personally as much as it did the Labour Party?

Yes, it would be.
>> No. 89073 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 7:52 am
89073 spacer
>>89072
People overestimate how 'successful' Corbyn was in 2017 by underestimating how woeful May was. If anything, the Tories were wise enough to not make the same mistakes again whilst it made Corbyn far too complacent.
>> No. 89074 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 8:14 am
89074 spacer
>>89073
I don't think Johnson had a much better campaign than May. Labour were poorer and Johnson had the political crutch of Brexit to fall back on, and beat Labour with.
>> No. 89075 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 8:19 am
89075 spacer
>>89073
Dementia tax, innit.
>> No. 89076 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 8:26 am
89076 spacer
>>89069

Those seats swung Tory for the same reason that they voted Leave. It's not coincidence, it's a common causal factor - widening access to university.

Towns are getting older and less-educated, because they're experiencing a constant outflow of young people who go away to university and never come back. Those older and less-educated voters might be from a traditional Labour background, but they're staunchly socially conservative. They oppose multiculturalism, feminism, environmentalism and globalisation. It should be fairly obvious why many of them simply couldn't stomach voting for Corbyn's Labour party.

It's worth noting that this phenomenon isn't particularly biased in terms of north/south or rich/poor. The media often talks about "left behind towns in the north", but affluent towns in the south are experiencing exactly the same demographic shift. It's not about economics, but about culture - these voters don't feel left behind by the economy, they feel left out by social change. They don't believe that Brexit or Boris will make them better-off or improve public services, nor do they particularly care; they're voting for Traditional British Values™.

https://www.centreforcities.org/reader/great-british-brain-drain/migration-students-graduates/

https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/03/a-reminder-of-how-britain-voted-in-the-eu-referendum-and-why/
>> No. 89077 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 12:29 pm
89077 spacer
Corbyn was delegitimised from the moment he was elected Labour leader, and the UK media had a huge hand in this. Despite concerns about the influence of social media and "fake news", people still generally link back to articles produced by the press. This is still the main public avenue for understanding politics.

I've already posted a lot about this, so I won't link to studies like a broken record, but just as an illustration of how intensive this effort was, a search of the newspaper database Proquest performed back in November 2019 showed how rapidly this happened:

'Jeremy Corbyn' and 'anti-semitism' before 1 May 2015 = 18 hits

'Jeremy Corbyn' and 'anti-semitism' after 1 May 2015 = 12,912 hits

MediaLens points out:

>None of the 18 hits accused Corbyn of anti-semitism. In his first 32 years as an MP it wasn't a theme.

Call it "whataboutery" if you want, but if you took an issue like the war in Yemen -- in which tens of thousands of people have died and where the Johnson government has had a real and active role -- and search for 'Johnson' and 'Yemen' in the same database, that gave around 24 results.

I've heard the last election called a "single issue" affair, but it takes consistent and sustained effort on behalf of the press to frame things in such a way that this is the case.

In my view, the discussion of social leftism versus versus economic leftism, and even some of the polling data, honestly seems to pale in comparison to the ability of media to shape our political landscape. They set the terms of debate, and it's usually kept strictly within the realm of the trivial -- it's why we make fun of the facial features of politicians, and argue about whether Brexit is a good thing, and whether people in the North are really racists, and about whether snowflake lefties are alienating them -- it's all about broad stereotypes that are largely divorced from reality. Until we have a more representative media, we will continue to debate trivialities.
>> No. 89078 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 12:55 pm
89078 spacer
>>89077
Pff Media Lens. Now there's a shady pseudointellectual outfit.
>> No. 89079 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 1:00 pm
89079 spacer
There's a consistent false assumption going on here that anyone who opposes a return to Blairism is a deluded Corbyn fanboy (and in fairness vice versa too sometimes, though less often IMO).

I think it's fair to say neither approach will be successful, and I'm constantly trying to articulate that Labour needs something else entirely. The thing about social vs economic leftism is something I've been banging on about for ages too. I'm constantly being pilloried from both sides for being a fascist in one ear, or an out of touch liberal hippy from the other.

Blairism will fail because it offers an economic centre ground with socially liberal values. The voters Labour needs back are accepting of a centrist economic policy, see: austerity, but it isn't their primary concern and are instinctively repelled by the perception of social liberalism, and the condescending tone it all too often takes in the media. So it's a net negative. It's moderately more successful that Corbynism, but only because it's so inoffensive by design.

Meanwhile a full on Corbynite platform offers a left wing economic basis voters broadly like, but find hard to swallow considering the consistent narrative of the last decade. It requires a strong leader who ticks all the other box to succeed; however the crucial weakness here is that it is too closely tied with the "bleeding heart" lefty who wants to set every prisoner free and give every asylum seeker a free house, better than NHS medical care and government funded bride. It's a huge loss, but not for the reasons Blairites want to make out.

It's all about perception, and Labour should know by now that it's fighting an uphill battle against a hostile media. It needs to be willing to compromise on some of its more idealistic views, or it will simply cease to be, and that's the sad truth of the matter.
>> No. 89080 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 1:27 pm
89080 spacer
>>89079
>Meanwhile a full on Corbynite platform offers a left wing economic basis voters broadly like, but find hard to swallow considering the consistent narrative of the last decade.
>It's all about perception

You really get to the crux of the issue, here. Why is it that you think certain people are portrayed as woolly liberals or bleeding hearts or whatever else? Why is ending constant war or averting catastrophic climate change not the hard-nosed, realist position? What sets the narrative, and the spectrum of acceptable positions?

We agree media play a huge role here, but I'm just not convinced that what we need is a more compromising leader. The rules of perception can be reversed depending on the needs of those in power -- take any trait or position and you can spin it however you want. I point to Boris Johnson as an example of this -- the media has had every opportunity to excoriate him, but did not because that is where power currently resides.

Perhaps the two tactics don't need to be mutually exclusive. I'm all for things which nudge us towards less violent foreign policy, greater democratic power for the public and a redistribution of wealth. But I certainly don't put all my faith within the current political system as it stands. It takes social movements to pressure governments in that direction.
>> No. 89081 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 2:20 pm
89081 spacer
>>89077 >>89079 >>89080

What you're all missing is that an effective political leader shapes the narrative. Corbyn got monstered by the press because he didn't know how to fight back. He didn't have media training, he didn't have a competent spin doctor and he wouldn't listen to any of his advisors.

>Blairism will fail because it offers an economic centre ground with socially liberal values.

Blairism offered socially liberal policies, but reflected socially conservative values. When Blair pledged to eliminate child poverty by 2019, the key slogan was "a hand-up not a hand-out". During his tenure as shadow home secretary, he proposed an arguably wooly set of criminal justice reforms under the slogan "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". His efforts to reduce social exclusion focused on education and of fair chances, not the imposition of equal outcomes. Blair's rhetoric fully chimed with the values of most C2DE voters.

Blair's policy platform made intuitive sense to voters across the political spectrum partly because those policies played to the centre ground, but mainly because Blair and his team were astoundingly effective at communication. They were always two steps ahead of the media and the opposition, they knew how to anticipate attacks and pre-emptively neuter them, they knew how to present individual policies as part of an optimistic vision for the country.

We don't necessarily need or want a return to Blairism, whatever that means, but we do need a leader with Blair's aptitude.
>> No. 89082 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 3:45 pm
89082 spacer
>>89081

There hasn't been a prime minister that was not supported by the Murdoch press for decades. You are dramatically underestimating the influence of media -- many of the attacks on Corbyn were specifically designed so that they had no rebuttal, or option to "fight back", or even distract.

The reason is that there are is no comparable left wing network of media outlets for this in the UK. Since the death of The Daily Herald, our most leftwing paper has been the Guardian. The Guardian was an active participant in the attack on Corbyn. Here's a partial selection of the columns from 2015 to 2017, the moment he began to look like a viable candidate, and how unswerving this editorial line is despite his mandate as leader: https://theguardian.fivefilters.org/

This isn't even touching on the bias shown in the BBC political coverage.
>> No. 89083 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 4:05 pm
89083 spacer
>>89078

If that's true, then it should be easy to put forward a counterargument.
>> No. 89084 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 4:10 pm
89084 spacer
>>89082

>There hasn't been a prime minister that was not supported by the Murdoch press for decades.

Murdoch is a very powerful man, but he is not more powerful than the government. He is not a kingmaker, but he is an important ally and a formidable enemy. Murdoch will always want to back the winner and any savvy political operator will want his backing. Corbyn didn't want the support of Murdoch, which is a symptom of his utter ineptitude as a party leader and the utter moral depravity that causes him to prioritise his own image over the possibility of delivering real political change.


>> No. 89085 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 4:30 pm
89085 spacer

The-Sun-If-Kinnock-wins-t-001.jpg
890858908589085
>>89084

Agreed that Murdoch is powerful but not a "kingmaker". What I'm arguing is that there's a systemic bias against certain points of view that spans across the whole media. I also point to the Guardian and BBC, which are not Murdoch owned, but fell precisely in the same line regarding Corbyn. The Murdoch press is a particularly extreme example of the much larger problem of concentration of power in communications and the structure of corporate media more generally.

Corbyn did not seek the support of the Murdoch press because their political positions are mutually incompatible. This brings us back to the point I was making: that media set a very obvious boundary on the spectrum of acceptable opinions.

You can illustrate this pretty well by looking at similar policitians that have fallen out of favour with the press. It happened to "Red" Ed Milliband, it happened to Neil Kinnock, and I strongly suspect it will happen to any politician that presents views that are not in line with the media. It is not possible to engage with a press that is fundamentally opposed to your political platform. The only alternative would be to have a left-wing press, but that was deliberately dismantled in the 1960s, despite high readership numbers.
>> No. 89086 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 4:42 pm
89086 spacer
Eugenics are back on the table, we're fucked no matter what. It's only a matter of time before some right-wing tech billionaire buys up all the media that disagrees with the Tories and then even the current bias will look like even handed treatment.
>> No. 89087 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 5:07 pm
89087 spacer
>>89086
>Eugenics are back on the table

What are you referring to with this?
>> No. 89088 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 5:19 pm
89088 spacer
If Corbyn was ever such an unbelievably incompetent and dishonest piss-artist, how would his fan club ever tell? Anyone who reported on him even-handedly would be complicit in the conspiracy for ignoring his many, many flaws.
>> No. 89089 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 5:21 pm
89089 spacer
>>89087
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/17/no-10-refuses-to-comment-on-pms-views-of-racial-iq

And Ricky Foreskins going on about how "we mustn't do it but it works". It'll be raised on Question Time before long and the gormless British Asian Tory minister they'll have on that week will declare that we "it's a topic for discussion and we can't be dictated to by Cultural-Marxists", even as the Morris dancers lower the noose over his head.
>> No. 89090 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 5:21 pm
89090 spacer
>>89087
Maybe this?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/17/no-10-refuses-to-comment-on-pms-views-of-racial-iq
>> No. 89091 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 5:22 pm
89091 spacer
>>89085

Assuming you're right, what are you proposing that we actually do? I think I've been fairly clear that the press are always going to be hostile, therefore the Labour party need to choose a leader who is highly skilled in the dark arts. Are you arguing "the press are biased, therefore Corbyn couldn't win the election, so we should just shrug our shoulders"?

>>89087

The press are just engaging in a bit of manufactured outrage by quoting people out of context.
>> No. 89092 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 5:27 pm
89092 spacer
>>89090

Boris Johnson’s spokesman has refused to say whether the prime minister thinks that a verifiable fact is true.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00094.x
>> No. 89093 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 5:39 pm
89093 spacer
>>89092
I don't know to what degree it's a fact (and I won't be reading 34 pages of text to find out), but assuming it is, I'd regard their refusal to answer as progress. Usually people who entertain these ideas get fired.
>> No. 89094 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 5:50 pm
89094 spacer
>>89092>>89093
See. Fucked.
>> No. 89095 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 5:54 pm
89095 spacer
>>89093

>Usually people who entertain these ideas get fired.

Fired for entertaining a verifiable fact?
>> No. 89096 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 6:32 pm
89096 spacer
>>89091

Brian ate my post twice because my phone auto-connected to a dirty foreign WiFi signal.

Basically: not against reform, would be happy to see moderate left-wing Labour leader get in, but I'm more concerned with the bigger picture: the line for the left has been receding for years because of things happening inside and outside parliament. Power has been consolidated. I still vote, but dedicate as much of my time and money as I can outside that to force important but neglected issues into public view, e.g. Stop the War Coalition, Campaign Against the Arms Trade, Extinction Rebellion, and the Media Reform Coalition.

On that note, the BBC has right or wrongly represented a kind of journalistic impartiality that all media benefits from. Without that there's likely to be a simultaneous push from private power to change the economic structure (maybe cut funding further) versus a more democratic reform like the one outlined here: https://www.mediareform.org.uk/blog/democratise-the-bbc
>> No. 89097 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 6:36 pm
89097 spacer
>>89095

What is the verifiable fact that you're referring to, and how does to relate to Johnson's comments? Because I am almost certain that paper does not show what you think it shows.
>> No. 89098 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 6:56 pm
89098 spacer
>>89097

Did you read the paper?
>> No. 89099 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 7:00 pm
89099 spacer
>>89098

Post one that's not behind a paywall or on that portal the NHS gets for free so I can read it at work or forever hold your peace.

You don't have an argument if we have to fork out our credit card details to contradict you.
>> No. 89100 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 7:19 pm
89100 spacer
>>89099
If you don't know how to effortlessly pirate scientific papers, don't pretend you're in the habit of reading them. He gave you the DOI; what more do you want?
>> No. 89101 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 7:23 pm
89101 spacer
>>89100

I read at least one a year for CPD lad. Don't expect me to put any more effort in than that to refute something that is fairly obviously going to be turn out to be bollocks.
>> No. 89102 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 7:53 pm
89102 spacer
>>89101

It's probably not bollocks, but concluding that certain races have a lower average iq will always be a cultural issue over a genetic one, and thus does bear commenting on by the prime minister.
>> No. 89103 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 8:19 pm
89103 spacer
>>89101

https://sci-hub.tw/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00094.x
>> No. 89104 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 8:21 pm
89104 spacer
>>89077
>Corbyn was delegitimised from the moment he was elected Labour leader
Here we go again with this tedious bollocks.
>> No. 89105 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 8:24 pm
89105 spacer
Right, enough of this bollocks. It's been discussed to death.

How goes the TV debate?
>> No. 89106 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 8:30 pm
89106 spacer
>>89105

Didn't watch it, Starmer is obviously going to win.
>> No. 89107 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 10:49 pm
89107 spacer
>>89095
And just like that, he's gone.
>> No. 89108 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 10:53 pm
89108 spacer
Eugenics adviser has quit now, so I don't have to read that paper after all.

Have I ever told you all the story about how you can staggeringly easily get normal every day people to express support for eugenics by asking them an open question about restrictions on reproduction, and just not telling them it's called eugenics, by the way? Most people seem perfectly willing to accept that there are some people who shouldn't be allowed to breed, it just varies who they think that is.

Let's talk instead about how, hilariously, the Labour party is having to suspend Jewish MPs for anti-semitism. At this rate I think it would be the best bet to just suspend every Jew, in case they make Labour look any more anti-semitic than it already does.
>> No. 89109 Anonymous
17th February 2020
Monday 10:56 pm
89109 spacer
>>89108
>Eugenics adviser has quit now, so I don't have to read that paper after all.

Shame. I was ready for a cunt-off over his point on compulsory vaccinations setting dangerous precedent.
>> No. 89110 Anonymous
18th February 2020
Tuesday 12:39 am
89110 spacer
>>89108

>Have I ever told you all the story about how you can staggeringly easily get normal every day people to express support for eugenics by asking them an open question about restrictions on reproduction, and just not telling them it's called eugenics, by the way? Most people seem perfectly willing to accept that there are some people who shouldn't be allowed to breed, it just varies who they think that is.

a) There's a difference between actions and words, these people might happily join in bad mouthing certain groups of society but stop short of actually supporting a group such as the government or concerned citizens using force to sterilise people.
b) If normal every day people are in favour of eugenics until you name it perhaps the lesson here isn't about eugenics itself, perhaps the lesson is that normal every day people are brainwashed in to feeling guilt, shame or disgust about certain ideas to prevent those ideas being discussed.
c) Maybe you should stop talking to your mates about eugenics, they're probably rapidly reaching the conclusion that you're a bit weird.
>> No. 89111 Anonymous
18th February 2020
Tuesday 6:13 am
89111 spacer
>>89108

We already practice eugenics en masse, we just don't call it that. Pregnant women are routinely offered pre-natal diagnosis of genetic foetal abnormalities and are routinely offered an abortion if those tests are positive. Pre-implantation genetic screening is a routine part of IVF treatment. The NHS knowingly removes thousands of sub-normal foetuses from the gene pool, but it's so mundane that only evangelical Christian mentaloids think it's worthy of serious discussion.

As a society, we have fully accepted the ethics of aborting a foetus because it's a mong or picking the best of a dozen frozen embryos. From there, it's not much of a leap to CRISPRing the fuck out of your gametes to have an überbaby.

An open and honest debate about the implications of these technologies isn't mandatory, but we'd be ignoring a ticking time-bomb. We can ban it, but there's a certain type of hyper-competitive mum who'd think nothing of flying off to China to get their kids CRISPRed at a rogue clinic if it improved their chances of getting into Oxbridge. You can buy everything you need to genetically modify your own kids on Amazon; it can't be too long until people are sharing tutorials on Facebook and swapping DNA sequences on Mumsnet.
>> No. 89112 Anonymous
18th February 2020
Tuesday 6:35 am
89112 spacer
>>89111
And they won't have to get those awful poisonous child-killing autism-causing vaccines, because they can have that immunity designed in from birth.
>> No. 89113 Anonymous
18th February 2020
Tuesday 7:26 am
89113 spacer
>>89111
The rate of abortion of foetuses with Down Syndrome is about 98% in countries such as Denmark and Iceland. I'm sure it was in the news a little while back that one of the Nordic nations went an entire year without a single baby with Down's being born. I suppose that's the flip side of running a socialist utopia.
>> No. 89114 Anonymous
18th February 2020
Tuesday 7:58 am
89114 spacer
>>89098

Yes, but I don't know what your "verifiable fact" is that you're using the paper to support. It's up to you to say clearly what your position is, and then use the paper to support it. I'm doubtful the paper really does this in your case, because I think you're trying to use it to suggest some innate difference in cognitive ability between races. The paper is about work performance and educational outcomes, not biology so the sheer number of confounders should be obvious.

>>89104

If it's just tedious bollocks, then you should be able to easily argue against what I'm saying,
>> No. 89115 Anonymous
18th February 2020
Tuesday 10:19 am
89115 spacer
>>89114

The verifiable fact was "black people are, on average, less intelligent than white people". The linked paper is a meta-analysis of 105 studies that involved cognitive ability tests with a total of 6,246,729 participants. The analysis found a mean difference of about 1SD (~15 IQ points) between black and white participants.
>> No. 89116 Anonymous
18th February 2020
Tuesday 10:33 am
89116 spacer
>>89115
Oh for gods sake. A "verifiable fact" involving an IQ measurement - you're too thick for words.
>> No. 89117 Anonymous
18th February 2020
Tuesday 10:34 am
89117 spacer
>>89111
>there's a certain type of hyper-competitive mum who'd think nothing of flying off to China to get their kids CRISPRed at a rogue clinic if it improved their chances of getting into Oxbridge. You can buy everything you need to genetically modify your own kids on Amazon; it can't be too long until people are sharing tutorials on Facebook and swapping DNA sequences on Mumsnet.
It's all a bit ship of Theseus, at what point is your kid so modified it may as well not be your kid?
>> No. 89118 Anonymous
18th February 2020
Tuesday 12:56 pm
89118 spacer
>>89116

The paper didn't look at IQ tests, it looked at a wide range cognitive aptitude tests such as the ASVAB that correlate strongly with Spearman's g. If you're going to call me too thick for words, at least skim-read the fucking paper. I posted a sci-hub link, you've got no bloody excuse.

Also, IQ is a valid statistical measure.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1e5e/d3c712d4b5ee0461de4c21b19bf956644d85.pdf
>> No. 89119 Anonymous
18th February 2020
Tuesday 2:37 pm
89119 spacer
>>89110

>c) Maybe you should stop talking to your mates about eugenics, they're probably rapidly reaching the conclusion that you're a bit weird.

Nah, being the guy who starts wierd and incredibly inappropriate debates in the workplace is my unique selling point. Everyone agrees that I liven the place up. Besides I work in a lab so we're all already wierd.
>> No. 89120 Anonymous
18th February 2020
Tuesday 5:26 pm
89120 spacer
>>89119

If you work in a lab it's likely that your colleagues are intelligent people, which makes it all the more worrying not only that they don't identify your gotcha description of eugenics before you pull the gotcha, but especially that they shy away from eugenics when you name it. You would think they would be a bit resistant to the brainwashing.
>> No. 89121 Anonymous
18th February 2020
Tuesday 5:30 pm
89121 spacer
>>89114
>If it's just tedious bollocks, then you should be able to easily argue against what I'm saying,
We can. It's just that you never fucking listen. That's what makes it tedious.
>> No. 89122 Anonymous
18th February 2020
Tuesday 6:17 pm
89122 spacer
>>89120

>If you work in a lab it's likely that your colleagues are intelligent people

You would have thought so wouldn't you. In reality it's not necessarily the case.

About half of them I'd say are more intelligent than your average office plankton. The rest of them are shining examples of how higher education doesn't magically imbue you with the gift of critical thinking. These people might have "scientist" or "technician" in their job title, but they still go home and mong out in front of Love Island.

Honestly pisses me off that you need a degree to do some of the higher level work too, because some of our best staff are from "the old days" where you didn't need one, it's really a very hands on job that's well suited to vocational learning. We waste a lot of potential seeing people leave when they realise the only route to progression is another five years of exams and coursework in their time off.

That's really the problem with this country overall though isn't it. We don't reward keen people for being smart and enthusiastic, we reward dull people for sticking it out until they get a bit of paper.

Out of the ones who are intelligent, the ones who knew the game I was playing were really rather unapologetic about their support for eugenics.
>> No. 89123 Anonymous
18th February 2020
Tuesday 6:22 pm
89123 spacer
>>89122

Well now I'm curious about which groups within this society our intelligent sciency friends would happily neuter with a pair of pliers.
>> No. 89125 Anonymous
18th February 2020
Tuesday 6:52 pm
89125 spacer
The people who talk about eugenics are also the people least likely to breed, so I think we're okay here; it's like mini natural selection.
>> No. 89126 Anonymous
18th February 2020
Tuesday 6:54 pm
89126 spacer
>>89123
Just let us know the colour of pencil you'd need to draw them.
>> No. 89127 Anonymous
18th February 2020
Tuesday 7:03 pm
89127 spacer
>>89123

I don't want to neuter anyone with pliers, I just think we should make tracksuit bottoms slightly radioactive.
>> No. 89128 Anonymous
18th February 2020
Tuesday 7:06 pm
89128 spacer

EQw_YA-XUAItnu1.jpg
891288912889128
Roughly 57% of CLPs (87 out of 153) which nominated Corbyn in 2015 have nominated Starmer this time around. Only a third (51) nominated Wrong-Daily.
>> No. 89129 Anonymous
18th February 2020
Tuesday 7:08 pm
89129 spacer
>>89127

>I don't want to neuter anyone with pliers

You must be a right laugh at parties.
>> No. 89130 Anonymous
18th February 2020
Tuesday 7:23 pm
89130 spacer
>>89123

Mostly they seemed to see it as a case of people either being fit or unfit to raise kids, and that we should restrict it only to people who have proven themselves worthy not to raise a delinquent. I suspect they had sensed where I was going with it, and taken care not to endorse a blanket discrimination against people of a particular class, except one lad who named the occupants of a local estate.

For full disclosure I'm one of the lads who supports the idea of human population reduction, so I'm not entirely unsympathetic. I largely start conversations like this and then play devil's advocate regardless what view people present, in order to provoke some of their latent reflective ability.
>> No. 89131 Anonymous
18th February 2020
Tuesday 8:17 pm
89131 spacer
>>89129

I've told you before Michael, I don't want to come to your pool party, awrite?
>> No. 89133 Anonymous
18th February 2020
Tuesday 11:14 pm
89133 spacer
>>89131
Come on lad, you know you want to - I'm just trying to help your career.

Don't you want a table leg up in this business?
>> No. 89134 Anonymous
19th February 2020
Wednesday 4:51 am
89134 spacer
>>89121

Then you can easily link to one of the old posts.

I've put in some effort to bring in evidence and interesting points from a variety of sources on this. I find this decidedly more worthwhile than complaining when someone else expresses their opinion. Maybe time to reconsider what "tedious" means?
>> No. 89135 Anonymous
19th February 2020
Wednesday 5:07 am
89135 spacer
>>89130

I suspect eugenics aimed at rich people would be the way to go, to free up some wealth.
>> No. 89136 Anonymous
19th February 2020
Wednesday 7:11 pm
89136 spacer
>>89135
Would only work its way back up again. Poor people are shit with money, that's why they're poor.
>> No. 89137 Anonymous
19th February 2020
Wednesday 8:04 pm
89137 spacer
>>89136
That's fine. Shake things up a bit and give everyone a fair crack at the whip. Everything in society is cyclical anyway.
>> No. 89138 Anonymous
19th February 2020
Wednesday 11:54 pm
89138 spacer

useless.png
891388913889138
>>89135
>>89136
>>89137
Make tellies give off sterilising radiation. The bigger the telly, the higher the dose.
>> No. 89139 Anonymous
20th February 2020
Thursday 12:39 pm
89139 spacer
>>89138

That would empty all council houses in UK in a generation
>> No. 89140 Anonymous
20th February 2020
Thursday 1:16 pm
89140 spacer
>>89138

I'd rather make quinoa and copies of The Guardian give moderate levels of mercury poisoning, although I suspect they already do.
>> No. 89141 Anonymous
20th February 2020
Thursday 2:09 pm
89141 spacer
If you want people you disagree with dead, at least have the bollocks to violently threaten them with maniacal schemes and demented abuse, you pack of fannies.
>> No. 89142 Anonymous
21st February 2020
Friday 8:14 am
89142 spacer
>>89141

I do not want them dead, I want them childless. The couple of filthy chavs living in the flat next to me had eight children, all taken away by the Social Services. Maybe it would have been cheaper to offer the chavette a tubal ligature in change for a lifetime supply of cheap cider. It’s like the starting scene of Idiocracy
>> No. 89199 Anonymous
27th February 2020
Thursday 7:32 am
89199 spacer

ERt6FQDWsAAC9Eh.png
891998919989199
Starmer in the first round.
>> No. 89218 Anonymous
27th February 2020
Thursday 5:23 pm
89218 spacer
>>89199
Not much of a surprise since she's the spiritual successor to Corbz, the Momentum Mandemz all jumped on board after Ed lost.
>> No. 89299 Anonymous
9th March 2020
Monday 3:08 am
89299 spacer
Labour suspends race pioneer Trevor Phillips over Islamophobia claims

Trevor Phillips, the former head of Britain’s equalities watchdog, has been suspended from the Labour Party over allegations of Islamophobia, The Times can disclose.

A pioneering anti-dolphin rape campaigner, Mr Phillips, 66, now faces expulsion from the party for alleged prejudice against Muslims. He first alerted Britain to the problem of Islamophobia in the 1990s but is now being investigated for public statements that include expressing concerns about laplanderstani Muslim men sexually abusing children in northern towns such as Rotherham.

Comments by Mr Phillips about the failure by some Muslims to wear poppies for Remembrance Sunday and the sympathy shown by a substantial proportion in an opinion poll towards the “motives” of the Charlie-Hebdo killers also form part of the complaint.

Many of his statements date back years but Jennie Formby, Labour’s general secretary, suspended Mr Phillips as a matter of “urgency to protect the party’s reputation”, he was told. He has not been given the identity of any complainant. The suspension pending investigation means he cannot attend party meetings or run for office.

Mr Phillips was the inaugural chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is investigating Labour for alleged antisemitism. He was among a number of anti-racists who wrote to The Guardian last year and said that they were refusing to vote Labour at the general election in solidarity with Jews.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-suspends-race-pioneer-trevor-phillips-over-islamophobia-claims-m7qzzqz8d

So what accounts for this extraordinary turn of events? Some will see it as payback by Corbynistas for public criticisms I made of the leadership’s failure to tackle antisemitism in the party. Another possibility is that it’s an attempt to scare the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which I used to lead and which is investigating Labour’s handling of antisemitism. Weaponising Islamophobia to attack political opponents may seem like clever tactics but trying to intimidate a legally independent organisation is pure political gangsterism. Perhaps someone in Labour HQ has been reading up on the Inquisition’s methods; in 1578, one official defined its purpose thus: “That others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trevor-phillips-how-i-fell-victim-to-labours-inquisition-9gg9qjk8f

Corbyn's inner sanctum seem to be doing all they can to put the public off Labour whilst they desperately cling on to what power they have left.
>> No. 89300 Anonymous
9th March 2020
Monday 7:48 am
89300 spacer

Screenshot_20200309_074750_com.android.chrome.jpg
893008930089300
>>89299
The kind of adverts you get on the Mail Online comments on their article about it.
>> No. 89301 Anonymous
9th March 2020
Monday 10:52 am
89301 spacer
>>89300

You realise these adverts are targeted, don't you?
>> No. 89302 Anonymous
9th March 2020
Monday 11:26 am
89302 spacer
>>89300

Those adverts are targeted on your browsing history / words picked up on your phone secretly listening to what you say in the background.
>> No. 89303 Anonymous
9th March 2020
Monday 12:01 pm
89303 spacer
>>89301>>89302
All I've recently looked at is barbell bars, weights and table legs. I've genuinely no idea where the penis mask could have come from.
>> No. 89305 Anonymous
9th March 2020
Monday 5:01 pm
89305 spacer
>>89303
Why do you think it would be limited to your recent searches? The whole point of tracking you all across the web and knowing everything about you (and all the people who are just like you) is that they can offer things that you didn't know that you want. Like a great big cock, or some kind of fuckdoll.
>> No. 89307 Anonymous
9th March 2020
Monday 5:45 pm
89307 spacer
>>89301
>>89302
>>89303
>>89305

I think you're all giving Wish and its marketing algorythm a bit much credit. They're basically the Trotters Independent Traders of dodgy online Chinese tat, so I'm skeptical about how much they utilise tracking cookies and the like.

I mean it's never once shoved a buttplug with a tail on in my Facebook feed, when I know they sell them, and if it knew anything about me at all it should be reccommending what they have to offer.
>> No. 89308 Anonymous
9th March 2020
Monday 6:52 pm
89308 spacer
>>89307

Maybe the algorithm knows you're a butt plug tail connoisseur and wouldn't sully anyone's sphincter with cheap Chinese tat.
>> No. 89309 Anonymous
9th March 2020
Monday 9:39 pm
89309 spacer
>>89307

The wish adverts I get are mostly on point and in line with my fetishes, but I also believe they deliberately show weird or provocative items to get people to go "what the fuck is that" and click.
>> No. 89310 Anonymous
9th March 2020
Monday 9:53 pm
89310 spacer

c2gcasjbqmyovojvbeid.jpg
893108931089310
Weirdly I keep getting wish adverts for a load of random tools and gadgets, and then THIS thing.

>but I also believe they deliberately show weird or provocative items to get people to go "what the fuck is that" and click.
It probably sort of confirms this idea
>> No. 89311 Anonymous
9th March 2020
Monday 10:29 pm
89311 spacer
>>89310

I sort of want it. Book myself a holiday to Tenerife and spend all day in the pool in full goth garb, bobbing about on whatever the fuck that thing is.
>> No. 89313 Anonymous
10th March 2020
Tuesday 9:10 am
89313 spacer
>>89311 You just know that it'll turn up late, be about 5cm long and smell funny.
>> No. 89322 Anonymous
10th March 2020
Tuesday 6:44 pm
89322 spacer
>>89313

Have you been reading my tinder bio?
>> No. 89323 Anonymous
10th March 2020
Tuesday 6:52 pm
89323 spacer
>>89322
You're in luck.

Dating site for men with small willies launches and members MUST be under 5.5ins to apply

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11135125/dating-site-small-willies-5-5-inches/
>> No. 89326 Anonymous
11th March 2020
Wednesday 11:47 am
89326 spacer
>>89323

Who on earth signs up for this, male or female? And how do they screen it? I'm 6.5" but could probably pass any photo test with the right amount of chub.
>> No. 89327 Anonymous
11th March 2020
Wednesday 12:15 pm
89327 spacer
>>89326
>The site says: “There are women who prefer a smaller penis for comfort and there are women who enjoy the smaller man as they tend to compensate with additional foreplay.”

>A 36-year-old user said: “When you’re a smaller man dating is very complicated. Imagine when a relationship fails — she’s likely to mention my size to her friends and then gossip spreads! You become paranoid. It’s therefore far better to date online when everyone knows in advance.”

>A 28-year-old user said: “I find sex painful with a man bigger than four inches.”

>However, according to NHS figures, most men in the UK will be eligible to join the site - as the average size for an erect penis here is 5.1 inches.
>> No. 89330 Anonymous
11th March 2020
Wednesday 5:01 pm
89330 spacer
>>89327
>as the average size for an erect penis here is 5.1 inches.
This small-dick propaganda is really starting to take hold, huh? How small do you think they can push the numbers?
>> No. 89331 Anonymous
11th March 2020
Wednesday 5:50 pm
89331 spacer
>>89330

Wouldn't be complaining about this one lad. All it does is make those of use generously afforded by evolution with an extra inch that much better off.

I actually wouldn't mind at all if this was some fisherperson's idea of doing their bit to get rid of the harmful body image stereotypes that affect men, like they're always trying to do for women; but at the same time I know in my heart of hearts that feminism is a fundamentally self-interested ideology for rich white women with only the most atomically thin veneer of genuine social justice over the top.
>> No. 89337 Anonymous
11th March 2020
Wednesday 9:27 pm
89337 spacer
>>89323
>small willies
>BBC News

Mirth.
>> No. 89338 Anonymous
11th March 2020
Wednesday 9:43 pm
89338 spacer
If a woman signs up to that site they should be made to state the depth of their vagina. It's only fair.
>> No. 89339 Anonymous
11th March 2020
Wednesday 9:49 pm
89339 spacer
>>89338

I've never been worried about depth but when you feel a bird clench her muff around your knob for purchase you realise that you probably didn't measure up to her job spec and should have just shoved your fist up there.
>> No. 89342 Anonymous
12th March 2020
Thursday 12:07 am
89342 spacer
I don't know where lads with a chode stand. Sure you might be 'more comfortable' with a four incher but what if it's as wide as a coke can?
>> No. 89350 Anonymous
12th March 2020
Thursday 11:48 am
89350 spacer
I'm envisioning a dating site where everyone submits an accurate 3D scan of their genitals (or any appendage / orifice they want to deploy) and see who's a good fit.
>> No. 89351 Anonymous
12th March 2020
Thursday 12:50 pm
89351 spacer
>>89339

The girthier you are the easier it is to feel them tensing up, considering most lassies have a fairly weak level of control around that muscle.

Years of anxiety have given my girlfriend a pelvic floor muscle like a fucking hydraulic press. She can get off just by tensing with my knob lodged at the right angle. It's really rather arousing.
>> No. 89353 Anonymous
12th March 2020
Thursday 7:02 pm
89353 spacer
>>89351
> The girthier you are the easier it is to feel them tensing up, considering most lassies have a fairly weak level of control around that muscle.

While I think that's true for involuntary contractions related to arousal and orgasm, this one bit I shagged last year really did intentionally clench as hard as she could. Then again when I fingered her I almost went in up to the elbow so it was a bit like throwing a sausage down a hallway. A bit weird because she was a bit of a chubster and that's usually a sign that they'll be on the tight side fanny wise.

In retrospect I should have kept her around for a bit because I bet she takes it up the chocolate bon bon factory like a champ.
>> No. 89355 Anonymous
12th March 2020
Thursday 7:06 pm
89355 spacer
>>89353
>A bit weird because she was a bit of a chubster and that's usually a sign that they'll be on the tight side fanny wise.

That's not my experience of the more cuddlier lady. That's not my experience, at all.
>> No. 89358 Anonymous
12th March 2020
Thursday 7:28 pm
89358 spacer
>>89355

True that. I knew one chonky salad dodger and hers was like a welly top. In my experience it's the skinny petite ones. I had a dancer gf who was just over 5 foot and slim, tighter than a Scotsman. Must have been all that muscle toning and core work stuff.
>> No. 89359 Anonymous
12th March 2020
Thursday 7:35 pm
89359 spacer
>>89358

Ironically the most comically oversized vaginal canal I've ever known belonged to a girl who had a body so tight and toned you could bounce coins off her. Funnily enough, externally she looked almost like a barbie doll but once you got inside it felt you could have played patty-cake in there and had room left over. It's a funny old world.
>> No. 89360 Anonymous
12th March 2020
Thursday 9:02 pm
89360 spacer
>>89355

It's all about pelvic floor tightness, and nothing else. One bigger girl I shagged for a while had the most wonderfully tight petit cunt I've ever felt. By contrast my last ex, who was on the chubbier side when I got with her, utterly bucketed out after five minutes of shagging. Her fanny had no staying power, and the issue only seemed to get worse as she lost weight.

There's that myth a lot of women love to peddle about how a fanny doesn't ge looser the more you use it, or after having kids; birds love to insist it somehow self-repairs and goes all tight again. What they don't want to admit is that, while a vagina can re-tighten after a thorough battering, it absolutely does not do so without effort on the owner's part. A bird who regularly rides a cock like one of those giant monster cans is going to need to do her kegels or she will end up like the channel tunnel.

And that's my professional medical opinion. Suck it, bitter saggy-fanny-lasses.
>> No. 89361 Anonymous
12th March 2020
Thursday 9:06 pm
89361 spacer
Confession: I quite like a baggy fanny. You can really give it a proper hammering.
>> No. 89363 Anonymous
12th March 2020
Thursday 9:52 pm
89363 spacer
>>89361

Why choose? Find yourself a lass with fanny like a boa constrictor who doesn't mind it getting bashed about like Deontay Wilder.
>> No. 89364 Anonymous
13th March 2020
Friday 6:56 am
89364 spacer
>>89363
And we're back to the unusually specific dating sites, unless that's an appropriate opening question where you come from.
>> No. 89365 Anonymous
13th March 2020
Friday 7:06 am
89365 spacer
>>89364
It is by definition an opening question.
>> No. 89366 Anonymous
13th March 2020
Friday 7:28 am
89366 spacer
Is this like when the press go into silly season? Nothing is happening in the leadership contest so we're on about Big Vag.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-vs8fwgwk0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfYbxNdnc-o
>> No. 89367 Anonymous
13th March 2020
Friday 3:37 pm
89367 spacer
>>89364

My current strategy is fuck anyone who'll let me and try to get the good ones to hang around. Adding "swipe left if you've got a baggy fanny and don't take it up the arse" to my tinder profile might be an idea, though.
>> No. 89368 Anonymous
13th March 2020
Friday 6:04 pm
89368 spacer
>>89367

>and don't take it up the arse

Curious. Why?

Tinder seems to have been dead to me for a long while, I think I've just edged out of the age range where it's useful over the last couple of years. 2015-2016ish I was getting pretty regular gash on it.

How do I find a side bitch in these trying times lads? My missus doesn't mind.
>> No. 89377 Anonymous
20th March 2020
Friday 10:49 am
89377 spacer
>>89050
>The Blairite Manoeuvre wasn't ideologically led, which is why it was electorally effective; rather than starting from an ideological position and trying to move towards the electorate, it started with the electorate and moved towards an ideological position.
This isn't really true. Blairism is an ideology unto itself, not some ideologically neutral compromise with the electorate. Blair himself has been refreshingly honest about that: Even if the electorate would elect Labour on a Corbynite manifesto, he wouldn't want them to do so because he thinks those policies are wrong for Britain. You can see that when he was in power: when presented with a beneficial crisis like the collapse of Railtrack, they wouldn't sop to public opinion and the left by renationalising the trains as well as the tracks. (A somewhat pointless move that would, nonetheless, have made a lot of people happy and given Blair a legacy that even the Labour left would have to defend in part.)
There are centre-left parties that have successfully cleansed themselves of serious ideological conviction, but UK Labour was never one of them. It's a shame, because present times are uniquely well suited to an ideologically empty Labour party to drag itself to electoral victory - look to New Zealand for precedent.
>> No. 89378 Anonymous
20th March 2020
Friday 10:50 am
89378 spacer
>>89377
Yeah, but what's the Blairite and Corbynite stances on big fannies?
>> No. 89379 Anonymous
20th March 2020
Friday 10:51 am
89379 spacer
>>89378
Blairites are big on privates, but Corbynites only care if they're made public.
>> No. 89380 Anonymous
20th March 2020
Friday 12:54 pm
89380 spacer
>>89377

>It's a shame, because present times are uniquely well suited to an ideologically empty Labour party to drag itself to electoral victory

That's the thing though isn't it. For anyone who's even remotely genuine about socialist politics, an "ideologically empty" Labour party may as well not exist, in the most literal sense. It may be electable but what is the purpose of power without any aim or principle?

Puts me in mind of O'Brien in 1984. "Power is not a means, it is an end. The purpose of power, is power."
>> No. 89381 Anonymous
20th March 2020
Friday 12:59 pm
89381 spacer
>>89379
That settles it. I'm with Tonty Blair if it means Diane Abbott's clopper stays out of public hands.
>> No. 89382 Anonymous
3rd April 2020
Friday 3:43 pm
89382 spacer
>Keir Starmer’s plans to transform the Labour party will be dictated by the scale of his anticipated victory on Saturday, key supporters have said, as senior Jeremy Corbyn supporters expressed concerns they could be purged from key positions.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/apr/03/keir-starmer-poised-to-be-announced-new-labour-leader

The ironing is delicious.
>> No. 89383 Anonymous
3rd April 2020
Friday 4:56 pm
89383 spacer
>>89382
But they didn't purge anyone, everyone just kept whinging about the threat of being purged forever and ever.
>> No. 89384 Anonymous
3rd April 2020
Friday 6:59 pm
89384 spacer
>>89383
We're not purging you, you paranoid neoliberal Blairite filth, it's called dee-sell-eck-shun.
>> No. 89385 Anonymous
3rd April 2020
Friday 8:03 pm
89385 spacer
>>89384
Oh, aye, remember all them deselections? Loads of 'em, all over the shop, could hardly move for deselections for a while there, remember? Mad that was.
>> No. 89386 Anonymous
3rd April 2020
Friday 9:10 pm
89386 spacer
>>89385

My favourite part was when a bunch of the most devoutly centrist MPs purged themselves. Didn't even have to lift a finger.

Whatever happened to that lot?
>> No. 89388 Anonymous
3rd April 2020
Friday 10:35 pm
89388 spacer
At least Diane Abbot will be off the front bench, and hopefully onto something more her speed, like reading stories in her plodding drawl on kids TV.

Every time I heard her speak it was one trite observation or bland platitude after another. I'm as red as they come, but never once did she say something that genuinely resonated with me. Never once did I hear her raise an issue or idea in an interview's back-and-forth that displayed the faintest touch of original thought on her part. Her stupefying, repetitious drone would function as a potent medical soporific, were it not for the fact that the things she was saying jabbed and taunted the mind with their witless inanity.

Goodbye, and good fucking riddance.
>> No. 89389 Anonymous
4th April 2020
Saturday 1:45 pm
89389 spacer
Not that anyone gives a shit, but Starmer's won with 56.2% of the vote.
>> No. 89390 Anonymous
4th April 2020
Saturday 2:02 pm
89390 spacer
>>89388

What is it with female Labour MPs having the demanour more of a shit primary school teacher than of politicians? You don't see it in conservative women, or any Yank politicos.

I know it's a lefty party so they're keen to give chances out to people who wouldn't normally get them; but talent isn't a form of discrimination. You need people in the houses of parliament who know what the fuck they're on about.
>> No. 89391 Anonymous
4th April 2020
Saturday 2:19 pm
89391 spacer
>>89390

Women don't really believe in progressive politics or socialism unless they're thick or ugly enough to have to.
>> No. 89392 Anonymous
4th April 2020
Saturday 2:42 pm
89392 spacer

19265706-7534853-image-m-7_1570126082431.jpg
893928939289392
>>89390
>You don't see it in conservative women

Let's not to be too hasty and deal in absolutes here.

I think it largely stems from the fact that the Labour route into politics without having worked a proper™ job in your life, i.e. being a union rep or having a council non-job, doesn't have a high bar to entry or demand much in the way of critical thinking skills.
>> No. 89393 Anonymous
4th April 2020
Saturday 3:08 pm
89393 spacer
>>89391
The fact that most true blue female Tory voters are in their 70s or 80s and likely suffer dementia rather undermines your point, mate. Maybe that's your thing though, not judging you like.
>> No. 89394 Anonymous
4th April 2020
Saturday 3:21 pm
89394 spacer
>>89389
What an utterly dull contest for a party on the ropes. Do you reckon we'll ever get to see the other candidates pre-recorded victory speeches?
>> No. 89395 Anonymous
4th April 2020
Saturday 3:24 pm
89395 spacer
>>89393

If elderly women with dementia can vote for the right party, I'm sure you can too.
>> No. 89396 Anonymous
4th April 2020
Saturday 3:27 pm
89396 spacer

president-camacho-idiocracy.jpg
893968939689396
>>89394
It's politics, it's not supposed to be exciting.
>> No. 89397 Anonymous
4th April 2020
Saturday 3:57 pm
89397 spacer
>>89395
Yes, I must apologise about that. I closed one eye, aimed, and took my best shot at putting the X mark next to whichever corpulent corporatist the tories had dredged up this time, but I missed, and the mark accidentally went to whoever had the best chance of keeping the Tories out.

It happens every time, it's really quite unlikely.
>> No. 89398 Anonymous
4th April 2020
Saturday 4:01 pm
89398 spacer
>>89394
It was a forgone conclusion. Corbyn and his cronies had ages to line up a successor but their rank incompetency meant they ended up with the human potato that is Rebecca Long-Bailey. Nandy impressed but was too much of an unknown before the contest began and all anyone else could offer was "Starmer should stand aside so a woman can have a turn because reasons.
>> No. 89399 Anonymous
4th April 2020
Saturday 5:23 pm
89399 spacer
>>89390

>I know it's a lefty party so they're keen to give chances out to people who wouldn't normally get them; but talent isn't a form of discrimination. You need people in the houses of parliament who know what the fuck they're on about.

That's the problem in a nutshell. Labour has, for many years, selected candidates on the basis of loyalty rather than competence. They aren't interviewing people for a job, they're handing out rewards to grass-roots activists. If you're a local councillor in Oldham, the possibility of a £70k/yr job and a flat in London is a very tempting carrot. Labour might not have big corporate donors, but they do have a lot of dim but motivated foot-soldiers putting the hours in.

The Tories have the inverse problem - the kind of people they would like to have as candidates can earn far more money in the private sector, without the risk of getting booed on Question Time. They end up with the likes of Chloe Smith filling their back benches, people who couldn't quite cut it as a management consultant or an investment banker.
>> No. 89400 Anonymous
4th April 2020
Saturday 9:18 pm
89400 spacer
>>89399

Question really is what can be done to fix it. Labour and Conservatives do both have a few good eggs but you have to wonder what shady past they're hiding to have ended up where they are instead of making more money elsewhere. Or maybe they're principled passion politicians like Corbyn.

I'm cautiously optimistic about Starmer, and of Labour gets its shit together once the dust has settled, the corona crisis will have been everything they could have prayed for. Who cam argue against the old NHS warcry after all this? Who will be able to argue against better welfare when they're all out of a job in the depression? But they'll probably still manage to fuck it up.
>> No. 89401 Anonymous
4th April 2020
Saturday 9:28 pm
89401 spacer
Starmer looks like he's wearing someone else's skin over his own face.
>> No. 89402 Anonymous
4th April 2020
Saturday 11:55 pm
89402 spacer
>>89400

The obvious solution is to double the number of constituencies and therefore MPs, and make it a voluntary, part time role. Maybe 16 hours a week or less.

Then you'd fuck up the gerrymandering and only end up with nerds and politik wonks who are actually interested in it.

I can't see a downside.
>> No. 89403 Anonymous
5th April 2020
Sunday 12:01 am
89403 spacer
Whoa, Labour Leader? I thought I was voting for Prom King? I only chose him because he was the guy who wasn’t fat, God damn it.
>> No. 89404 Anonymous
5th April 2020
Sunday 12:17 pm
89404 spacer
>>89402
You've pretty much described local councillors.
>> No. 89405 Anonymous
5th April 2020
Sunday 3:08 pm
89405 spacer
>>89402 >>89404
There's the occupational hazard of always dealing with local crackpots turning up to meetings and forming local "pressure groups," which are just weekly meetings of up to 2 hours where someone mentions Trotsky and a fishwife type gets irate about bins and fluoridated water. This sort of thing happens pretty frequently at local council level, where the head of the council is always put across as some merciless warlord by said pressure groups.

MPs probably have it just as bad as these same sorts of people end up sending hundreds of emails that a staffer just ends up deleting anyway.

I think potential volunteers really ought to be aware of these pitfalls before throwing their names into the hat for any position in government or governmental administration, were it to come to pass.
>> No. 89406 Anonymous
5th April 2020
Sunday 4:01 pm
89406 spacer
>>89405
You call it a hazard but ignoring crackpots sounds like a highlight of the job.
>> No. 89407 Anonymous
5th April 2020
Sunday 4:04 pm
89407 spacer
>>89405
I've met quite a few Trots and none of them have ever actually mentioned Trotsky in my presence
>> No. 89408 Anonymous
5th April 2020
Sunday 4:06 pm
89408 spacer
>>89405


>> No. 89409 Anonymous
5th April 2020
Sunday 7:41 pm
89409 spacer
>Emily Thornberry, previously shadow foreign secretary, will stay in the shadow cabinet in a new position to be announced on Monday.

Ffs.
>> No. 89410 Anonymous
5th April 2020
Sunday 8:18 pm
89410 spacer
>>89409
I've heard Lammy is lined up for a plum role.
>> No. 89411 Anonymous
5th April 2020
Sunday 8:48 pm
89411 spacer
>>89409

>Emily Thornberry

MILF.
>> No. 89412 Anonymous
5th April 2020
Sunday 9:34 pm
89412 spacer
>>89411
you utter deviant.
>> No. 89413 Anonymous
5th April 2020
Sunday 9:38 pm
89413 spacer
>>89411
You've gone too far this time, PoliticalShaggerLad*.

*Not to be confused with Lembit Opik.
>> No. 89414 Anonymous
5th April 2020
Sunday 10:55 pm
89414 spacer
>>89412 >>89413

By the end of lockdown, you'll be ready to fuck Ann Widdecombe. The only thing falling faster than the FTSE 100 is our standards.
>> No. 89434 Anonymous
6th April 2020
Monday 1:36 am
89434 spacer
>>89414
Give it another month after we get to Anne Widdecombe and maybe someone will want to shag me.
>> No. 89435 Anonymous
6th April 2020
Monday 1:45 am
89435 spacer
>>89414
Young Ann Widdecombe has a sexy Martha Argerich vibe about her. Isn't she still a virgin before god or something? It doesn't rule out ritual and being shielded by Baphomet's grace and her being thumbed through like the Xmas Radio Times, candles snuffed to avoid human witness.
>> No. 89444 Anonymous
6th April 2020
Monday 5:21 pm
89444 spacer
>>89398
>Corbyn and his cronies had ages to line up a successor but their rank incompetency meant they ended up with the human potato that is Rebecca Long-Bailey.
There's not really anyone from any faction in the Labour party who's up to the task in fairness. If they couldn't dig up a future prime minister under Blair/Brown/Miliband, there was little reason to suspect the talent vacuum would end under Corbyn.
Honestly, I wish mandatory re-selection had become policy for this reason - some incumbent MPs would be booted out and hopefully sheer random chance would eventually deliver Labour a future prime minister. Sure, it's sad that some excellent social workers of last resort with ten years of parliamentary experience under their belts and who're remarkably nice people if you ever meet them in person event would lose their jobs due to the votes of weirdos who joined for 50p on the Thursday before the vote, but it seems like a risk worth taking.
Maybe I'm wrong though. Maybe Starmer is a premier in waiting, a prime minister of the dull Clement Attlee sort who nobody really took too seriously before the big national crisis. It would certainly justify my decision to have voted for him.
>> No. 89445 Anonymous
8th April 2020
Wednesday 2:38 pm
89445 spacer
Sir Blair Starmer? No thanks. Cancelled my subs this week, going to post them my cut-up membership card and a letter telling them exactly what they can do with it.
>> No. 89446 Anonymous
8th April 2020
Wednesday 5:36 pm
89446 spacer
>>89445
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
>> No. 89447 Anonymous
8th April 2020
Wednesday 5:43 pm
89447 spacer
>>89445
People like you leaving Labour is a positive sign that it is heading towards electability again.
>> No. 89448 Anonymous
8th April 2020
Wednesday 6:16 pm
89448 spacer
>>89409
How is Emily Thornberry still in politics, I understand Islington South is as safe as a chav in a box but where does her political capital come from? Who wakes up in the morning and thinks "yeah, I'm gonna work on the Thornberry campaign"?

>>89445
>going to post them my cut-up membership card and a letter telling them exactly what they can do with it.

n1 m8 dem interns wont no wot hit em!
>> No. 89449 Anonymous
8th April 2020
Wednesday 6:34 pm
89449 spacer

85687237_Mandatory_Credit_Photo_by_Ben_Cawthra-REX.jpg
894498944989449
>>89448

>How is Emily Thornberry still in politics

Spectacular gob jobs.
>> No. 89454 Anonymous
8th April 2020
Wednesday 11:34 pm
89454 spacer
>>89446>>89447>>89448
It's so obviously bait, lads. I expect better of you lot.
>> No. 89459 Anonymous
9th April 2020
Thursday 9:48 am
89459 spacer
I, for one, do not even own a Labour Party membership card.
>> No. 89470 Anonymous
12th April 2020
Sunday 8:06 pm
89470 spacer

EVa870vXgAAR_9-.jpg
894708947089470
Turns out some people in Labour were out to sabotage Corbyn after all.
Though from the way they speak (in another section they're damning about the cabinet during a period where it was mainly filled with non-Corbynites), I get the impression they were probably sabotaging Miliband too if they had their jobs back then. If you read the parts of the report that are floating around out there, it gives the impression these people are on the "Anyone left of Blair is a Trotskyite" side of Labour party lunacy.
>> No. 89471 Anonymous
12th April 2020
Sunday 8:46 pm
89471 spacer
>>89470
The left will always eat itself. Lefties tend to Save their strongest vitriol for those who are also on the left but to a different extent; those towards the centre hate those further left and those towards the far-left hate those further right.

I don't see the point in trying to unearth a secret hidden plot to sabotage Corbyn when that was clearly evident from the mass shadow cabinet resignations and the vote of no confidence from his fellow MPs.
>> No. 89472 Anonymous
12th April 2020
Sunday 9:02 pm
89472 spacer
>>89471

For this reason I propose moving the boundary of the left, further left, so that the centrists are by definition no longer left. That way it won't be in-fighting.

In all seriousness though I don't think it's true that this was down to the usual leftier than thou infighting. It was down to the groups in question being a bunch of utterly bent careerists. These were people who thought it was their destiny to inherit Blair's government on a plate and spend the rest of their days taking fat bribes from lobbying groups to sell the country down the river. No longer being on the gravy train has pissed straight in their frosties.

Both parties are infested with that type of politician, these ones just happened to be in the Red Team.
>> No. 89473 Anonymous
12th April 2020
Sunday 9:03 pm
89473 spacer

EVae601WkAcCwBQ.jpg
894738947389473
>>89471
The MPs for the most part took the defensible position that Corbyn had to go because he couldn't win an election and rallied around him a bit when he almost did. In this case, the story is that people hired and paid by the Labour party as internal staffers actively worked to frustrate the aims of the Labour party, took joy in it failing and despaired at the prospect of it doing well.
Ultimately MPs are employed by the public and are more than entitled to act against the interest of their party in the public interest - staffers hired by parties for internal work have no such excuse because their employer is the party.

In factional terms: This is interesting because the vote of confidence and resignations were all the non-Corbyn factions coming together to try and get rid of Corbyn, whereas this is more that one small faction hates all the other factions, even if they're not Corbynites. It'll have to wait until the full .pdf is leaked, but there's a page that hints that these people were also allocating resources towards seats in a factional manner. (And not just in an anti-Corbynite way.)
>> No. 89474 Anonymous
13th April 2020
Monday 1:18 am
89474 spacer
This is why the right-wingers spent half a decade shrieking and howling that Corbyn was going to rain fire and brimstone down on them, because they were already doing it to him from day one. They were undermining party processes, they were backstabbing and wrecking internally and eventually they split and formed a new party, every hysterical charge they laid on the doorstep of the party left were things they were already guilty of themselves. What's the use in trying to accomodate these people within Labour? They hate Labour. They like politics, but when comes down to actual policies they aren't arsed one bit, not if they've applied an irrational football derby like hatred to half their own party. And what irks me most of all is that they aren't even any fucking good at it. Every call they made to try to strengthen their own hand during Corbyn's tenure as leader only sabotaged the party and left them wheel spinning in no man's land, forcing Corbyn to kick more and more of them to the backbenches. It would be one thing if they were political Terminators, conquering polls and turning the opposition to dust, but they aren't even close. These childish, self-indulgent, incompetents should be wrung out of the party first thing Tuesday, or better yet tear-gassed out of Labour HQ sometime in late 2015.

I just want to make this country better for its people, but these scoundrels fill my mind with bile and ill-feeling. I wish they would all just die.
>> No. 89475 Anonymous
13th April 2020
Monday 1:25 am
89475 spacer

EVcIaeOWoAAW2TT.jpg
894758947589475
Everything is falling apart and splintering.
>> No. 89476 Anonymous
13th April 2020
Monday 2:04 am
89476 spacer
>>89475
>Everything is falling apart and splintering.

Is that not the default state of humanity?
>> No. 89477 Anonymous
13th April 2020
Monday 2:50 am
89477 spacer
A Labour Party Reddit has a link to the document:

https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/g00t02/the_work_of_the_labour_partys_governance_and/

This is really depressing reading. I didn't know the wrecking crew were so petty and quite frankly disgusting people. All while they were supposed to be pivotal in fighting anti-Semitism, they choked the mechanism and actively used the scandal to fight their little factional war - everyone else be fucked. They literally spoke like bitchy teenagers over WhatsApp and did sweet fuck all I paid for via subs.
I feel really quite betrayed by this, I knew things were bad, but not this bad.
>> No. 89478 Anonymous
13th April 2020
Monday 3:53 am
89478 spacer
>>89473

"All my employees are incompetent saboteurs" says shit boss. If Labour HQ really was a shitshow, that's not a defence of Corbyn, it's a condemnation.
>> No. 89479 Anonymous
13th April 2020
Monday 5:43 am
89479 spacer
>>89478
>"All my employees are incompetent saboteurs" says shit boss.
Spot on. Either it's wrong, in which case you're a shit boss, or it's right but you haven't done anything about it, in which case you're still a shit boss.

There's also the further case of not realising your employees are incompetent saboteurs, in which case you're also a shit boss.

TL;DR: None of this is a good look for Corbyn.
>> No. 89480 Anonymous
13th April 2020
Monday 7:17 am
89480 spacer

staff views on labour policies.png
894808948089480
>>89478
>>89479
In his defence, he was damned if he did and he was damned if he didn't. If he tried to move against them he'd be condemned for a factional purge of (supposedly) neutral party workers. Since he didn't move against them, he was constantly hobbled by a very much not-neutral party machine who wanted him to fail. Yeah, a more hardline stance could probably have cleared out party HQ - but it could also have lead to a split that would make the SDP look like Change UK by inadvertently putting the fear of god into MPs.
So the whole thing just winds up being a case study in total organisational failure, which is fitting for the Labour party. I still suspect (based on sections like this) that they probably didn't play an impartial role in the Milliband era either. Hopefully people will dig into that and not just focus on the Corbyn bits. I want to know how far this goes. God, imagine if some of them were undermining Brown?
>> No. 89481 Anonymous
13th April 2020
Monday 9:04 am
89481 spacer
>>89474
>What's the use in trying to accomodate these people within Labour? They hate Labour. They like politics, but when comes down to actual policies they aren't arsed one bit

If my experience of local elections is anything to go by almost everyone who stands for Labour doesn't really give a shit about the party but knows that wearing a red rosette is just about the only chance they've got of getting elected in the area.
>> No. 89482 Anonymous
13th April 2020
Monday 11:01 am
89482 spacer
Are we still talking about the report on antisemitism that wasn't submitted to the ECHR investigation because it contradicted the testimony of actual complainants?
>> No. 89483 Anonymous
13th April 2020
Monday 1:20 pm
89483 spacer
>>89480

Blair inherited a very large number of crusty Old Labour types, including Corbyn. He brought them to heel and won three massive majorities, because he was a competent leader. That's the point being made in >>89478 and >>89479 - dealing with ideological rifts and people just being obstinate arseholes is a basic job requirement for a party leader or any kind of leader.
>> No. 89484 Anonymous
13th April 2020
Monday 1:30 pm
89484 spacer
>>89483

It's a disingenuous take though. The crusty old Labour types were willing to co-operate (i.e show solidarity) with the yuppy new labour types for the greater good of the party winning.

These lot were utterly unwilling to compromise with anything that isn't themselves (or the Tories).
>> No. 89485 Anonymous
13th April 2020
Monday 2:03 pm
89485 spacer
>>89484

Corbynistas are rather proud of the fact that Jeremy Corbyn was the most rebellious MP in modern history. The old left fought Blair all the way, they were just comprehensively outclassed.


>> No. 89486 Anonymous
13th April 2020
Monday 2:24 pm
89486 spacer
I'm reminded that years back there was someone on here who would call anyone and everyone who wanted anything short of Corbyn's head on a pike a "trot" and they're the only person outside of these reports I've seen with the kind of disdain for these imagined "trots". I think it speaks to a very odd individual who never got over the '80s and '90s era of the party, but only because a girl they were chatting up copped off with an Neo-Anarcho-Communard after a party meeting back then. It's the childishness of it all I can't get over. I remember watching a documentary about how Parliament works a few years ago and thinking it felt uncannily like school, with all the different authority figures and the running from one room to another while still trying to sit near your mates at the end of it all. However, what I didn't realise is that most of the people involved in politics never grew up at all and aren't even arrogant enough to see themselves as an echo of some great historical figure, but instead see the world through the paradigm of townies versus moshers, only extrapolated out into new subcultures, both real and imagined.

It's like I'm peering into hell and all I feel is disappointment.

>>89485
But we aren't talking about MPs, we are talking about people behind the scenes, people who refused to impliment anti-racist measures within the party because they were looking to hasten the demise of Corbyn because they had a personal dislike of the man. It's not quite on the same moral footing as opposing the Iraq War or the creeping privatisation of the NHS.
>> No. 89487 Anonymous
13th April 2020
Monday 2:29 pm
89487 spacer
>>89486
>I'm reminded that years back there was someone on here who would call anyone and everyone who wanted anything short of Corbyn's head on a pike a "trot" and they're the only person outside of these reports I've seen with the kind of disdain for these imagined "trots". I think it speaks to a very odd individual who never got over the '80s and '90s era of the party, but only because a girl they were chatting up copped off with an Neo-Anarcho-Communard after a party meeting back then.

...
>> No. 89488 Anonymous
13th April 2020
Monday 2:35 pm
89488 spacer
>>89483
>Blair inherited a very large number of crusty Old Labour types
Most of them were on the membership. The actual number of left wing MPs was always small and the NEC + Party staff was at-worst dominated by the centre left.
Why make things up? Why pretend you have any knowledge of the tedious internal workings of the Labour party in the 1990s, the balance of factions, the policy positions of the party staff, etc? I'm curious - genuinely - can you even explain the factional makeup of the Labour party in the 1990s in any more detail than "Old Labour versus New Labour"?, as though the old Keynesian right and Bennites were the same thing.

You could assemble a perfectly good case that people actually wanted Blair as party leader - he decisively won his leadership contest, getting more than 50% of all the relevant groups. Corbyn's primary support was the party membership, he was opposed by MPs and the party hierarchy. You can put together a (broadly) valid case that Labour made a mistake by moving to a primary system by failing to appropriately represent the relevant stakeholders. You'd be stuck with defending the fact the wrong Milliband won, but you'd be in a much better position than trying to equivocate a leader that the majority of the party wanted to work with at every level (60.5% of MPs and MEPs voted for him!) is some way comparable to one who had people getting on their knees and begging just to scrape 20 nominations.
>> No. 89489 Anonymous
13th April 2020
Monday 2:56 pm
89489 spacer
>>89486
>I remember watching a documentary about how Parliament works a few years ago and thinking it felt uncannily like school, with all the different authority figures and the running from one room to another while still trying to sit near your mates at the end of it all.

You could have gleaned that from five minutes of watching PMQs. It's all a jolly jape.

To play devil's advocate i.e. be a cunt if you knew the party had elected a leader so toxic that they'd lead to a massive Tory landslide wouldn't you do everything in your power to oust them? The election result and us all getting Bozzed kind of vindicates their position; it isn't their fault that Corbyn got annihilated.
>> No. 89490 Anonymous
13th April 2020
Monday 3:12 pm
89490 spacer
>>89489
That argument might make sense if the 2017 election hadn't happened. All their catastrophising came to naught, and while Corbyn obviously didn't win the suggestions he was antithetical to electoral success and that Owen sodding Smith would have done any better clearly didn't hold water after that.

>>89487
Yeah, I thought so.
>> No. 89491 Anonymous
13th April 2020
Monday 3:35 pm
89491 spacer
>>89490
>Yeah, I thought so.

I've read some proper wrong'un things on this site but fantasies of copping off with Cherie Blair while Tony watches is a bit much.

>>89490
>the suggestions he was antithetical to electoral success and that Owen sodding Smith would have done any better clearly didn't hold water after that.

Dunno, it seems to me like Labour did well in 2017 in-spite of Corbyn. May went after ARE Pauline's house while the Lib Dems wanted to ban gayness, I reckon even Brown could've won that election and we'd all be better off as he was the last competent Labour leader.
>> No. 89492 Anonymous
13th April 2020
Monday 3:39 pm
89492 spacer
>>89490
>That argument might make sense if the 2017 election hadn't happened.
Would that be the election where he was running against a wet paper bag and still couldn't get into Number 10?
>> No. 89493 Anonymous
13th April 2020
Monday 3:43 pm
89493 spacer
>>89491
Britain cries out for a world where Brown called an election in 2008 and MPs rallied behind him rather than giving confidential briefings that he was mad and publicly plotting against him. ( https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/6949060/Gordon-Brown-coup-plot-hits-Labours-poll-standing.html )
>> No. 89494 Anonymous
13th April 2020
Monday 9:22 pm
89494 spacer
The Graun have used that picture of Are Jess in an article today. I had to do a double take to make sure I wasn't still here.

https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2020/apr/13/the-karen-meme-is-everywhere-and-it-has-become-mired-in-sexism
>> No. 89495 Anonymous
13th April 2020
Monday 9:31 pm
89495 spacer
>>89494
>a feminine, curvaceous zero.
Eight is feminine and curvaceous, zero's just a circle.
>> No. 89496 Anonymous
13th April 2020
Monday 9:33 pm
89496 spacer
>>89494
Hadley Freeman is such a tedious white trans-exclusionary fisherperson. She's offended by Karen because it describes her.
>> No. 89497 Anonymous
13th April 2020
Monday 9:34 pm
89497 spacer
>>89496
>trans-exclusionary fisherperson
I was just reading it and thinking about the fact that a very anti-terf (cisgender) female acquaintance of mine is hugely into the whole Karen meme at the moment.
>> No. 89498 Anonymous
13th April 2020
Monday 10:01 pm
89498 spacer
>>89497
The only times I've seen the Karen meme posted has been by women. It's a bit like when Ruby was on Great British Bake Off and there was a big furore in certain circles about all of the so-called misogynistic abuse online but every single person I know who slagged her off was female.
>> No. 89499 Anonymous
13th April 2020
Monday 10:31 pm
89499 spacer
>>89494
>Yes, there are memes about Chad and Zach, but these have never gained the popularity of ones about Becky, Susan or Tammy, let alone Karen.
I hate when people get away with writing lines like this. Chad is much more notable. Someone should've checked it.
(God, what a stupid point of discussion. Can you believe we've actually set up a society where serious news publications talk about memes, and then I feel upset because they've got it wrong? Forget a Plague, we need an asteroid.)
> No one wants to be a Karen, amirite?
great, now my face is going to be locked in a pained cringe all day.
>> No. 89500 Anonymous
13th April 2020
Monday 10:55 pm
89500 spacer
>>89499
>I hate when people get away with writing lines like this. Chad is much more notable. Someone should've checked it.

That's not true though. Chad was never as mainstream as Karen now is. In chronic masturbator and chronic masturbator-adjacent places (reddit, imageboards etc) yes but there is an awareness of the Karen meme outside of those very specific and fringe places.
>> No. 89501 Anonymous
13th April 2020
Monday 11:18 pm
89501 spacer
>>89499
>God, what a stupid point of discussion. Can you believe we've actually set up a society where serious news publications talk about memes, and then I feel upset because they've got it wrong? Forget a Plague, we need an asteroid.

I got hung up by the thought of how miserable it must be to write this bollocks for a living. It's not even an office where your colleagues make it worthwhile or you have job security.

>>89500
>there is an awareness of the Karen meme outside of those very specific and fringe places.

Not him but I find this very doubtful.
>> No. 89502 Anonymous
13th April 2020
Monday 11:25 pm
89502 spacer
>>89501

>Not him but I find this very doubtful.

My normie facebook friends do Karen memes all the time. It's particularly pervasive in service industries for obvious reasons.

I do see non-4chin people talk about Chad too, but not nearly as much.

This is all anecdotal, but if Buzzfeed is talking about Karens you can pretty much be sure it's mainstream.
>> No. 89503 Anonymous
14th April 2020
Tuesday 1:51 am
89503 spacer
>>89496
>>89497
>>89498

The whole fad of trying to claim Karen was a crypto-fisherist slur was so short lived even the hyper-snowflakes on Reddit got bored of it after about a week.

It's absolutely accurate to say that the only people who got behind it were, indeed, Karens.
>> No. 89504 Anonymous
14th April 2020
Tuesday 2:46 am
89504 spacer
What the fuck are you lot talking about? I look away for five minutes and you're all "Reddit said this" and "I was on Facebook earlier". Have some decorum.
>> No. 89505 Anonymous
14th April 2020
Tuesday 3:25 pm
89505 spacer
>>89504

Even in lockdown you lot can't be arsed to post more than once every three hours. I've got to get interaction somewhere.

I thought covid was going to save this place.
>> No. 89506 Anonymous
14th April 2020
Tuesday 3:51 pm
89506 spacer
>>89504
>>89505
Thanks, Karen!
>> No. 89507 Anonymous
15th April 2020
Wednesday 1:05 am
89507 spacer
>>89502
Yeah this is what I was getting at. Cheers for explaining it better than I could be bothered to.

>>89504
If its any consolation I knew it had gone mainstream when my mum asked me about it over a rickety old landline phone-call.
>> No. 89508 Anonymous
15th April 2020
Wednesday 11:17 am
89508 spacer
>>89507
I for one don't even own a mum.
>> No. 89574 Anonymous
24th April 2020
Friday 1:19 pm
89574 spacer
I knew it wouldn't take long, but now I keep seeing posts about how Starmer threw out the case against Jimmy saville and then got a knighthood for it.
>> No. 89575 Anonymous
24th April 2020
Friday 1:21 pm
89575 spacer
Why has Jimmy saville been wordfiltered to Jimmy saville? That's not even how you spell his surname.

I'm on about the actual serial carpet-bagger rather than Are Nige. Is serial carpet-bagger even a term?
>> No. 89576 Anonymous
24th April 2020
Friday 1:34 pm
89576 spacer
>>89575

>That's not even how you spell his surname.

Exactly. There was a lad who would get annoyed and correct people every time they spelled it wrong, so I thought it would be funny to do that. I don't think anyone noticed, I must have done it a long time ago.
>> No. 89577 Anonymous
25th April 2020
Saturday 4:30 am
89577 spacer
She's ugly...
>> No. 89641 Anonymous
2nd May 2020
Saturday 8:32 am
89641 spacer

EWK5-laXYAIBa0v.jpg
896418964189641
>>89494

https://twitter.com/EmillySwaven/status/1251964304150183936
>> No. 89642 Anonymous
2nd May 2020
Saturday 10:21 am
89642 spacer
>>89641

I'm pretty sure this is a guerilla marketing campaign for something, which is so 2020 it makes me want to mutilate my own genitals. On Zoom. While hosting a quiz.
>> No. 89643 Anonymous
2nd May 2020
Saturday 10:30 am
89643 spacer
>>89641
Maybe its just lockdown madness but this honestly made me laugh until I cried.
>> No. 89644 Anonymous
2nd May 2020
Saturday 10:33 am
89644 spacer

EWJVacaWkAMfg_E.jpg
896448964489644
>>89642
Yeah I think it's a false flag. It plays into the textbook alt-right recruitment tactic of "look how ridiculous the left are".
>> No. 89645 Anonymous
2nd May 2020
Saturday 10:44 am
89645 spacer

9532506.png
896458964589645
>>89644

You can tell yourself that if you want, but as a paid up, balls deep, card carrying lefty, I can tell you the alt right isn't making clever caricatures. This level of mental genuinely exists these days.

As we've discussed before, it's primarily a Yank thing, and a product of the way for them, liberalism takes the place traditionally held by socialism in our political spectrum. Their liberals are getting more and more socially radical, because they refuse to explore the possibility of economic change.

You'd like to hope it's not seeping into British politics, but sadly I think Yank culture has far wider reach than we give it credit it for.
>> No. 89646 Anonymous
2nd May 2020
Saturday 10:47 am
89646 spacer
>>89645

>card carrying lefty

I thought you tore that up and posted it back to them?
>> No. 89647 Anonymous
2nd May 2020
Saturday 10:51 am
89647 spacer
>>89646

I use my lefty card for racking up massive lines of ketamine.

I'd use my gay card, but it's all soggy with spunk and lube.
>> No. 89648 Anonymous
2nd May 2020
Saturday 10:51 am
89648 spacer
>>89645
If you think that "Karen is the same as the n-word" one is real then you are so fucking thick I don't know what to tell you. It's not even plausible that "the left" think that. Do a lot of white women secretly feel that way? Hell yes. But it's more of a Tomi Lahren kind of thing than anything even 1% close to the left.
>> No. 89649 Anonymous
2nd May 2020
Saturday 10:52 am
89649 spacer
>>89648
In fact I literally googled the bitch after I posted this and look at the first result:

https://thegrio.com/2020/04/29/fox-news-tomi-lahren-quarantine-slavery/
>> No. 89650 Anonymous
2nd May 2020
Saturday 11:04 am
89650 spacer

EWGmCiAXgAMnO68.jpg
896508965089650
>>89645
The Twitter account is about two weeks old and some of the tweets have #Trump2020 on them.

They're clearly made up. The fact they're indistinguishable from the bollocks that fruitcakes tend to come out with, they're stupid but plausible, is why they're effective.
>> No. 89651 Anonymous
2nd May 2020
Saturday 11:29 am
89651 spacer
>>89650

It's definitely trolling.

https://abolishfascism.com/post/linux-causes-violence/
>>