- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 2968 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
123 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 90436
Rishi Sunak is going to be Prime Minister next year and it's going to be fucking awesome.
|>>|| No. 91652
I went and played Thief III for a bit, I still don't know what got him so riled up.
|>>|| No. 91654
As opposed to all the vastly constructive conversation that normally happens here? What are you on?
|>>|| No. 91655
>A row has broken out after Boris Johnson’s adviser on the ministerial code resigned in the wake of the prime minister standing by the home secretary, Priti Patel, despite a long-awaited official inquiry finding evidence that she bullied civil servants. Sir Alex Allan’s findings, based on the Cabinet Office investigation, concluded that Patel’s approach “amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying” – noting instances of shouting and swearing – and decided that she had breached the ministerial code, even if unintentionally.
>But Johnson, who is the sole arbiter of the rules, rejected his adviser’s conclusion by deciding that the code had not been breached, prompting Allan’s resignation on Friday.
|>>|| No. 91658
Are we literally on a greasy slope towards Totalitarianism which has all the worst aspects of Hitlerism, or Stalinism with no redeeming qualities?
Are we to destined to be ruled by the failsons of hedge fund managers who make their name writing clickbait articles in online magazines mistake intelligence for knowing the names of rulers from the less admirable epochs of British history?
|>>|| No. 91659
At least we (as in the British public) voted them in. Yay democracy.
|>>|| No. 91660
>Are we literally on a greasy slope towards Totalitarianism
>Are we to destined to be ruled by the failsons of hedge fund managers
Always have been.
|>>|| No. 91661
I've said it several times now; we lost the war in 2016, everything else is just the consolidation of power. After the Soviets pulled off Operation Bagration the Second World War was completely and hopelessly lost for the Germans and their Axis allies. Of course the war didn't end in mid-'44, but it was a foregone conclusion: unconditional surrender. That's what we're waiting for now. We can fight to take climate change seriously, tackle rampant inequality and homelessness and put civil liberties before state power and private business interests, but I can't personally entertain the idea of long-term success on any front any longer. Corbyn was a complete fluke and not an especially effective one. Though it's worth noting he polled alright considering his "radical" policies and "complete dog shit" political abilities, it matters not anymore. Even now they have power, right-wing Labourites attempt to split the party, seeing no hypocrisy in their own drive for political purity, despite spending half-a-decade crying wolf over the very same thing on the left. Even if Starmer, or whoever, does win the next election we'll have meek and shortsighted government that papers over the cracks, the UK's power will be too diminished internationally to influence anything and the rot of neoliberalism will continue more or less unabated around the world. I just think we're living in one of those eras where things go to Hell in a handbasket. Not in an exciting or immediate way, just that we, meaning humanity, have hit a snag. We might garrot ourselves or by 2100 they'll look back and laugh, who can say?
|>>|| No. 91662
You have too much of a short term view. It would have appeared much the same to an old-guard leftie in 1992, with no apparent prospect of ever getting Labour back in. And then look what happened.
If you think we lost in 2016 then you haven't been paying attention for the past two decades.
|>>|| No. 91663
Keir Starmer is going to be the next Prime Minister and it's going to be perfectly satisfactory.
|>>|| No. 91664
It isn't that bad mate. Labour have always been shit, until a messiah comes along. Tories usually hold onto power for some two decades before Labour gets in. Blame the voters.
|>>|| No. 91665
>Blame the voters.
Britain is socially conservative. Labour used to understood this with messages like "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" which Blair actually first made as Shadow Home Secretary in 1992/93 while John Smith was leader. It doesn't mean you have to bring back hanging, you just need to be aware of what the main public concerns are and to appeal to them; the rise in crime in the early 1990s was a major issue and Labour at the time tapped into that.
You need a coherent message to get people on board. Labour seem to have forgotten this in the past 10 years ago and largely taken votes for granted instead.
|>>|| No. 91666
You're not entirely wrong, but this is something you've got to be very careful with. The most fascinating opinion poll data out there is on public attitudes towards the unemployed: All through Thatcherism and for most of the 90s the public took the view that most of the unemployed were probably legitimately out of work. Then Labour started saying that actually people on the dole are dolescum and Labour's going to take away their handouts because that's what the tabloids say so the public must believe it, and after Labour did that public opinion moved sharply against the unemployed in a way that not even the 2008 recession could cure. Any moral qualms aside, this strategy has backfired horribly since the Conservatives will always be seen as tougher on welfare than Labour, but now more of the public believes that the Conservatives are justified in that stance.
|>>|| No. 91667
>but now more of the public believes that the Conservatives are justified in that stance.
You need to update your source material, lad.
|>>|| No. 91668
A shame that all it took to get us to a position still far less sympathetic than that of 1996 was ~8 years of real terms benefit cuts, 3-and-a-bit years of the most left-wing Labour leader since the invention of the internet, the continued botching of the rollout of universal credit, the Conservatives pledging to end the welfare freeze, and a global pandemic.
|>>|| No. 91669
I reckon you're overthinking it.
If Labour are in power - People think benefits are too high.
If the Tories are in power - People think benefits are too low.
|>>|| No. 91670
That doesn't explain anything after 2010 though. The Tories have been in power since 2010, yet public opinion stubbornly remained on the side of "Benefits are too high" until this year. If it just followed who was in power, it would've flipped in 2011 or so.
|>>|| No. 91672
>The Tories have been in power since 2010, yet public opinion stubbornly remained on the side of "Benefits are too high" until this year. If it just followed who was in power, it would've flipped in 2011 or so.
I think it's because post-2010, the Conservatives have been especially relentless in telling the public that our benefits system doesn't encourage enough self reliance. It was certainly part of Cameron's platform, but BoJo's stance isn't fundamentally different.
|>>|| No. 91673
A fair point, but the trend starts in 2016. The first crossover point is around 1997 / 1998 which is on the money for Tony getting in.
Maybe it helps that a lot of the tabloids help do their job for them, but it just seems that the game is tilted in the favour of the right when it comes to massaging public opinion and controlling the narrative.
|>>|| No. 91675
I dunno, I'm inclined to still go by 2016 ladm9. Just looking at the grey line, if you take the average between 2008 and 2016 it's pretty stable at ~53% before taking a dive following that.
|>>|| No. 91677
>Maybe it helps that a lot of the tabloids help do their job for them, but it just seems that the game is tilted in the favour of the right when it comes to massaging public opinion and controlling the narrative.
This makes perfect sense when you consider that tabloids are owned by private corporations.
|>>|| No. 91678
How this man manages to evade the public's disdain is beyond me.
He essentially controls the mainstream media narrative in most of the Anglosphere, and he is a piece of work.
|>>|| No. 91679
If people didn't like what Murdoch had to say they wouldn't buy his newspapers or watch his TV channels.
|>>|| No. 91680
>If people didn't like what Murdoch had to say
But that's just it.
Murdoch isn't just simply some reactionary soap box preacher shoving his world view down your throat. None of the editors or owners of those more or less right-wing tabloids are. They're better than that.
On the contrary, they give the lower middle class public exactly what they want to read. A bit of oversimplified polemic here, the odd bit of rage bait, fake indignation and finger pointing there, and the unwashed masses will be none the wiser, and happy that somebody speaks their language.
People don't want to broaden their horizons. The lower down the social ladder you go and the lower your target audience's education, the more they will just want to read things that confirm the views they already have. That isn't to say that the same doesn't work with posh people and the preconceived views that they like seeing confirmed, but you could argue that the lower classes are much more unaware that that's how those rags get them.
|>>|| No. 91682
This falls for the free market rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. Just because an entitt has held onto a monopoly for long enough and managed to embed itself institutionally in such a way that it's very hard to root out, does not mean that it must be what people want. A company being profitable can be a sign of any number of things beyond just consumer demand -- but you've entirely missed the history of capitalism from the early twentieth century onwards if you think that consumer demand can't be ruthlessly manipulated with generations of relentless marketing and very deliberately squashing competing companies (or any organizations with a different message).
|>>|| No. 91683
I don't see how what I said is irreconcilable with the tenets of ruthless manipulative capitalism.
But in the end, even the most pervasive capitalist marketing ruse will not make eskimoes buy fridges. There has to be a baseline inclination towards your product, however faint and as yet unarticulated. You can then capitalise on that and engender actual demand for your product. Which is where unbridled capitalism then comes into play. But even that will not work if you fail to give people what they want.
You're a bit too far on the dystopian side, lad. People aren't just innocent sheep who have evil capitalism foisted on them until they unquestioningly absorb it and become mental zombies incapable of independent thought. It's a lot more complex than that.
|>>|| No. 91684
>you could argue that the lower classes are much more unaware that that's how those rags get them.
I don't really agree, I think middle class and upper middle class people consume media in the same way but just with trendier aesthetics. Obviously the Guardian is more likely to write serious and verified articles than the Daily Express, but if you're talking about people who read these I don't see a great diversity of viewpoints among its readers.
Like, this article, just as an example and maybe a bit hyperbolic, but this woman's complaint is literally "I didn't like this place because people weren't enough like me and that's not acceptable to me", is the same mindset in a different section of society.
I suppose the difference if you're looking at it this way is that one part of society apparently consumes idiotic trash without question, the other consumes more credible and tasteful media (and trash) without question.
|>>|| No. 91685
I don't think it's fair to assume the baseline demand for The Sun is entirely in its right-wing politics. Of all the reactionary rags that compose the British Press, The Sun had the best ongoing justification for buying it for the longest time: softcore pornography. (Granted, sometimes daringly synthesized with right-wing politics.)
There's also always sports coverage, celebrity coverage, giveaways, etc.
At the same time: The Sun isn't god and political people really ought to stop thinking it is. Their front page in 2007's Scottish Elections compared voting SNP to putting the countries head in a noose, then in 2011 and 2015 they were forced to follow the tides of public opinion and back the SNP just to maintain the illusion of influence. Any subsequent Labour government (or ideally, any Government, but it's more tactically beneficial to Labour) should put less effort into courting the press (by all means, do so in opposition) and more effort into reforming it.
|>>|| No. 91686
Shocker. Not every single person in Oregon is a wide eyed, pot smoking hippie.
|>>|| No. 91687
>I don't think it's fair to assume the baseline demand for The Sun is entirely in its right-wing politics.
Your common garden Daz white van man doesn't buy any paper at all for the polticks. He buys it to find out who won the footy, what's on the telly, who's shagging who and all that stuff.
He gets a side helping of politics he thinks he's ignoring, but he eats it all up nevertheless, like a plateful of peas swimming in gravy on the side of a nice roast.
It's a self-sustaining cycle really. Same reason you like McDonalds and drink coke- It's not because it's the best, it's just completely ubiquitous and you're used to it.
|>>|| No. 91688
I reckon it's because issues of welfare are entirely too complicated to be based on the dole alone and that, obviously, public opinion is a strange beast. I'd hazard the flip in recent history is to do with stories over the system being cruel at the assessment stage which had previously not come about because everyone was still shaking off the memories of the recession.
>How this man manages to evade the public's disdain is beyond me.
Everybody hates Murdoch and it's not even exclusive to Britain. The reality is he's an old fart these days and his main interest has always been making money which is why his networks haven't tried to exercise control on the content of shows like Family Guy.*
The people who really don't get enough notoriety are his rivals such as the Barclay Brothers and Lebedev or if you want to go down a /boo/ rabbit hole the faceless groups who control the news. Plus the internal politics of the news room such the ongoing sectarian conflict between the Mail and Mail on Sunday.
*I say this because Seth MacFarlane was asked about this given his relationship to Fox.
I think the trend among the Middle Class is actually to read the Week these days. I'm not sure how editors pulling the 'best articles' of the week is any less questionable but then it's pretty much what using imageboards involve.
If they read print news at all that is. A couple years back I tried to read the Times but half the bloody thing was bullshit ad flyers/pull out sections.
>Any subsequent Labour government (or ideally, any Government, but it's more tactically beneficial to Labour) should put less effort into courting the press (by all means, do so in opposition) and more effort into reforming it.
Go to bed, Hugh Grant.
|>>|| No. 91689
You just ignored most of my post, there. Media is a great example of an industry that's so monopolised that you can print with an extremely heavy political bias and claim it must be what people want to read. A short glance at the history shows otherwise, though, with the Daily Herald being one of the papers with a very large readership that was essentially crushed by the power of advertising capital.
This isn't dystopian fiction or my jaded worldview, it actually happened, and it regularly happens across industries. There are a several major mechanisms by which you can build a successful business in such a way that treats consumer demand as a peripheral concern (at best).
|>>|| No. 91691
>There are a several major mechanisms by which you can build a successful business in such a way that treats consumer demand as a peripheral concern (at best).
HMG PLC being the most blatant example. Too big to fail, too slippery to jail.
|>>|| No. 91770
They're the Queen's Tax Havens, not yours mate, and I'm sure a way will be found.
|>>|| No. 91771
Huh, so this is what the Viz would look like if it was really, really shit.
|>>|| No. 91773
I used to buy it to run my Viz-fueled Vauxhall. But I had to trade it for something more practical.
|>>|| No. 91774
I've got a Volvo that runs on back issues of 2000 AD, if you're interested. Two careful owners, 80k miles, slight traces of fanny batter on the back seats, £895 OVNO, GSOH, no DSS.
|>>|| No. 91801
This place really is full of utter snobs especially given that least two of us three seem to be unemployed or earn under 50k a year.
I'm just going to sit here happily reading my Viz and Private Eye, drinking my non-craft "piss in a tin" beer and watching re-runs of HIGNFY and other BBC comedy dross on fucking iplayer. Someone has to let the side down, after all.
|>>|| No. 91803
I thought 40k was the cutoff for snobbery? So long as it's a figure greater than your age of course.
|>>|| No. 91804
I vaguely remember there being a study a few years back that stated that £50k family income was the middle class cut-off point. Fuck knows though, really.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]