Gymnasts, athletes, etc. don't govern me, nor do they allow the government free rein to govern me. All I want is an opposition party I can vote for. My standards are set so low that I'd have been content even with an opposition party that will campaign for a position that they said they'd campaign for. Instead, the Labour party campaigns for a position that's the opposite of what they'd promised in the last election, simply because that's the position the leader takes. And all evidence of his incompetence and duplicity is dismissed by his supporters because they have the conclusion that he is their man, and all evidence contrary to that is inadmissible. See Littlegrizzly's assertion in this thread that just because someone has worked with Corbyn for decades, doesn't mean he is an authority on the man's workings. Or another assertion in the dedicated thread that people who've worked with Corbyn are too close to the subject to be free from bias, and thus their accounts are also to be dismissed.
You claimed existence of objective metrics IN ALL SPHERES OF LIFE except politics. I pointed to the fact that subjectivity is much more ubiquitous than you believe.
But as for politics, it is ultimately the voters who decide whether a politician or a party should have the power. If you are not satisfied with any of them, you have only two choices - to abstain (until you find the one you like) or set up your own party and promote it to the top.
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
The British governing system is supposed to operate with a government and an opposition, with the latter holding the former to account. The latter does not exist in any effective form, but the latter's election system ensures that no change will occur, as evidence does not factor into their decisionmaking (see my complaints about post-truth politics and the self-contained circle). Which means a governing party with no restrictions on what they want to do. The checks and balances in British democracy have been institutionally taken away. Hell, even Tories are of the opinion that Britain would be better off with a more effective Labour party, something which never happen due to its current constitution.
As an example of this, past PMs have taken up the slack in arguing the case against a hard Brexit which the government is bent on, something which the official Opposition should have been doing as part of its job. In response, the Labour leadership has criticised Blair for sticking his oar in. There is no effective official Opposition. The Labour leadership is intent only on maintaining its control of its own party. The combination of post-truth politics and Labour's constitution means it will be able to do this without external factors (such as election results, cf. Copeland) being able to affect things.
Check out the Labour leadership and their histories. Diehard Tories are gleeful at Labour's state of affairs, while anyone with any sense of balance despair. There is no effective opposition, and there can be no effective opposition. And Labour's constitution ensures there will be no change.
Last edited by Beskar; 03-09-2017 at 00:05.
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
Beskar, what do you think of your MP's claim that the Copeland result was an "incredible result" for Labour?
Her point is valid in the context that the polls nationally put Conservatives in a significant lead over Labour, so the fact they were only 2000 votes behind, proportionally, wasn't bad. However, the fact Copeland has been Labour owned for so long, even it was rather neck-neck last election, shows that the campaigning was left to be desired considering the clusterduck which has been occurring nationally by the Conservatives.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Last edited by Beskar; 03-09-2017 at 17:41.
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
Just because it was neck and neck in the last election doesn't mean it was irrevocably going to be even more in the Tories' favour in this, even if we ignore the fact that sitting governments very, very rarely take seats from the opposition (the last time was in the 1980s when the SDP split the vote, and other than that was several decades before that). The chief spokesperson for Momentum, James Schneider, campaigned for the Tories against the Labour candidate in his constituency, with the Labour candidate winning by a few hundred votes (closer than Copeland in the last election). This Labour candidate, now the sitting MP, increased his majority in the last election, with Schneider again campaigning for someone else. So just because Copeland was a narrow victory for Labour in 2015 doesn't mean it was an incredible result for Labour to lose by just 2000 votes in 2017. The above constituency was an even narrower victory for Labour in 2010, partly due to the likes of Tory now Momentum James Schneider, but Labour managed to increase their majority in a subsequent election.
Also, what do you think of the assertion from Copeland campaigners that the most frequently mentioned negative that came up was Corbyn?
I'm sorry, but I think she sounds dreadful. If you were holding a door for her which you had already passed through then her refusal to pass the portal is just rude. It's not like you're going ahead of her and holding the door open whilst she passes through it, is it?
Reminds me of a funny conversation I had about the existential crisis this causes for many men with a friend (who is a female lawyer from the US and handles workplace harassment cases) and her response ultimately was "what did you mother teach you?"
Hold the door.
We have a "welfare" officer here but no "Equality" officer. https://www.exeterguild.org/sabbs/ One must note that the current bunch of jokers all appear to be Middle Class men, which is interesting.
Regardless, losing a seat to a sitting party that has been in government for six years and presided over cuts and a chronic deficit is an unmitigated disaster.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
For my usual door-holding habits, I simply hold the door till the next person takes it off me, which they usually do. I never run ahead, open a door, and wait for everyone to pass through as a makeshift doorman or butler. Only time I have held the door is when I am with someone else, and I am waiting for them to leave, but they had to quickly go back for a bag or similar.
It is pretty simple. You walk up to the door, you push it open, you keep your left/right hand upon it for the brief second the person behind you puts their hand on the door, and you let go. This isn't something I discriminate between the sexes other. It is simply to prevent the door slamming back into peoples faces due to fire-door suspension and similar.
I think it was my bewildered look at Cat which made her reply "Alright, I am going through, but I am opening up the next two", but it was one of a few similar experiences I have had at Lancaster University. It might have been a trend going around at the same time?
Hodor?
Last edited by Beskar; 03-09-2017 at 22:47.
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
Labour wants Labour to lose.
https://youtu.be/r1cCgOwMeQs
Last edited by Brenus; 03-10-2017 at 08:15.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire.
"I've been in few famous last stands, lad, and they're butcher shops. That's what Blouse's leading you into, mark my words. What'll you lot do then? We've had a few scuffles, but that's not war. Think you'll be man enough to stand, when the metal meets the meat?"
"You did, sarge", said Polly." You said you were in few last stands."
"Yeah, lad. But I was holding the metal"
Sergeant Major Jackrum 10th Light Foot Infantery Regiment "Inns-and-Out"
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
When reading this, I imagined @Pannonian was writing most of these tweets.
https://twitter.com/i/moments/841985570427478016
The cringe and desperation as Corbyn fails to deliver, again.
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
Faced with backtracking on a budget a week after it was released, May had it so easy, she even took time to remind Corbyn he was supposed to ask questions for her to try and answer. Do Corbyn's supporters still maintain that he is competent for the job of Leader of the Opposition?
On the topic of the Brexit, it looks like the Nexit is not next: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/0...195346496.html
Not a final poll, but I assume we can assume that the final result will not switch their positions or so.The Netherlands' main exit poll suggests Prime Minister Mark Rutte has won the Dutch elections, easily beating anti-Islam firebrand Geert Wilders.
For the two-time Prime Minister Rutte, the poll indicated an economic recovery and his hardline handling of a diplomatic dispute with Turkey over the past week had won him support.
The Ipsos polling company gave Rutte's party 31 of the 150 seats in the lower house of parliament, compared to 19 seats for Wilders' PVV.
Last edited by Husar; 03-16-2017 at 02:49.
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
Wilders was doomed when every other party made a pact against him, still it didnt stop his party gaining 5 seats while the winning VVD lost 8 and Labour crashed and burned by losing 29. Puts him in the position to become leader of the opposition, or the dutch equivalent anyway.
Better hope the VVD can turn things around in it's 3+ party coalition.
Last edited by Greyblades; 03-16-2017 at 10:07.
Why?
Essentially you're saying the government lost 37 seats and the vast majority of those voters did not go to Wilders, who only gained 4 seats of those 37. If we're to believe the article, the idea of Wilders even motivated a lot of people to go and vote against him. The VVD doesn't have to turn anything around as long as Wilders cannot find partners for a coalition or get 50% of the vote himself. Maybe the next government would just include the VVD as a junior partner with a completely different party taking the main stage. That party may prove itself in the upcoming coalition if they can find one.
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
I do not imagine for a second that the people's distaste for wilders will outweight the dismay of the top 3-4 alternatives continuing the political direction that resulted in the gutting of the dutch labour party.
Wilders is where UKIP was in 2015, if his main appeal is not usurped by a more competent party or made irrelevant by a radical change in situation his party will keep growing until he has the majority.
A new referendum is imminent?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-39422747
Can't get it to show... Ignore.
Last edited by Idaho; 03-30-2017 at 15:39.
"The republicans will draft your kids, poison the air and water, take away your social security and burn down black churches if elected." Gawain of Orkney
Bookmarks