UK General Election 2017

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A couple of questions.

Q: If you dismiss the quoted article as biased ISIS propaganda, how do you determine a better source to explain their motives?
Q: On what grounds do you dismiss what Haras Rafiq has said?

The first question is a vital one for historians and journalists alike. Remember, no matter how "spun" the first-person source may be, it generally provides an accurate sense of how they WANT to be viewed. That, of itself, does tell you something. Obviously, relying solely on first person sources has its limitations. Caesar's discussion of the culture of Long-haired Gaul was hardly a complete treatment and was written for the Roman middle classes -- his electorate.

[Pannonian]

Montmorency explained my position better than I could have, so thank you mate.

THE reason, probably not. But A reason surely.

"What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.

"The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."

[Husar]

I hope others will stop pointing to foreign policy as the reason why ISIS attacks the west. Or indeed, any reason except that we're different from how they want us to be, and they won't stop until we follow their prescribed way of life.

It doesn't have to be the reason ISIS in particular attacks us. But that still leaves it as a reason for people to join ISIS, for other groups to attack us or for some of the more moderate people to become radicalized or be hesitant in defending us. Just because they mindlessly hate us, we don't have to become their best recruiting argument or even violate our own morals. I'm well aware that there are things we cannot do anything about or where people will blame us irrationally, but if we give up trying to do the right thing, well, especially then we got ourselves to blame, no? And we could make the situation worse than it is.

[Pannonian]

It doesn't have to be the reason ISIS in particular attacks us. But that still leaves it as a reason for people to join ISIS, for other groups to attack us or for some of the more moderate people to become radicalized or be hesitant in defending us. Just because they mindlessly hate us, we don't have to become their best recruiting argument or even violate our own morals. I'm well aware that there are things we cannot do anything about or where people will blame us irrationally, but if we give up trying to do the right thing, well, especially then we got ourselves to blame, no? And we could make the situation worse than it is.

Then I refer you to Haras Rafiq, whose group is dedicated to making things better for Muslims in Britain. Do you have a better idea of how things are for Muslims in Britain, how things go bad, and how things can be made better? If you're so confident about demolishing my sources, what alternative sources do you have?

[Sarmatian]

"What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.

"The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."

I don't need primary sources if empirical data show your hypothesis is, at very least, incomplete.

Why isn't ISIS attacking Serbia? It's closer to them, there are millions of Muslims living either in the country or in the near vicinity of the country, security isn't nearly as good as in western countries... Or other countries in the area - Montenegro, Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania...

There obviously are more factors at play rather than just:
1) not Muslim country
2) proximity
3) how easy it is to carry out an attack

[Sarmatian]

"What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.

"The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."

I don't need primary sources if empirical data show your hypothesis is, at very least, incomplete.

Why isn't ISIS attacking Serbia? It's closer to them, there are millions of Muslims living either in the country or in the near vicinity of the country, security isn't nearly as good as in western countries... Or other countries in the area - Montenegro, Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania...

There obviously are more factors at play rather than just:
1) not Muslim country
2) proximity
3) how easy it is to carry out an attack

[Husar]

Then I refer you to Haras Rafiq, whose group is dedicated to making things better for Muslims in Britain. Do you have a better idea of how things are for Muslims in Britain, how things go bad, and how things can be made better? If you're so confident about demolishing my sources, what alternative sources do you have?

I wasn't demolishing your sources, what Rafiq says is quite interesting.
What I challenged was your conclusion that all muslims should be expelled or all immigration stopped and I asked where Rafiq mentions this as a solution? And just because he does not see your foreign policy as they key factor in radicalization of individuals, that does not mean it was and is perfect.

[Idaho]

I hope others will stop pointing to foreign policy as the reason why ISIS attacks the west. Or indeed, any reason except that we're different from how they want us to be, and they won't stop until we follow their prescribed way of life.

ISIS are a construction of foreign policy. They are the end product of a number of groups funded and armed over the last few decades (principally) by the US and Saudi Arabia.

Seeing them as an organic grassroots movement of ordinary Muslims is laughable. Yes when asked certain questions the average Muslim on the street will give fairly ISIS neutral answers sometimes (cue big daily mail headlines and the right wing rubbing themselves to a foamy conclusion) but ISIS are demonstrably a foreign and extreme ideology. If they weren't then we wouldn't just be seeing the odd lone nutter committing murder.

[Pannonian]

ISIS are a construction of foreign policy. They are the end product of a number of groups funded and armed over the last few decades (principally) by the US and Saudi Arabia.

Seeing them as an organic grassroots movement of ordinary Muslims is laughable. Yes when asked certain questions the average Muslim on the street will give fairly ISIS neutral answers sometimes (cue big daily mail headlines and the right wing rubbing themselves to a foamy conclusion) but ISIS are demonstrably a foreign and extreme ideology. If they weren't then we wouldn't just be seeing the odd lone nutter committing murder.

I refer you to the primary sources. What sources are you deriving your conclusions from?

[Sarmatian]

Why are you fixating on primary sources? Empirical evidence trump (no pun intended) primary sources. They always have.

If a primary source state than 1 000 000 people lived in an ancient city, and archeologists dig up that ancient city and conclude that no more than a 100 000 could have lived there, we naturally conclude that the primary source is wrong.

You're an intelligent man, I'm dumbfounded that you can not grasp this, even taking into account emotional weight of the issue for you.

[Pannonian]

Why are you fixating on primary sources? Empirical evidence trump (no pun intended) primary sources. They always have.

If a primary source state than 1 000 000 people lived in an ancient city, and archeologists dig up that ancient city and conclude that no more than a 100 000 could have lived there, we naturally conclude that the primary source is wrong.

You're an intelligent man, I'm dumbfounded that you can not grasp this, even taking into account emotional weight of the issue for you.

Then what's the empirical evidence of what ISIS is and what they intend to do? In particular, where they relate to us. Rather than a general argument of empirical evidence trumps primary sources, show me where or how empirical evidence trumps primary sources in this particular case.

[Sarmatian]

Then what's the empirical evidence of what ISIS is and what they intend to do? In particular, where they relate to us. Rather than a general argument of empirical evidence trumps primary sources, show me where or how empirical evidence trumps primary sources in this particular case.

Before I answer that, I have to ask you to define "us"? British, Europeans, Christians, non-Muslims...?

[Pannonian]

Before I answer that, I have to ask you to define "us"? British, Europeans, Christians, non-Muslims...?

Britain.

[Sarmatian]

So, the question is how does the agenda of a specific political organization (ISIS) relate to a specific country (UK).

Shouldn't be too hard to answer. Based on available evidence and trends, they want you hurt, bowed, broken, defeated... to a degree that you become irrelevant on the world stage, at least in the area that concerns them.

[Pannonian]

So, the question is how does the agenda of a specific political organization (ISIS) relate to a specific country (UK).

Shouldn't be too hard to answer. Based on available evidence and trends, they want you hurt, bowed, broken, defeated... to a degree that you become irrelevant on the world stage, at least in the area that concerns them.

Hang on. They specifically said that what we do on the world stage is secondary to what we are, which is not them. What do you have to counter the primary source which I'd quoted?

Also, would it be ok to accept the argument you've given, whatever the truth of the matter? That we should have no business in their world?

That's 2 questions. The first relates to evidence. The second is asking for your opinion.

[Idaho]

Why are you fixating on primary sources? Empirical evidence trump (no pun intended) primary sources. They always have.

If a primary source state than 1 000 000 people lived in an ancient city, and archeologists dig up that ancient city and conclude that no more than a 100 000 could have lived there, we naturally conclude that the primary source is wrong.

You're an intelligent man, I'm dumbfounded that you can not grasp this, even taking into account emotional weight of the issue for you.

It's his pattern. He finds one element or piece of evidence that can be bent to fit under his existing canopy of beliefs and then that becomes his default defence - to demand everyone engages with this factual object the same way he does.

[Pannonian]

It's his pattern. He finds one element or piece of evidence that can be bent to fit under his existing canopy of beliefs and then that becomes his default defence - to demand everyone engages with this factual object the same way he does.

Then on what grounds do you dismiss the primary evidence of their intentions?

[Idaho]

Then on what grounds do you dismiss the primary evidence of their intentions?

On the grounds that a manifesto created by, and tailored for disillusioned western born Muslims is window dressing to the primary engines driving isis in the middle east. I suggest you read more about the great gulf that exists between local Arab fighters in isis and "foreign fighters". The same occurred in Afghanistan. The imported radicals have starkly different agendas and cultures to the locals.

A quick dig found this. Probably plenty more recent stuff:

http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2014/09/03/isis-tensions-between-jihadi-fighters

May because they are all the same to you, doesn't mean that are all the same to them.

[Idaho]

Latest reported remarks from Corbyn get my thumbs up:


"London overheats and the cost of living there rises, while communities in to much of the rest of the country have seen their local economies hollowed out, industries decline and stable jobs gone."

He adds that too many people are "trapped in precarious low-paid work while a few at the top get much richer".

The UK must "harness the talents... in every nation and region" and cannot "try to sustain its economy on the back of the growth of the financial sector in one corner of England".

[Pannonian]

On the grounds that a manifesto created by, and tailored for disillusioned western born Muslims is window dressing to the primary engines driving isis in the middle east. I suggest you read more about the great gulf that exists between local Arab fighters in isis and "foreign fighters". The same occurred in Afghanistan. The imported radicals have starkly different agendas and cultures to the locals.

A quick dig found this. Probably plenty more recent stuff:

http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2014/09/03/isis-tensions-between-jihadi-fighters

May because they are all the same to you, doesn't mean that are all the same to them.

What foreign fighters and local Arab fighters? The locals here are Britons.

[Husar]

What foreign fighters and local Arab fighters? The locals here are Britons.

Yes, and it says they're the ones doing all the suicide bombings.

[Pannonian]

Yes, and it says they're the ones doing all the suicide bombings.

And in the latest case, his sister, who is as close to the primary source as you're going to get given the original didn't leave any notes behind, said that he was motivated to do so from seeing victims of US bombs.

[Husar]

And in the latest case, his sister, who is as close to the primary source as you're going to get given the original didn't leave any notes behind, said that he was motivated to do so from seeing victims of US bombs.

Yes, this single piece of irrevocable primary source evidence clearly proves how irrational Britons are and how their school system is just one big failure.

[Pannonian]

Yes, this single piece of irrevocable primary source evidence clearly proves how irrational Britons are and how their school system is just one big failure.

Yup, and this single poster shows how this single poster tries to pin absolutely everything on Britain and how it's all the fault of the British. This episode has shown me what victim blaming means.

[Sarmatian]

Hang on. They specifically said that what we do on the world stage is secondary to what we are, which is not them. What do you have to counter the primary source which I'd quoted?

You've asked for an answer based on available empirical evidence, relating specifically to ISIS and UK.

If you want to discuss the truthfulness of their "manifesto", ie. whether their stated intentions accurately reflect their behaviour, we need a slightly bigger sample than 1 (UK).


Also, would it be ok to accept the argument you've given, whatever the truth of the matter? That we should have no business in their world?

I'm not sure what is the right answer here. On purely moral terms, probably yes. In practical terms, it's debatable.

[Husar]

Yup, and this single poster shows how this single poster tries to pin absolutely everything on Britain and how it's all the fault of the British. This episode has shown me what victim blaming means.

Your tears are like butter in my hair. :shrug:

I'll take that as an apology for your extrapolating from a sample size of one.

[Pannonian]

You've asked for an answer based on available empirical evidence, relating specifically to ISIS and UK.

If you want to discuss the truthfulness of their "manifesto", ie. whether their stated intentions accurately reflect their behaviour, we need a slightly bigger sample than 1 (UK).

I'm not sure what is the right answer here. On purely moral terms, probably yes. In practical terms, it's debatable.

1 > 0. The questions I want to ask are, why are ISIS, al-Qaeda and their like attacking the UK, and how do we end it? Talking about foreign policy means nothing to me, as I already favour us having nothing to do with the middle east, thus removing the interference argument. In any case, I once believed in that argument, except that evidence coming up refutes that argument. I've taken on that evidence and changed my belief in what it is that causes ISIS and other Islamists to attack the UK.

Also, if on purely moral terms, we probably should have no business in the middle east, do you accept the reciprocal, which is the basis of all diplomacy? That the middle east should have no business with us? If the middle east views any westerners, and more specifically, any Britons in the middle east as infringing on their autonomy, should we reciprocate, in whatever manner our society can accept? If not, why is the argument applicable in one direction but not in the other?

[Sarmatian]

1 > 0. The questions I want to ask are, why are ISIS, al-Qaeda and their like attacking the UK, and how do we end it? Talking about foreign policy means nothing to me, as I already favour us having nothing to do with the middle east, thus removing the interference argument. In any case, I once believed in that argument, except that evidence coming up refutes that argument. I've taken on that evidence and changed my belief in what it is that causes ISIS and other Islamists to attack the UK.

I'm guessing withdrawing militarily and politically from ME would be a start. Stop providing direct and indirect assistance to those who won't withdraw. Stop dominating international political fora. There are ways to start and see if you're going in the right direction.

But, as Furunculus states, being a great power means exerting influence on others, and dealing with the occasional backlash.


Also, if on purely moral terms, we probably should have no business in the middle east, do you accept the reciprocal, which is the basis of all diplomacy? That the middle east should have no business with us? If the middle east views any westerners, and more specifically, any Britons in the middle east as infringing on their autonomy, should we reciprocate, in whatever manner our society can accept? If not, why is the argument applicable in one direction but not in the other?

Of course, although in this case, no business means stop exerting military, political and economic pressure on state level. Doesn't mean that no single Briton should ever step there.

[Husar]

If the middle east views any westerners, and more specifically, any Britons in the middle east as infringing on their autonomy, should we reciprocate, in whatever manner our society can accept? If not, why is the argument applicable in one direction but not in the other?


Of course, although in this case, no business means stop exerting military, political and economic pressure on state level. Doesn't mean that no single Briton should ever step there.

Isn't that a completely false and insincere argument anyway? Where is the reciprocal treaty due to which all the middle easterners are in the UK and how many UK citizens are in Saudi Arabia because of the same treaty? What kind of reciprocity are we talking about?
And why exactly do the wishes of ISIS count regarding the treaties the UK has with say, Lebanon? Is Lebanon suddenly responsible for the things ISIS wishes for? Should UK policy be based on the same logic as that of islamic terrorists who blow up British children because they dislike US actions? Is ISIS logic now the new gold standard of logic and something we should aspire to?

[Pannonian]

I'm guessing withdrawing militarily and politically from ME would be a start. Stop providing direct and indirect assistance to those who won't withdraw. Stop dominating international political fora. There are ways to start and see if you're going in the right direction.

But, as Furunculus states, being a great power means exerting influence on others, and dealing with the occasional backlash.

Of course, although in this case, no business means stop exerting military, political and economic pressure on state level. Doesn't mean that no single Briton should ever step there.

How do we disregard the evidence of the official ISIS rag and what "The Beatles" are supposed to have said? Any "westerners" (which includes Japanese as well) caught on ISIS territory have been executed, other than those serving ISIS. While we're not going to do the same to Muslims, that approach, which has few exceptions so far, does not suggest the exclusion only applies to those in the military, political and economic spheres. And that empirical evidence is backed up by the ISIS mouthpiece, which voices the philosophy that underpins this approach: we're going to be persecuted for as long as we're different from them.

[Beskar]

Some reports are suggesting a hung parliament. Though the breakdown is that young people are majority labour, old people are majority conservative, the middle are 50/50. Given the Baby Boomers are biggest demographic and most likely to vote, still going to be a Conservative win.

[Greyblades]

This despite that the conservatives have been doing their utmost to fuck up thier inevitable victory.

[LittleGrizzly]

Corbyn has done well to bring it back around, despite all the attempts at sabotage from within Labour he might actually do better than his predecessor which is pretty incredible given the circumstances. It is looking a lot closer than I thought it would.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Corbyn has done well to bring it back around, despite all the attempts at sabotage from within Labour he might actually do better than his predecessor which is pretty incredible given the circumstances. It is looking a lot closer than I thought it would.

After reading Pannonian, I think Labour would do better than predicted if their candidates managed to tie their shoes properly. Or maybe he just isn't a Corbyn fan....

[Pannonian]

After reading Pannonian, I think Labour would do better than predicted if their candidates managed to tie their shoes properly. Or maybe he just isn't a Corbyn fan....

Just about anyone could have done better than Corbyn against the stack of incompetence that is May. May has managed to make Corbyn almost look like he knows what he's doing. May has managed to make Corbyn look like he's interested in reaching out to floaters (at least in comparison with her). Corbyn is the master of rallies to the already converted whilst avoiding anyone who might disagree with him. May has been avoiding all engagements altogether. If she really does have more important things to do than engage in public debate, why the hell did she call an election in the first place?

[Idaho]

I'm so disappointed that Corbyn refuses to promise nuclear apocalypse. The deeply held conviction to murder millions is an essential prerequisite in any leader.

[Pannonian]

I'm so disappointed that Corbyn refuses to promise nuclear apocalypse. The deeply held conviction to murder millions is an essential prerequisite in any leader.

You mean he puts himself over Labour policy as voted on in the last conference? Just like he did with the EU, incidentally. Labour party policy as stated in the manifesto is secondary to what the Dear Leader wants.

[Idaho]

The manifesto explicitly says he must obliterate somewhere with nuclear fury? Must have missed that page. Could you quote?

[Pannonian]

The manifesto explicitly says he must obliterate somewhere with nuclear fury? Must have missed that page. Could you quote?

I'm pretty sure the last manifesto supported being part of the EU. While the last Labour conference voted in favour of Trfdent. Unless you're taking on Corbyn's idea of sending the submarines out without missiles. That was a genius idea from him, keeping the union jobs whilst keeping him in with the CND crowd he's spent his career courting.

[Greyblades]

The deeply held conviction to do anything to[ do his utmost to protect the lives of his people is an essential part of leadership, if he cant even lie about his unwillingness to retaliate the protection of mutually assured destruction goes out the window.

[Idaho]

The deeply held conviction to do anything to[ do his utmost to protect the lives of his people is an essential part of leadership, if he cant even lie about his unwillingness to retaliate the protection of mutually assured destruction goes out the window.

MAD only makes sense to idiots. Anyone with a flicker of sense can see that if one of the four other counties capable of launching a nuclear attack did so, then no one's smoking corpse will gain satisfaction from creating a giant crater on some other corner of the planet.

[Greyblades]

That's how MAD works!

[Idaho]

I'm pretty sure the last manifesto supported being part of the EU. While the last Labour conference voted in favour of Trfdent. Unless you're taking on Corbyn's idea of sending the submarines out without missiles. That was a genius idea from him, keeping the union jobs whilst keeping him in with the CND crowd he's spent his career courting.

I'll ask again. Where in the manifesto is there a commitment to nuclear assault?

[Greyblades]

MAD only makes sense to idiots. Anyone with a flicker of sense can see that if one of the four other counties capable of launching a nuclear attack did so, then no one's smoking corpse will gain satisfaction from creating a giant crater on some other corner of the planet.

The very idea of MAD is that the other man is likely to fire back out of spite, making the benefits of an attack moot. That very uncertainty of success is what stops them firing first.

A leader that shows a blatant and unmistakeable unwillingness to retaliate puts a massive "feel free to kill me" sign on his nation's back.

[Idaho]

The deeply held conviction to do anything to[ do his utmost to protect the lives of his people is an essential part of leadership, if he cant even lie about his unwillingness to retaliate the protection of mutually assured destruction goes out the window.
Yes a leader should do their utmost. That means organising things so the country functions, people have enough food, a place to live, and something to do. Children are educated and disease is minimised. There is social cohesion and law and order, but also privacy and liberty.

All that is very hard to do. Most people in the world would sign up to them. But it's made a lot harder when so much money/lives/potential is pissed away to appease armchair generals (not to mention the real ones). Put the nasty toys down human, and go and read a book.

[Idaho]

The very idea of MAD is that the other man is likely to fire back out of spite, making the benefits of an attack moot. That very uncertainty of success is what stops them firing first.

The "other man" in this example is apt. That one leader or collective in charged decided to attack. Not the people of shanghai, Chicago or Marseilles. Why obliterate them? It's absurd. That's like something a toddler would do. Grow up.

[Pannonian]

Yes a leader should do their utmost. That means organising things so the country functions, people have enough food, a place to live, and something to do. Children are educated and disease is minimised. There is social cohesion and law and order, but also privacy and liberty.

All that is very hard to do. Most people in the world would sign up to them. But it's made a lot harder when so much money/lives/potential is pissed away to appease armchair generals (not to mention the real ones). Put the nasty toys down human, and go and read a book.

Does Corbyn have any record of doing any of the above? Compared with, say, Yvette Cooper or Andy Burnham?

[Pannonian]

Labour Says It Does Back Trident After Jeremy Corbyn Suggests It Could Be Scrapped (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-labour-nukes-trident_uk_58fca083e4b06b9cb9178c0f)


Appearing on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, Corbyn – a lifelong campaigner against nuclear weapons - claimed the party was having a “discussion” about whether renewing Trident should be in Labour’s election manifesto.

Within hours, Labour’s press office issued a statement saying the party still supported renewing the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent – a decision made at Labour conference in 2015 when Corbyn was leader.

But Corbyn suggested the decision had not yet been taken, and when asked by Marr this morning if a commitment to Trident would be in Labour’s manifesto, he said: “We haven’t completed work on the manifesto yet, as you’d expect. We’re less than 100 hours into this election campaign.

He added: “We’re having that discussion within the Labour party and we will produce our manifesto early in May.”

Within hours, a spokesperson for Labour tried to be much more definitive said: “The decision to renew Trident has been taken and Labour supports that.

“We also want Britain to do much more to pursue a proactive, multilateral disarmament strategy.”

http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/58fca2702600003596c47302.jpeg

[Pannonian]

MAD only makes sense to idiots. Anyone with a flicker of sense can see that if one of the four other counties capable of launching a nuclear attack did so, then no one's smoking corpse will gain satisfaction from creating a giant crater on some other corner of the planet.

Ukraine, North Korea. One of them is immune from invasion. Guess why.

[Pannonian]

BTW, it's the closing stages of the campaign. Why isn't Corbyn taking a holiday? After all, that's what he did at an equivalent stage of the EU referendum campaign.

[Idaho]

You are a middle of the road small c conservative northerner about to go through the kind of political menopause that InsaneApache went through. You'll go one nation tory first, then off the chart. It is an odd condition that Northern men sometimes get. You'll get obsessed with your vanishing culture and foreigners. It's like a kind of primal forest ape response.

Give it another 10 years and you'll be like these people on question time the other night :

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/skwawkbox.org/2017/06/02/9-tories-of-120-bbcqt-audience-ask-29-of-questions-still-corbynwins-ge17/amp/

[Idaho]

Does Corbyn have any record of doing any of the above? Compared with, say, Yvette Cooper or Andy Burnham?

Of course be doesn't. He's a politician. They are rarely good administrators, even though they spend their lives trying to become them.

[Pannonian]

Of course be doesn't. He's a politician. They are rarely good administrators, even though they spend their lives trying to become them.

Cooper has Sure Start to her name. One of the current shadow cabinet ministers attributes Sure Start to helping her cope with early motherhood and putting her on her road to what she's become. What has Corbyn ever done that's comparable?


You are a middle of the road small c conservative northerner about to go through the kind of political menopause that InsaneApache went through. You'll go one nation tory first, then off the chart. It is an odd condition that Northern men sometimes get. You'll get obsessed with your vanishing culture and foreigners. It's like a kind of primal forest ape response.

Give it another 10 years and you'll be like these people on question time the other night :

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/skwawkbox.org/2017/06/02/9-tories-of-120-bbcqt-audience-ask-29-of-questions-still-corbynwins-ge17/amp/

From what I've seen, I'm fairly closely aligned with old Labour. That's proper old Labour, going back to its early governments and aspirational roots, not Tony Benn's Labour. You should read up on Nye Bevan's views on nuclear disarmament.

[Greyblades]

The "other man" in this example is apt. That one leader or collective in charged decided to attack. Not the people of shanghai, Chicago or Marseilles. Why obliterate them? It's absurd. That's like something a toddler would do. Grow up.
This other man has just condemned you and everyone you care about to die in nuclear fire on those people's behalf and you think it is the act of a toddler to retaliate?

What the hell is your malfunction?

[Pannonian]

I knew this morning that I was going to make a speech that would offend, and even hurt, many of my friends. I know that you are deeply convinced that the action you suggest is the most effective way of influencing international affairs. I am deeply convinced that you are wrong. It is therefore not a question of who is in favour of the hydrogen bomb, but a question of what is the most effective way of getting the damn thing destroyed. It is the most difficult of all problems facing mankind. But if you carry this resolution and follow out all its implications — and do not run away from it — you will send a British Foreign Secretary, whoever he may be, naked into the conference chamber. ... And you call that statesmanship? I call it an emotional spasm.

Aneurin Bevan on unilateral nuclear disarmament.

[Husar]

This other man has just condemned you and everyone you care about to die in nuclear fire

This is hilarious!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The entire planet is doomed to die in nuclear fire....in a bit.

[Idaho]

This other man has just condemned you and everyone you care about to die in nuclear fire on those people's behalf and you think it is the act of a toddler to retaliate?

What the hell is your malfunction?

You can kill a man with a single weapon. Why murder a few million innocent people at the same time?

[Pannonian]

The entire planet is doomed to die in nuclear fire....in a bit.

We'll have found fusion power by then. Or fusion power will have found us.

[Pannonian]

You can kill a man with a single weapon. Why murder a few million innocent people at the same time?

See above. And Nye Bevan has done far more for this country than Corbyn ever has.

[Idaho]

Aneurin Bevan on unilateral nuclear disarmament.

Post ww2 was a different world. I don't agree his comments are germane now.

[Idaho]

See above. And Nye Bevan has done far more for this country than Corbyn ever has.

Argument from authority. Rhetorical fallacy.

[Montmorency]

Post ww2 was a different world. I don't agree his comments are germane now.

The modern Chinese arsenal puts paid to contemporary hopes of disarmament. Any attempts to revive US-Russian bilateral efforts are trivialized by its existence.

I agree that MAD is outdated: nowadays, a single offensive nuclear discharge could be expected to provoke no more than proportionate retaliation, while also potentially achieving all conventional military and political objectives in the act.


Argument from authority. Rhetorical fallacy.

What did he argue from authority?

[Pannonian]

The modern Chinese arsenal puts paid to contemporary hopes of disarmament. Any attempts to revive US-Russian bilateral efforts are trivialized by its existence.

I agree that MAD is outdated: nowadays, a single offensive nuclear discharge could be expected to provoke no more than proportionate retaliation, while also potentially achieving all conventional military and political objectives in the act.

What did he argue from authority?

He got on his high horse about how he's properly representative of the left and how I'm on the slide towards the far right, then I posted a quote from one of the icons of the Labour party that argued the opposite of his position. He's previous also used the same dismissal (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?151955-Process-for-electing-Comrade-Leader-of-the-Labour-Party-has-begun&p=2053709392&viewfull=1#post2053709392) (argument from authority) to dismiss accounts from former shadow cabinet ministers of Corbyn's incompetence. It's his method of dismissing any and all evidence that might make his beloved leader look bad.


Expert opinions on Corbyn's leadership
Lilian Greenwood, former shadow cabinet minister
Thangam Debbonaire, former shadow cabinet minister
Richard Murphy, Corbyn's former chief economics adviser
David Blanchflower, member of Labour's Economic Advisory Committee
Angela Smith, Labour's leader in the House of Lords

I haven't posted the last one yet, so here's an excerpt.


This is called argument from authority. Usually a favourite rhetorical fallacy of American gun nuts and anti abortionists.

Remember kids, when teachers mark you down for being wrong, refute them with "This is called argument from authority. Usually a favourite rhetorical fallacy of American gun nuts and anti abortionists."

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why should we have Nuclear Weapons?

Because otherwise we will be sheltering under America's Nuclear Shield, which means we really will be an American vassal - unless you prefer being a French vassal.

We will also be subservient to Israel, Pakistan, India, France, China and Russia in all military matters, as well as the US.

Nuclear weapons are things we have, not things we use. This is why their maintenance has traditionally been separate from the defence budget, they are weapons of diplomacy - not war.

It is, in fact, possible that within out lifetimes these weapons will be made obsolete by anti-missile shields, and then we can consider getting rid of them - not before.

[Idaho]

The modern Chinese arsenal puts paid to contemporary hopes of disarmament. Any attempts to revive US-Russian bilateral efforts are trivialized by its existence.

I agree that MAD is outdated: nowadays, a single offensive nuclear discharge could be expected to provoke no more than proportionate retaliation, while also potentially achieving all conventional military and political objectives in the act.



What did he argue from authority?

He stated that Nye Bevan was against unilateral disarmament, therefore it's wrong.

[Brenus]

unless you prefer being a French vassal.

Well, you were once, can't say it would be a completely new and unknown situation...:sweatdrop:

[Montmorency]

He stated that Nye Bevan was against unilateral disarmament, therefore it's wrong.

Or, he's presenting a statement from a politician which he agrees with - Jeremy Corbyn being another leading politician, and so in a position of authority, though one with whom Pannonian disagrees.

You'd be closer to something if you could get Pannonian to say that this fellow's case is worth more than Corbyn's on the basis of Corbyn being a lesser politician.

[Pannonian]

Or, he's presenting a statement from a politician which he agrees with - Jeremy Corbyn being another leading politician, and so in a position of authority, though one with whom Pannonian disagrees.

You'd be closer to something if you could get Pannonian to say that this fellow's case is worth more than Corbyn's on the basis of Corbyn being a lesser politician.

I'll happily say that and more. I'm principally concerned with domestic matters, how to make Britain better. I like those politicians like Bevan and Cooper who have substantially contributed to this (and Cooper, significant though her contribution is, isn't a patch on Bevan). They have rather more of my ear than someone like Corbyn who has done nothing except go on protest marches and rallies throughout his life.

What has Corbyn ever done to make Britain a better place, compared with someone like Cooper? What does his CV consist of, that we should attach any kind of weight to his views, especially where they clash with the mainstream?

[LittleGrizzly]

TBH I think we have too many excitable red blooded males in the country for Trident to be scrapped anytime soon, as shown by the entertaining questions completely removed from reality on QT about responding to an Iranian or N. Korean attack....

[Tristuskhan]

Because otherwise we will be sheltering under America's Nuclear Shield, which means we really will be an American vassal - unless you prefer being a French vassal.
A French Vassal like Germany, Spain, Italy and so many smaller servants? Or maybe France doesn't ask for any oath of submission since she alone funds her nuclear strike force. And then we'll take Jersey back from the Crown.


Nuclear weapons are things we have, not things we use. This is why their maintenance has traditionally been separate from the defence budget, they are weapons of diplomacy - not war.
Is it formally so? French nukes are funded on defense budget.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

TBH I think we have too many excitable red blooded males in the country for Trident to be scrapped anytime soon, as shown by the entertaining questions completely removed from reality on QT about responding to an Iranian or N. Korean attack....

Those people don't want Corbyn to use Nuclear Weapons, they just want to know he won't upset the global strategic status quo.

That's how important Trident is, it's a question of global political significance and people want to know Corbyn is going to make political decisions divorced of any personal ideology.

[Pannonian]

Those people don't want Corbyn to use Nuclear Weapons, they just want to know he won't upset the global strategic status quo.

That's how important Trident is, it's a question of global political significance and people want to know Corbyn is going to make political decisions divorced of any personal ideology.

Corbyn proved with Trident that he'll push for his own position ahead of any agreed party position. He proved with Brexit that, first chance he gets, he'll push his own personal position ahead of manifesto position. He proved on various policies that he'll readily push a position agreed only among his inner circle, ahead of positions agreed with shadow cabinet ministers. Corbyn's Labour does not believe in cabinet government; it believes in Corbyn staking out his own private position, regardless of anything previously agreed, and Momentum backing him up. You can see on here, how every changing position is defended to the hilt by his fans. The details of any position matters less than the fact that it's Corbyn pushing it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Corbyn proved with Trident that he'll push for his own position ahead of any agreed party position. He proved with Brexit that, first chance he gets, he'll push his own personal position ahead of manifesto position. He proved on various policies that he'll readily push a position agreed only among his inner circle, ahead of positions agreed with shadow cabinet ministers. Corbyn's Labour does not believe in cabinet government; it believes in Corbyn staking out his own private position, regardless of anything previously agreed, and Momentum backing him up. You can see on here, how every changing position is defended to the hilt by his fans. The details of any position matters less than the fact that it's Corbyn pushing it.

Yes, well Saint Jeremy can't be wrong, can he?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We'll have found fusion power by then. Or fusion power will have found us.

Just so.

[LittleGrizzly]

Those people don't want Corbyn to use Nuclear Weapons, they just want to know he won't upset the global strategic status quo.

That's how important Trident is, it's a question of global political significance and people want to know Corbyn is going to make political decisions divorced of any personal ideology.

Against an attack from N. Korea....

Or Iran...

I assume we both understand the concept of us keeping nuclear weapons to keep ourselves safe from an attack from N. Korea or Iran is ridiculous?

I have no problem with people who have somewhat informed positions on the matter but people like that are clearly not part of that group. Probably think we can fight terrorists using them.

[LittleGrizzly]

Corbyn proved with Trident that he'll push for his own position ahead of any agreed party position. He proved with Brexit that, first chance he gets, he'll push his own personal position ahead of manifesto position. He proved on various policies that he'll readily push a position agreed only among his inner circle, ahead of positions agreed with shadow cabinet ministers. Corbyn's Labour does not believe in cabinet government; it believes in Corbyn staking out his own private position, regardless of anything previously agreed, and Momentum backing him up. You can see on here, how every changing position is defended to the hilt by his fans. The details of any position matters less than the fact that it's Corbyn pushing it.

This is the person who took a post of mine and bolded one name because I used it excessively apparently as part of some proof that Corbyn fans are somehow obsessive...

There certainly is an obsession but it seems to be more in his opponents, this one in particular.

[Pannonian]

Against an attack from N. Korea....

Or Iran...

I assume we both understand the concept of us keeping nuclear weapons to keep ourselves safe from an attack from N. Korea or Iran is ridiculous?

I have no problem with people who have somewhat informed positions on the matter but people like that are clearly not part of that group. Probably think we can fight terrorists using them.

I refer to the near namesakes Bevin and Bevan. One of whom demanded nuclear weapons, the other supported them. And Attlee, who gave the go ahead. Do they count as informed opinions?

[LittleGrizzly]

Sure, I can't say I have read their exact arguments on why but I imagine they were far better arguments than an attack from a then day equivalent of N. Korea or Iran. To clarify I wasn't saying we should get rid of Trident because idiots on QT think we needed them for N. Korea and Iran, just that we won't get rid of them because many people don't understand what they are actually for.

[Beskar]

Yes, well Saint Jeremy can't be wrong, can he?

Given the overgenerous press of Weak and Wobbly Mway and constant negativity of Corbyn for over two years.. he hasn't been given the 'Saint'-ly treatmen (http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/Mainstream-Media-Representations-of-Jeremy-Corbyn.aspx)t of the pair.

Though Theresa May's ineptitude in the Home Office (and as Prime Minister) is definitely making itself clearer.

It has turned what was a initially an easy win by a landslide, into a hung parliament (according to polls). That takes some serious craftsmanship to achieve. Especially with manifesto u-turns within 24 hours (cue: Dementia Tax)

[LittleGrizzly]

I think it worked out for the best with the press going at Corbyn so hard so early on, they haven't really left themselves much room to have a go at him now without repeating or going over the same complaints about him being scruffy or principled. Overplayed their hands in the hope of getting him out early.

[Pannonian]

Given the overgenerous press of Weak and Wobbly Mway and constant negativity of Corbyn for over two years.. he hasn't been given the 'Saint'-ly treatment of the pair.

Though Theresa May's ineptitude in the Home Office is definitely making itself clearer.

May's incompetence leaves me with zero trust in her ability to be PM. Corbyn's incompetence in opposition makes me trust him even less. I've said before, Blair circa 1997 would run up a 200 seat majority against the abysmal current Tory front bench. Only Corbyn could make May look remotely good. And only May could make Corbyn look remotely decent. Where are the Clarkes and Heseltines of May's cabinet? Where are the Browns and Cooks of Corbyn's shadow cabinet?

[Beskar]

I think it worked out for the best with the press going at Corbyn so hard so early on, they haven't really left themselves much room to have a go at him now without repeating or going over the same complaints about him being scruffy or principled. Overplayed their hands in the hope of getting him out early.

It just entrenches his supporters further. The same happened with UKIP, except now UKIP is given prime time slots everywhere whilst not even having a sitting MP, unlike the Green party for example.

[Pannonian]

It just entrenches his supporters further. The same happened with UKIP, except now UKIP is given prime time slots everywhere whilst not even having a sitting MP, unlike the Green party for example.

Momentum are already well entrenched, with fortifications going into the Earth's mantle. That's what the post-truth politics consists of. Hell, even Corbyn recognises this, although his fans still do not.

[Beskar]

As PFH likes the Telegraph, let's look at this article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/05/david-camerons-former-aide-steve-hilton-calls-theresa-may-resign/):
David Cameron's former aide Steve Hilton calls on Theresa May to resign over terror 'failures'

[Beskar]

Entering number 4 in the UK Charts is the song "Liar Liar", a song that was promptly banned from being aired by the BBC.

Why is a top new single banned? Because it calls out Theresa May for being a 'Liar Liar'.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxN1STgQXW8

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Given the overgenerous press of Weak and Wobbly Mway and constant negativity of Corbyn for over two years.. he hasn't been given the 'Saint'-ly treatmen (http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/Mainstream-Media-Representations-of-Jeremy-Corbyn.aspx)t of the pair.

Though Theresa May's ineptitude in the Home Office (and as Prime Minister) is definitely making itself clearer.

It has turned what was a initially an easy win by a landslide, into a hung parliament (according to polls). That takes some serious craftsmanship to achieve. Especially with manifesto u-turns within 24 hours (cue: Dementia Tax)

Corbyn's early bad press was much of his own making. The Professional politician on TV today is a far cry from the man in the rumpled shirt and t-shirt he was when he was elected. A man who appeared to take no care over his appearance asking to be given care of the country, a political rebel suddenly demanding personal loyalty. Then came traingate - a scandal entirely of his own making, one which his supporters just ignored because they agreed with his point even if he had lied on camera to make it.

Then there's the scandal of his separating from his wife and giving her "sole responsibility" for schooling their children so that he doesn't have to make the decision over whether his son goes to a terrible Comp or the local Grammar.

Then there's his links to the IRA, Anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers.

Then, just last week he lied when he said he didn't take advantage of free Further Education, although others had, when defending his plan to abolish Tuition Fees. In fact, he attended a Polytechnic but left because he didn't agree with the syllabus on the political course he took. Even at 20 Jeremy knew better than his lecturers.

I think he's had an easier ride of it than he could have.

As to the Dementia Tax - commentary on that has been inaccurate, unfair, unrealistic and entirely misleading. In the future the majority of people needing professional care will go into a home eventually, like my Nan, so it doesn't matter when you include the value of their house - because they'll have to sell it eventually one way or the other.

[Brenus]

Don't forget: He is Putin's friend, admires Chavez, support Castro... I think I forgot nothing...

[LittleGrizzly]

Interesting to see that the attitudes towards the two party leaders are shifting as well, the more they see of May the less they like her, the more they see of Corbyn, the more they like him.

[Pannonian]

Don't forget: He is Putin's friend, admires Chavez, support Castro... I think I forgot nothing...

He went to a Stop the War fundraiser (whilst Labour leader) a month after they said that the Parisians had brought their attacks on themselves. What is the StWC's position on the recent UK attacks?

[Pannonian]

Interesting to see that the attitudes towards the two party leaders are shifting as well, the more they see of May the less they like her, the more they see of Corbyn, the more they like him.

Both are utter shite, as are their front benches.

[LittleGrizzly]

To be the honest the information I'm seeing says something completely different... although the link to the original doesn't work...

----------------------------------------
The anti-war pressure group came under intense fire from Labour MPs after it posted a blog on its website titled: "Paris reaps whirlwind of western support for extremist violence in Middle East".
----------------------------------------------------------

English has only been a first language for 30 or so years but that sounds a lot different from what you said...

At least when you call him scruffy you are being factual.

[LittleGrizzly]

Both are utter shite, as are their front benches.


One of them more people seem to like the more they see of him though, well people other than you.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Don't forget: He is Putin's friend, admires Chavez, support Castro... I think I forgot nothing...

I'm sure you could dig up more.

All of this whilst he was in the "political wilderness" too, so he's either an egomaniac convinced he has more swing than he does, or he's actually supportive, or ambivalent, towards their methods.

Oh... and he thinks Russia Today is a quality news channel.


One of them more people seem to like the more they see of him though, well people other than you.

Corbyn has had a good campaign, but a certain amount of this is May's awkwardness making him look good by comparison. He would not be getting so much of a bounce facing Cameron.

[Sarmatian]

He went to a Stop the War fundraiser (whilst Labour leader) a month after they said that the Parisians had brought their attacks on themselves. What is the StWC's position on the recent UK attacks?

Stop the War never said that. They said (https://archive.is/du1n5#selection-637.0-637.78) that western violent interventions in the region, coupled with military and financial support to extremist Muslim sects (through Saudi Arabia), has brought hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and general instability in the region. The power vacuum was filled by extremists and terrorists, which caused or contributed to an increase of terrorist attacks in western nations, France included.

Article is spot on. Even if you subscribe to the notion that there is nothing political about ISIS, just pure irrational hatred of the west, surely you understand that without intervention in Iraq and support for anti-Assad forces, ISIS wouldn't exist.

In addition, one doesn't have to agree with the opinion of every single member of an organization to support the general principles of that organization.

[LittleGrizzly]

Corbyn has actual appeal, I am sure there are enthusiastic May voters out there but they are very few in number. After years of Cameron/Blair I think a lot of people are excited about an actual alternative. May is no doubt helping but I can't imagine the others Labour might have fielded (if Labour voters weren't allowed to pick) doing this well.

[Pannonian]

Corbyn has actual appeal, I am sure there are enthusiastic May voters out there but they are very few in number. After years of Cameron/Blair I think a lot of people are excited about an actual alternative. May is no doubt helping but I can't imagine the others Labour might have fielded (if Labour voters weren't allowed to pick) doing this well.

Let's see what result Corbyn can achieve then, if people prefer him to Blair. Blair's worst electoral result was a Commons majority of 66. He twice achieved a Commons majority of 160+. Let's see if Corbyn can better these results.

[Pannonian]

I'm sure you could dig up more.

All of this whilst he was in the "political wilderness" too, so he's either an egomaniac convinced he has more swing than he does, or he's actually supportive, or ambivalent, towards their methods.

Oh... and he thinks Russia Today is a quality news channel.

Corbyn has had a good campaign, but a certain amount of this is May's awkwardness making him look good by comparison. He would not be getting so much of a bounce facing Cameron.

Blair would have absolutely marmalised May.

[LittleGrizzly]

Let's see what result Corbyn can achieve then, if people prefer him to Blair. Blair's worst electoral result was a Commons majority of 66. He twice achieved a Commons majority of 160+. Let's see if Corbyn can better these results.

Sorry I didn't realise Blair did so well and was so popular in 2017, I must be getting confused with some other widely despised former leader who wouldn't come anywhere near winning even the Labour party nomination let alone a general election these days....

[Pannonian]

Sorry I didn't realise Blair did so well and was so popular in 2017, I must be getting confused with some other widely despised former leader who wouldn't come anywhere near winning even the Labour party nomination let alone a general election these days....

Yup, this is what the Labour party has descended into. I had considered holding my nose and voting Labour anyway, but after this reminder of how the Labour party is nothing more than Corbyn's personal cult nowadays, that's not going to be the case.

[Pannonian]

Diane Abbott (https://twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/871812244014862336)

Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnS07NS8110)

Abbott is in one of the top 4 posts in the Labour shadow cabinet. Shadow home secretary to be precise, or interior ministry.

Edit: If Labour win, she'll be in charge of counter-terrorism.

[LittleGrizzly]

Yup, this is what the Labour party has descended into. I had considered holding my nose and voting Labour anyway, but after this reminder of how the Labour party is nothing more than Corbyn's personal cult nowadays, that's not going to be the case.

It's the cult of Labour offering an actual alternative, I realise to a Blairite such as yourself to see the Labour party actually representing the working and middle classes must be quite galling, you know he doesn't even respect Rupert Murdoch?!but this is what the people want, not because they are brainwashed or unthinking. If they were they would have ever elected Cobyn just like the media told them.

Your real problem is the cult within the Labour party is finally being killed off, Blair's perversion of the Labour party is at its end.

[Pannonian]

It's the cult of Labour offering an actual alternative, I realise to a Blairite such as yourself to see the Labour party actually representing the working and middle classes must be quite galling, you know he doesn't even respect Rupert Murdoch?!but this is what the people want, not because they are brainwashed or unthinking. If they were they would have ever elected Cobyn just like the media told them.

Your real problem is the cult within the Labour party is finally being killed off, Blair's perversion of the Labour party is at its end.

Are you aware that one of the current Labour shadow ministers attributes her success in life to a programme began under Blair? Are you aware that, certainly in my lifetime, the biggest lifting of pensioners from poverty happened under the Blair government? Are you aware that, certainly in my lifetime, in real terms schools were better funded under the Blair/Brown governments than any other?

I'm sorry if I rate real achievements like the above rather higher than "a real alternative". What has Corbyn ever achieved in his career that compares with the above?

BTW, are you going to vote Labour on Wednesday as Diane Abbott urges everyone to do?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Point of order, latest polls still favour Conservative to win most seats and May still has a better approval rating than Corbyn. It's also worth pointing out that for all the bluster about Police numbers the London attackers were neutralised in 8 minutes. Failure to prevent the three recent attacks are as much the responsibility of MI5 as the Police and irrc MI5's capabilities have grown over the last seven years.

[Pannonian]

Point of order, latest polls still favour Conservative to win most seats and May still has a better approval rating than Corbyn. It's also worth pointing out that for all the bluster about Police numbers the London attackers were neutralised in 8 minutes. Failure to prevent the three recent attacks are as much the responsibility of MI5 as the Police and irrc MI5's capabilities have grown over the last seven years.

Don't worry. Abbott will sort out that mess once she takes charge of the Home Office.

[LittleGrizzly]

Depends if I can take a break from my highly important civic duty of helping Britain become a world leader in preventing tourism....

Populations have grown massively so you are only comparing them to governments with much smaller populations (and less resources) or the austerity enforcing Tory governments that have been in power since.... Hardly that impressive when you cut through the Blairite spin.

You can see what exactly what Corbyn is offering and that is why as a Blairite you will vote against it, representing the working and middle classes?! this isn't your Labour party anymore!

[LittleGrizzly]

Point of order, latest polls still favour Conservative to win most seats and May still has a better approval rating than Corbyn. It's also worth pointing out that for all the bluster about Police numbers the London attackers were neutralised in 8 minutes. Failure to prevent the three recent attacks are as much the responsibility of MI5 as the Police and irrc MI5's capabilities have grown over the last seven years.

I don't think anyone has said any different.

It is just all very impressive considering the media spin regarding having to get rid of him for the good of the party and a large section of MPs trying to take him down, it was all supposed to be a landslide, Labour wiped out, lesser politicians would crumbled long ago but Corbyn has actually managed to turn this into a contest.

[Pannonian]

Depends if I can take a break from my highly important civic duty of helping Britain become a world leader in preventing tourism....

Populations have grown massively so you are only comparing them to governments with much smaller populations (and less resources) or the austerity enforcing Tory governments that have been in power since.... Hardly that impressive when you cut through the Blairite spin.

You can see what exactly what Corbyn is offering and that is why as a Blairite you will vote against it, representing the working and middle classes?! this isn't your Labour party anymore!

Someone can offer me a million quid. I'd look up their credentials to see where it's coming from, and what's the likelihood of them going through with it. What has Corbyn ever done in his career that compares with the achievements I listed? What are his credentials? Or do CVs not matter?

[Pannonian]

Has anyone else watched that Abbott interview?

[LittleGrizzly]

Someone can offer me a million quid. I'd look up their credentials to see where it's coming from, and what's the likelihood of them going through with it. What has Corbyn ever done in his career that compares with the achievements I listed? What are his credentials? Or do CVs not matter?

I think we've just discussed Blair's CV above, his biggest plus points seem to consist of being less worse than what came after him, which was an austerity enforcing Tory government..

Tell me when the impressive part starts...

Corbyn's credentials are his entire career, I realise to a Blairite this might seem strange but a principled man who cares for the working classes and middle classes and wouldn't sell his own grandmother to please Rupert Murdoch is a pretty damn attractive feature in a politician.

[Pannonian]

I think we've just discussed Blair's CV above, his biggest plus points seem to consist of being less worse than what came after him, which was an austerity enforcing Tory government..

Tell me when the impressive part starts...

Corbyn's credentials are his entire career, I realise to a Blairite this might seem strange but a principled man who cares for the working classes and middle classes and wouldn't sell his own grandmother to please Rupert Murdoch is a pretty damn attractive feature in a politician.

Before Blair became Labour leader, he was shadow home secretary. A fairly impressive one as well. What offices has Corbyn held prior to becoming Labour leader?

[LittleGrizzly]

Ahh yes principle, character or actual beliefs none of these things matter....

Well they would usually but Corbyn comes out looking a lot better than Blair so lets quickly move on from that.

No you see the real problem with Corbyn is he has principles and beliefs, so rather than work for the self serving Blair governments he continued to work for the people...

A black mark against Corbyn surely, to a Blairite, sure. To myself it is one of the best things about him.

[LittleGrizzly]

Also whilst we are discussing CV I think its worth mentioning Tony Blair's huge hand in the mess the Middle East has been turned into today and the increased terrorism we suffer in the West.

That and the almost complete elimination of the Labour party in Scotland.

That along with countless other mistakes he made, quite frankly an empty CV would compare favourably let alone one such as Corbyn's which shows a man of real principle.

[Pannonian]

Ahh yes principle, character or actual beliefs none of these things matter....

Well they would usually but Corbyn comes out looking a lot better than Blair so lets quickly move on from that.

No you see the real problem with Corbyn is he has principles and beliefs, so rather than work for the self serving Blair governments he continued to work for the people...

A black mark against Corbyn surely, to a Blairite, sure. To myself it is one of the best things about him.

What do you think of Diane Abbott as Home Secretary? Do you admire her for her principles and beliefs? Do you think she'll do a good job as Home Secretary?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't think anyone has said any different.

It is just all very impressive considering the media spin regarding having to get rid of him for the good of the party and a large section of MPs trying to take him down, it was all supposed to be a landslide, Labour wiped out, lesser politicians would crumbled long ago but Corbyn has actually managed to turn this into a contest.

No, Theresa May screwed up - she's bad at elections, instead of defending their Conservative Social Care plans she did a U-Turn because she's unable to relate to ordinary people.

Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn believes he can contribute to the end of Nuclear War.

[Pannonian]

No, Theresa May screwed up - she's bad at elections, instead of defending their Conservative Social Care plans she did a U-Turn because she's unable to relate to ordinary people.

Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn believes he can contribute to the end of Nuclear War.

TBF, May's not just bad at elections, but she's been an abysmal minister and prime minister as well. She only looks good in comparison with the atrocity that is the Labour front bench (watch that Abbott view I linked to).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'd say she's mediocre.

Hence six years in the same post - if she was good she'd have been moved, abysmal and she'd be fired.

[LittleGrizzly]

No, Theresa May screwed up - she's bad at elections, instead of defending their Conservative Social Care plans she did a U-Turn because she's unable to relate to ordinary people.

Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn believes he can contribute to the end of Nuclear War.

Part of it is down to May part of it is down to Corbyn doing well and connecting with people.

Corbyn had ridiculous notions about helping end apartheid as well, other nations manage just fine without nuclear weapons. The fact you think the idea is absurd says more about you than it does Corbyn. I think we should stop wasting money on Trident as well.

[LittleGrizzly]

What do you think of Diane Abbott as Home Secretary? Do you admire her for her principles and beliefs? Do you think she'll do a good job as Home Secretary?

I prefer Caroline Lucas to her personally (as a for example) but realistically given that I don't actually get to pick my own cabinet her as home secretary or the woman who wants to make us a world leader in preventing tourism as prime minister....?

Not a tough choice. Well actually it is all about the policies for me really but politicians saying stupid things is entertaining I guess.....

[Montmorency]

Part of it is down to May part of it is down to Corbyn doing well and connecting with people.

Corbyn had ridiculous notions about helping end apartheid as well, other nations manage just fine without nuclear weapons. The fact you think the idea is absurd says more about you than it does Corbyn. I think we should stop wasting money on Trident as well.

If possible, would you agree with selling it to the United States?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Part of it is down to May part of it is down to Corbyn doing well and connecting with people.

Corbyn had ridiculous notions about helping end apartheid as well, other nations manage just fine without nuclear weapons. The fact you think the idea is absurd says more about you than it does Corbyn. I think we should stop wasting money on Trident as well.

Yes, let's become an actual vassal of the US, totally dependent on them for our security. Like the rest of the EU and France.

[Pannonian]

I prefer Caroline Lucas to her personally (as a for example) but realistically given that I don't actually get to pick my own cabinet her as home secretary or the woman who wants to make us a world leader in preventing tourism as prime minister....?

Not a tough choice. Well actually it is all about the policies for me really but politicians saying stupid things is entertaining I guess.....

Corbyn is pro-Brexit as well. Moreso than May.

[Beskar]

This is really annoying me now, is it same for anyone else?

I am on my seventh letter from Theresa May telling me to vote Conservatives. One or two was fine, but I am now on my seventh. Thing is, I also have already voted and it certainly was not for her or her party anyway.

[Beskar]

Yes, let's become an actual vassal of the US, totally dependent on them for our security. Like the rest of the EU and France.

Not like we are actually paying the USA for Trident and they hold the keys for it, or anything. Given how it also runs Windows XP, only death it would bring would be a blue screen.

[Greyblades]

The USA doesnt hold the keys to our nukes (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-trident-doesnt-run-windows-xp/), they sold us the delivery system but have no control over our weaponry.

We also do not use windows XP on Trident subs but a robust custom retooling of the system, the actual missiles arent controlled by these systems. (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-trident-doesnt-run-windows-xp/)

[Pannonian]

Anger over 'Star of David' symbol on Labour poster (https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/labour-supporters-in-bristol-erect-banner-with-1.439599)


A giant left-wing political banner in one of Britain’s biggest cities has been condemned as antisemitic for portraying Theresa May wearing Star of David earrings.

The banner, which was hung at the Bearpit roundabout in Bristol, depicted Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May facing each other, with positive slogans endorsing Jeremy Corbyn and negative statements about Theresa May’s policies.
...
“It's even more worrying that the Bristol city council have given these views credence by allowing them to be shown in such public space such as The Bearpit, which is driven past by thousands of motorists a day”.

He condemned the banner as antisemitic, saying “the Magen David [Star of David] earrings are clearly implying that the Jews/Israel have hegemony over our government, which is a century old antisemitic trope.”

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Anger over 'Star of David' symbol on Labour poster (https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/labour-supporters-in-bristol-erect-banner-with-1.439599)

It couldn't just be Labour saying "she supports Israel, we are less supportive?" Has to go straight for anti-Semitism?

[Beskar]

It couldn't just be Labour saying "she supports Israel, we are less supportive?" Has to go straight for anti-Semitism?

Well, it isn't Labour, it is the random person who did the poster. But yes, it is in relation to Balfour declaration and British Governments decision recently not to apologise to Palestine over it. Some on the left are up in arms over Israel like you can see with Idaho's posts, but I don't think it is attacking Jewish people per say, it is just an unfortunate trope that Israel=All Jews which leads to things looking like that. Gets more complicated when people hijack the trope to attack Jewish people too, they are the some of the worst.

[Pannonian]

It couldn't just be Labour saying "she supports Israel, we are less supportive?" Has to go straight for anti-Semitism?

Well, considering that Labour already has a reputation among British Jews for anti-semitism, especially among their far left that is the base of Corbyn's support.

[Gilrandir]

Corbyn is pro-Brexit as well. Moreso than May.

One thing you can't charge him with is that he is a woman.

[LittleGrizzly]

Yes, let's become an actual vassal of the US, totally dependent on them for our security. Like the rest of the EU and France.

We need to keep our American maintained nuclear weapons in order to maintain some independence from America?

I disagree, quite frankly we follow American policy where other EU states don't because we want to anyway.

[LittleGrizzly]

Well, it isn't Labour, it is the random person who did the poster. But yes, it is in relation to Balfour declaration and British Governments decision recently not to apologise to Palestine over it. Some on the left are up in arms over Israel like you can see with Idaho's posts, but I don't think it is attacking Jewish people per say, it is just an unfortunate trope that Israel=All Jews which leads to things looking like that. Gets more complicated when people hijack the trope to attack Jewish people too, they are the some of the worst.

Isn't the Israeli flag the star of david?

Obviously that could also be conflated with all Jewish people rather than just Israel but you can understand the confusion both ways

Any criticism of Israel unless done super carefully is always going to come back to anti Semitism anyone working on any kind of promotional material should understand that. Unfortunately its not like when Corbyn and the left were even more strongly protesting Apartheid South Africa as now supporters of the ones carrying out injustice can claim racism is the reason they are not liked rather than their misdeeds

[LittleGrizzly]

Corbyn is pro-Brexit as well. Moreso than May.

That was a reference to May messing up and saying tourism instead of terrorism, it was in response to your Diane Abbot says something stupid video....

Although like I said in the previous post, politicians saying stupid things is entertaining but it is all about the policies for me really....

[Fragony]

That was a reference to May messing up and saying tourism instead of terrorism, it was in response to your Diane Abbot says something stupid video....

Although like I said in the previous post, politicians saying stupid things is entertaining but it is all about the policies for me really....


I saw it, she directly said we have been too tolerant, was cut out here but the internet never forgets nothing. I got all uncut tapes for ya

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, it isn't Labour, it is the random person who did the poster. But yes, it is in relation to Balfour declaration and British Governments decision recently not to apologise to Palestine over it. Some on the left are up in arms over Israel like you can see with Idaho's posts, but I don't think it is attacking Jewish people per say, it is just an unfortunate trope that Israel=All Jews which leads to things looking like that. Gets more complicated when people hijack the trope to attack Jewish people too, they are the some of the worst.

Fair comment. I have garnered that Idaho is pretty staunchly anti-Zionist, but I never heard him comment on the religion at all. I'd guess he probably has the usual agnostic/atheist disdain for formal Judaism, but no more or less so than for any other organized religion.

We have that trope at play on this side of the pond as well. Were they free of political history and influence of blocs of voters in key states, our heart of our political left would (if they could) cut off more or less all support for Israel and take a solid pro-Palestinian stance. Most on the political right here are supportive of Israel, but we our right wing also has a strong isolationist/"a pox on both their houses" contingent.

The pro-Israel lobby is well leveraged and politically savvy though, and wield a lot of influence for their size in the halls of Congress and a couple of very influential statehouses. And they DO sometimes play that same trope to advantage.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Beskar

Yes...


Not like we are actually paying the USA for Trident and they hold the keys for it, or anything. Given how it also runs Windows XP, only death it would bring would be a blue screen.

Except...


The USA doesnt hold the keys to our nukes (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-trident-doesnt-run-windows-xp/), they sold us the delivery system but have no control over our weaponry.

We also do not use windows XP on Trident subs but a robust custom retooling of the system, the actual missiles arent controlled by these systems. (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-trident-doesnt-run-windows-xp/)

Greyblades is correct. Your support of Corbyn has reached such a level you are no longer debating anything - you've just become an election mouthpiece.

[LittleGrizzly]

This is probably just a petty point either way... but wouldn't a customised version of Windows XP still be windows XP.... albeit a customised version...?

Also I would argue given we rely on America to maintain our nuclear weapons that they do hold some control over them, enough to use the phrase hold the keys maybe not but to pretend its completely independent would be equally false.

We partially rely on America for our nuclear weapons.

[Pannonian]

Fair comment. I have garnered that Idaho is pretty staunchly anti-Zionist, but I never heard him comment on the religion at all. I'd guess he probably has the usual agnostic/atheist disdain for formal Judaism, but no more or less so than for any other organized religion.

We have that trope at play on this side of the pond as well. Were they free of political history and influence of blocs of voters in key states, our heart of our political left would (if they could) cut off more or less all support for Israel and take a solid pro-Palestinian stance. Most on the political right here are supportive of Israel, but we our right wing also has a strong isolationist/"a pox on both their houses" contingent.

The pro-Israel lobby is well leveraged and politically savvy though, and wield a lot of influence for their size in the halls of Congress and a couple of very influential statehouses. And they DO sometimes play that same trope to advantage.

You have to know the language of anti-semitism on the left to recognise the signs. It's about media conspiracies and evil bankers, often in the same package. The Chakrabarti report actually comments on this. Ironically, on the day of the release of said report on anti-semitism in the Labour party, one of Corbyn's longstanding friends (since the 70s) confronted the attending Jewish Labour MP with exactly these accusations, showing how these tropes are not only current in the Labour party, but are especially so among Corbyn's core support. And when said MP went to Corbyn to complain about it, Corbyn backed his friend.

[Beskar]

Greyblades is correct. Your support of Corbyn has reached such a level you are no longer debating anything - you've just become an election mouthpiece.

1) I don't support Corbyn. Funnily, to recognise the bias and argue against it doesn't actually mean you are supporting someone. It is simply pointing and arguing against unfair coverage. It isn't as if he is a complete clown like Donald Trump where it is actually justified though it is also countered by the very pro-Trump voices of Fox which itself argues provides the news for 50% of Americans (chiefly republicans) compared to the British media where no one is supporting Corbyn. Corbyn has more similarities to Bernie Sanders than Trump when it comes to media in this regard. I have already voted in this election and I voted tactically for a candidate I didn't want, simply because it wasn't the worse alternative. It is a shame with our terrible election system that it has descended to this, and why I have always advocated alternatives such as STV.

2) LittleGrizzly just replied expanding what I was saying. Unfortunately, Greyblades' first link does not work as it points to the XP article.. which says the submarines use a modified version of Windows XP. Customised or not, it is still a Microsoft Windows product and if there an error, it would indeed give a blue screen. As for America holding the keys.. it supplies, repairs and maintains Trident. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if there were backdoor or covert access to the submarines as well, but that is a different point entirely, as the basic fact we are paying America for our nuclear weapons does mean they hold the keys as if they said no, we would start to quickly get screwed over because we do not have the infrastructure presently to do it ourselves.

[LittleGrizzly]

In regards to Corbyn himself he even more passionately protested White led Apartheid South Africa who are certainly comparable, I would suggest he is either racist to both Jewish and White people or just really doesn't like our support of injustice. Only the latter really seems logical.

I can't speak for every single person Corbyn ever talked with or interacted with but he has taken action where It has come up in the Labour party where he can. Unsurprisingly though with any criticism of Israel comes a barrage of racism claims, whereas supporting the death and occupation of Muslims (or the opposite side at least) is somehow okay, clever PR certainly.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not like we are actually paying the USA for Trident and they hold the keys for it, or anything. Given how it also runs Windows XP, only death it would bring would be a blue screen.


The USA doesnt hold the keys to our nukes (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-trident-doesnt-run-windows-xp/), they sold us the delivery system but have no control over our weaponry.

We also do not use windows XP on Trident subs but a robust custom retooling of the system, the actual missiles arent controlled by these systems. (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-trident-doesnt-run-windows-xp/)


1) I don't support Corbyn. Funnily, to recognise the bias and argue against it doesn't actually mean you are supporting someone. It is simply pointing and arguing against unfair coverage. It isn't as if he is a complete clown like Donald Trump where it is actually justified though it is also countered by the very pro-Trump voices of Fox which itself argues provides the news for 50% of Americans (chiefly republicans) compared to the British media where no one is supporting Corbyn. Corbyn has more similarities to Bernie Sanders than Trump when it comes to media in this regard. I have already voted in this election and I voted tactically for a candidate I didn't want, simply because it wasn't the worse alternative. It is a shame with our terrible election system that it has descended to this, and why I have always advocated alternatives such as STV.

2) LittleGrizzly just replied expanding what I was saying. Unfortunately, Greyblades' first link does not work as it points to the XP article.. which says the submarines use a modified version of Windows XP. Customised or not, it is still a Microsoft Windows product and if there an error, it would indeed give a blue screen. As for America holding the keys.. it supplies, repairs and maintains Trident. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if there were backdoor or covert access to the submarines as well, but that is a different point entirely, as the basic fact we are paying America for our nuclear weapons does mean they hold the keys as if they said no, we would start to quickly get screwed over because we do not have the infrastructure presently to do it ourselves.

I'm sorry, I think you've been in active support of Corbyn for months, I do not think you are remotely even-handed in this. In fact, I must be honest and say I think you have been engaging in self-deception for some time now.

It doesn't actually matter if the Subs run on XP or a modified version of it - military software is rarely updated in the same way as Desktop PC's are anyway, it's not like it needs the latest copy of Adobe Reader, is it?

[LittleGrizzly]

Given the level of misinformation spread about Corbyn and the much higher activity level among those who dislike him its no surprise Beskar probably comes across as a fan just by correcting simple misconceptions or providing actual context. For example when we had the discussion about Labour losing a seat in the by election not so long ago if I remember rightly Beskar just provided some information showing the seat had been going that way for a long time.

Of course given a couple of you loathe what Corbyn stands for whilst Beskar has a more balanced view so as a result Beskar comes across to you as biased. Perhaps it is actually you that is biased?

[Fragony]

Corbyn doesn't know who he is himself, why should others.

[Idaho]

Can you all stop using the words "bias/biased" as if you were all 13 year old keyboard warriors who've just (mis)learnt the word.

It's meaningless to call someone biased. People's opinions, editorial comments, politician's speeches, polemics, etc are not biased.

Bias is relative to accounts, statements and news that purport to be factual or neutral.

[Pannonian]

Can you all stop using the words "bias/biased" as if you were all 13 year old keyboard warriors who've just (mis)learnt the word.

It's meaningless to call someone biased. People's opinions, editorial comments, politician's speeches, polemics, etc are not biased.

Bias is relative to accounts, statements and news that purport to be factual or neutral.

You're the one dismissing primary sources from those close to Corbyn because that constituted "arguing from authority". If actual quotes from people who've worked closely with Corbyn can't be admitted as evidence of what he's like as a colleague, what kind of evidence would satisfy you, and why wouldn't the evidence you've dismissed satisfy you?

[Furunculus]

I put £20 on the tories getting 375-399 seats.
My belief is that it will be at the low end of that range (375-380).

Corbyn is a principled and decent man, much to admire in many ways. He just wants a Britain that is opposite to my own beliefs.
How principled and decent he is, is frankly irrelevant as far as my vote is concerned.

[Idaho]

You're the one dismissing primary sources from those close to Corbyn because that constituted "arguing from authority". If actual quotes from people who've worked closely with Corbyn can't be admitted as evidence of what he's like as a colleague, what kind of evidence would satisfy you, and why wouldn't the evidence you've dismissed satisfy you?

Oh god, you are like a dog with a bone with your tedious "primary sources". Give it a rest.

[Fragony]

Can you all stop using the words "bias/biased" as if you were all 13 year old keyboard warriors who've just (mis)learnt the word.

It's meaningless to call someone biased. People's opinions, editorial comments, politician's speeches, polemics, etc are not biased.

Bias is relative to accounts, statements and news that purport to be factual or neutral.

Must have misLEARNED the word, all words no class

[Pannonian]

Oh god, you are like a dog with a bone with your tedious "primary sources". Give it a rest.

With Corbynista accusations of bias, fake news and all that rubbish, surely it's important to be able to distinguish between credible evidence and not credible evidence. Historians and journalists have similar ways of gauging the credibility of evidence, journalists having the advantage of being able to question witnesses. It says much that you have no interest in these standards, actively dismissing evidence that meets these standards.

[Gilrandir]

Can you all stop using the words "bias/biased" as if you were all 13 year old keyboard warriors who've just (mis)learnt the word.

It's meaningless to call someone biased. People's opinions, editorial comments, politician's speeches, polemics, etc are not biased.

Bias is relative to accounts, statements and news that purport to be factual or neutral.
:inquisitive:
Definition of bias
1
: a line diagonal to the grain of a fabric; especially : a line at a 45 degree angle to the selvage often utilized in the cutting of garments for smoother fit
2
a : a peculiarity in the shape of a bowl that causes it to swerve when rolled on the green in lawn bowling
b : the tendency of a bowl to swerve; also : the impulse causing this tendency
c : the swerve of the bowl
3
a : bent, tendency
b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : prejudice
c : an instance of such prejudice
d (1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates (2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others
4
a : a voltage applied to a device (such as a transistor control electrode) to establish a reference level for operation
b : a high-frequency voltage combined with an audio signal to reduce distortion in tape recording

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bias#h1

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I like slicing zucchini on the bias.

[Beskar]

Given the level of misinformation spread about Corbyn and the much higher activity level among those who dislike him its no surprise Beskar probably comes across as a fan just by correcting simple misconceptions or providing actual context.

It is not like I ever hid the fact I voted Liberal Democrats in the last 3 elections, was a paid member of Liberal Democrats, or thought Tim Farron was a good guy. I admit, I like some of the recent Labour policies, but I have repeatedly said I wasn't keen on Corbyn. I have also posted on this forum that I wanted Jeremy Corbyn to win the first leadership leader and for him to be a flop, so the Liberal Democrats would receive much needed support and attention, maybe even a large defection from Labour into the party.

If I lived in Scotland, I would probably be voting for the SNP as my choice.

That is the range of my 'Loyalty' to Corbyn.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It couldn't just be Labour saying "she supports Israel, we are less supportive?" Has to go straight for anti-Semitism?

Well, it#s basically depicting Theresa May as either Jew or a Jewish puppet.

Alos, Corbyn has allies who are anti-Semitic (Ken Ligingstone for example.)

[InsaneApache]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrHPFN6Kt58

For the many, not the Jews.

Says it all.....

[Elmetiacos]

The Conservatives are going to win handsomely, majority of about 100. I can only hope Theresa May turns out to be a liar and a hypocrite, because the election rhetoric makes it sound as if we are going to have a trade war with the EU which we will lose and horrible things will ensue.

[Fragony]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrHPFN6Kt58

For the many, not the Jews.

Says it all.....

Is that actually real or a joke

[edyzmedieval]

Well... that ended not so well for the Tories. The majority is lost. (based on exit polls)

[Elmetiacos]

Dewey Defeats Truman. This is one exit poll that is looking more and more wrong as results come in. I stand by my prediction.

[Sir Moody]

Is that actually real or a joke

if anyone else asked that I would think they were joking... with you...

its fake - the Labour slogan this election is "For the Many not the few" - clearly its easy to photoshop

[Fragony]

You never know with lefties Sir Hoody

[Pannonian]

You never know with lefties Sir Hoody

That's the language of anti-semitism on the right. The equivalent on the left uses different language.

[a completely inoffensive name]

How principled and decent he is, is frankly irrelevant as far as my vote is concerned.

This is how institutional cultures rot from the inside.

[Pannonian]

This is how institutional cultures rot from the inside.

Gnomic pseudo-wisdom.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Gnomic pseudo-wisdom.

At least I'm not trading away pesky 'human rights' for lower taxes...

[Pannonian]

At least I'm not trading away pesky 'human rights' for lower taxes...

Then why should you care? This doesn't affect you, whatever new and stupid thing the UK decides to do.

[Pannonian]

It looks like the Tories are underperforming against Labour in their quest to pick up the collapsing UKIP vote. SNP vote also drastically down with the Tories picking up the majority of union votes. Lib Dem vote share slightly down, but resulting in some significant losses without corresponding gains.

Of all the political stupidity in recent years, I don't think any can equal May calling a general election and campaigning as she did. It wasn't even legal to call an election unless Parliament voted on it, so this is entirely down to her. Other decisions may have been more disastrous in effect. But none equal her 2017 GE decisions in their sustained ability to find new and extraordinary ways to undermine herself.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Then why should you care? This doesn't affect you, whatever new and stupid thing the UK decides to do.

With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.

[Pannonian]

With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.

The newer Backroom posters and their faux-wisdom aren't a patch on the old guard and their actual wisdom.

[Montmorency]

With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.

Nah, just another brick in the wall.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It looks like the Tories are underperforming against Labour in their quest to pick up the collapsing UKIP vote. SNP vote also drastically down with the Tories picking up the majority of union votes. Lib Dem vote share slightly down, but resulting in some significant losses without corresponding gains.

Of all the political stupidity in recent years, I don't think any can equal May calling a general election and campaigning as she did. It wasn't even legal to call an election unless Parliament voted on it, so this is entirely down to her. Other decisions may have been more disastrous in effect. But none equal her 2017 GE decisions in their sustained ability to find new and extraordinary ways to undermine herself.

Broadly I agree, however with the DUP picking up extra seats and the Conservatives still increasing their vote share I imagine the Tories will come out of this with a functional majority, just.


With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.

If that's true then we're all screwed and have been since WWII

[a completely inoffensive name]

The newer Backroom posters and their faux-wisdom aren't a patch on the old guard and their actual wisdom.

This is how everyone knows you are a tool.

HINT: Look up the quote dumbass

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why is Scotland flocking from SNP to Conservative. Do they always have to be opposite of England.

[LittleGrizzly]

What a ringing endorsement of Corbyn, this is why the media and the Blairite wing of the Labour Party went through every trick in the book to try and dislodge him, nothing more dangerous than a principled politician who isn't at the behest of the right wing media or the rich.

[Greyblades]

Theresa May handed Labour the election on a silver platter, and he still lost.

[LittleGrizzly]

Good point, devastating night for Corbyn, probably another leadership election in the Labour party coming...

Huge share of the vote, in line with some of Tony Blair's victories, the Blairites wouldn't have managed anything like this (to clarify that is now, not back 20 odd years ago)

Also I am pretty sure it was only me using bias, I will try not to use the word like that if it annoys you so much (to Idaho)

[Beskar]

Good point, devastating night for Corbyn, probably another leadership election in the Labour party coming...

Doubt it. Unelectable Corbyn overturned a predicted landslide victory of May and made gains. It is an endorsement of his policies.

[Pannonian]

Good point, devastating night for Corbyn, probably another leadership election in the Labour party coming...

Huge share of the vote, in line with some of Tony Blair's victories, the Blairites wouldn't have managed anything like this (to clarify that is now, not back 20 odd years ago)

Also I am pretty sure it was only me using bias, I will try not to use the word like that if it annoys you so much (to Idaho)

There ya go. Corbyn's fans don't see the Tories as their opposition, but Blair.

[Pannonian]

Broadly I agree, however with the DUP picking up extra seats and the Conservatives still increasing their vote share I imagine the Tories will come out of this with a functional majority, just.


Hung Parliament, DUP promising to vote with the Tories but not as part of any coalition. I'm guessing another general election within 18 months, possibly 12, to clear the air.

The one policy question I need answering is, are we leaving the single market? Will the Tories cater to their Eurosceptic right again with the hardest possible break they can contrive?

Edit: DUP, the party closest to the Tories, are demanding single market access.

[Fragony]

Question for you Brits, how much of an issue was a Brexit in these election

[Elmetiacos]

Dewey Defeats Truman. This is one exit poll that is looking more and more wrong as results come in. I stand by my prediction.
Oh. Well bugger me sideways, no majority at all. The tide of right-wing populism has been turned back again in the country where it all started. Now, the position is salvageable for the Conservatives provided they drop the idea of a hard Brexit. Are the DUP and somebody else actually going to back it? If they do, will that risk Sinn Féin choking on their oaths to the Queen and actually taking their seats in the HoC to stop a hard border being imposed...?

[Idaho]

There ya go. Corbyn's fans don't see the Tories as their opposition, but Blair.

They are the same.

[Idaho]

Question for you Brits, how much of an issue was a Brexit in these election

Most campaigners and canvassers were saying not really. No one has really been that bothered about Europe other than a few Tories.

[Idaho]

Theresa May handed Labour the election on a silver platter, and he still lost.

Surely you are trolling? If so, hats off.

[Pannonian]

Question for you Brits, how much of an issue was a Brexit in these election

It determined who I voted for.


Oh. Well bugger me sideways, no majority at all. The tide of right-wing populism has been turned back again in the country where it all started. Now, the position is salvageable for the Conservatives provided they drop the idea of a hard Brexit. Are the DUP and somebody else actually going to back it? If they do, will that risk Sinn Féin choking on their oaths to the Queen and actually taking their seats in the HoC to stop a hard border being imposed...?

Within this Parliament, Corbyn might back leaving the single market, but most of Labour won't, and significant numbers of Tories won't. The Tory hard Brexit wing's greatest hope would have been the DUP, but they've said that their precondition for voting with the Tories is access to the single market.

[Idaho]

The joy of Clegg losing his seat and the tories turning a 20 point poll lead into a total disaster. Oh the joy. Grinning ear to ear today :laugh4:

[Fragony]

Most campaigners and canvassers were saying not really. No one has really been that bothered about Europe other than a few Tories.

Same as here then

[LittleGrizzly]

Clegg losing his seat and the thrashing the Lib Dems have taken since have shown what happens if you work with the Tories... all the smaller parties, within the UK mainland will not work with the Tories. UKIP I guess if they ever get a seat again. A lesson that will not be forgotten too quickly.

I am delighted personally, best political night of my life easily.

[Idaho]

The tories can form an alliance with that most balanced and sane of parties, the democratic unionist party. Massive lol. Good luck trying to get any sense out of that lot. Their politics are straight out of the 18th century.

[Fragony]

UKIP was a single issue party what they wanted they got, probably not as it looks now, there is no reason for it to exist anymore. It's going to be interesting to see how all of this turns out. You Brits sure aren't boring

[Idaho]

How long can Theresa last? What a mess she's made. 10 days go until negotiations for brexit start and she's left the country without a government.

[Idaho]

Why is Scotland flocking from SNP to Conservative. Do they always have to be opposite of England.

It's because big chunks of Scotland are pro union and the SNP are promising another independence vote (watch that pledge be ditched).

[Idaho]

Please stay while we savour your humiliation, Britain tells May
09-06-17


THE UK has ordered Theresa May to remain in position for a few weeks so it can relish her humiliation.

The prime minister, whose 2017 election gambit is expected to replace the Titanic as a popular metaphor for hubris, has been told to stick around so we can see the pain in her eyes.


Voter Julian Cook, from Canterbury, said: “She’s not allowed to resign. Not until I’ve drunk my fill.

“She still has to do all her normal jobs but just with that beautifully broken body language. Maybe a tremor in her voice and a bit of a shuffly walk.
...

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/please-stay-while-we-savour-your-humiliation-britain-tells-may-20170609129137

[Fragony]

How long can Theresa last? What a mess she's made. 10 days go until negotiations for brexit start and she's left the country without a government.

Why complain, things are better when they remain complicated, nobody can fuck it up

[Idaho]

Why complain, things are better when they remain complicated, nobody can fuck it up

I'm not complaining. I'm gloating unbearably :laugh4:

[LittleGrizzly]

For all the nonsense about her being the best Brexit negotiator... she sounded like a broken woman in Maidenhead last night, can we really have this woman negotiating Brexit?

No, clearly it will be the Tories but surely it has to be someone else. Boris is surely too much of a clown to trust with this, hence why he wasn't in the final running last time. David Davis was my thought early into election night... not that I like, just who could.

[Idaho]

You Americanos don't know what you are missing. This is the stage that our prime minister gave her victory speech from. That's her on the far left. (ignore the banner - that is a notification of a different seat.

19696

That is not shopped :laugh4: And her city name means "hymen".

[LittleGrizzly]

Can't quite remember the name but I think bucket head party it was called, that was my favourite, the one in black.

[HopAlongBunny]

Congratulations on a new gov't.!:yes:
Now the politics really begins.
Any hints on what sort of policy agenda they might agree on?

[Greyblades]

Surely you are trolling? If so, hats off.

There's no silver medal in politics.

How does it feel knowing Corbyn came second where Blair came first?

[Idaho]

There's no silver medal in politics.

How does it feel knowing Corbyn came second where Blair came first?

You are right. This is May's big day. She's going to be captain of HMS Great Britain for the next 5 years.


:laugh4:

[Idaho]

Congratulations on a new gov't.!:yes:
Now the politics really begins.
Any hints on what sort of policy agenda they might agree on?

May won't last the year. Probably see the Tories elect a new leader in the autumn. The DUP are at best unreliable partners. At worst a total liability. Imagine a fringe party of westboro baptists.

The next tory leadership election won't be the post brexit stunned agreement to mend the rift in the party and find a compromise leader - like last time. This one will be bloody.

[Montmorency]

There's no silver medal in politics.

Orthogonally wrong.

There is such a proliferation of "medal" positions - that's the whole essence of politics.

[Greyblades]

Look up what metaphors are Monty.


You are right. This is May's big day. She's going to be captain of HMS Great Britain for the next 5 years.


:laugh4:

Careful, every fault in May you highlight makes Corbyn's loss to the woman even more emasculating.

[Montmorency]

Look up what metaphors are Monty.

What do you think that metaphor means?

[Idaho]

Look up what metaphors are Monty.



Careful, every fault in May you highlight makes Corbyn's loss to the woman even more emasculating.

:laugh4:
Even for you this is desperate and confused.

[LittleGrizzly]

After coming across it a few times I have just learned to congratulate conservative supporters on their victory if they seem quite pleased, I am in a good enough place to let it go right now...

[Idaho]

After coming across it a few times I have just learned to congratulate conservative supporters on their victory if they seem quite pleased, I am in a good enough place to let it go right now...

This victory will be the gift that keeps on giving. This is a victory that would make Pyrrhus of Epirus shudder and count his blessings :laugh4:

[Greyblades]

What do you think that metaphor means?

A metaphor means a figure of speech whereby an action or attribute is applied to a subject that is not literally applicable, differentiated by simile by the absence of disclaimer.

My use of it means that the inability to gain a majority through its own seats or through coalition means that the second place party gains nothing of it's own value. Anything that Labour achieves from this will only be from what others allow.

Though in retrospect that would apply to the Torys as well


Even for you this is desperate and confused.
Says the man massaging his bruised ego by trying to persuade himself, and anyone who will listen, that having a catastrophe upgraded into merely a major defeat through the self sabotage of his opponent counts as a victory.

...wait I might be thinking of grizzly.

[Elmetiacos]

Congratulations on a new gov't.!:yes:
Now the politics really begins.
Any hints on what sort of policy agenda they might agree on?
The only reasonable course forward is to abandon this "hard Brexit" stance (which until last year May didn't believe in and probably still doesn't) The Tories tried to go into the election as the hardline, foreigner-hating nationalist party and it backfired on them, plus if they need the DUP votes, the DUP don't like the idea of barbed wire at the Irish border and finally UKIP are no longer an electoral threat to anyone so there's no reason to appease their voters.

That's what should happen, but politicians can be unbelievably stupid...

[Montmorency]

A metaphor means a figure of speech whereby an action or attribute is applied to a subject that is not literally applicable, differentiated by simile by the absence of disclaimer.

My use of it means that the inability to gain a majority through its own seats or through coalition means that the second place party gains nothing of it's own value. Anything that Labour achieves from this will only be from what others allow.


Having more seats rather than fewer, and preventing the opposition from maintaining a majority, are tangible achievements that improve the standing of the party in localities and nationally, in the present and in the future.

You seem to imagine that only the party with a plurality or majority of seats has a place in government, which is plainly wrong.

[Greyblades]

I know that a party in this situation that cannot achieve a majorty and has no possibility for a majority coalition is utterly incapable of ensuring the passing of any law or changing any policy that the first place position does not agree to without external influence.

Elmetiacos I do not think it is a good idea to abandon the possibility of going with a hard brexit, to desire it is not wise but to rule out the option is to surrender all the power in the negociations with the EU.

Parties promising no hard Brexit are basically saying Junker can offer us as shit a deal as he could desire, refuse to compromise in any way and we cannot say no.

[Idaho]

A metaphor means a figure of speech whereby an action or attribute is applied to a subject that is not literally applicable, differentiated by simile by the absence of disclaimer.

My use of it means that the inability to gain a majority through its own seats or through coalition means that the second place party gains nothing of it's own value. Anything that Labour achieves from this will only be from what others allow.

Though in retrospect that would apply to the Torys as well


Says the man massaging his bruised ego by trying to persuade himself, and anyone who will listen, that having a catastrophe upgraded into merely a major defeat through the self sabotage of his opponent counts as a victory.

...wait I might be thinking of grizzly.

Oh dear. Someone's missed their midday nap. Bottle of milk and straight to bed young man. Let the grown ups talk.
:laugh4:

[Fragony]

After coming across it a few times I have just learned to congratulate conservative supporters on their victory if they seem quite pleased, I am in a good enough place to let it go right now...

You could also just don't give a fuck and simpy don't care. It makes no difference ayway whaf you vote for

[Beskar]

UKIP was a single issue party what they wanted they got, probably not as it looks now, there is no reason for it to exist anymore. It's going to be interesting to see how all of this turns out. You Brits sure aren't boring

Given how Conservatives turned into UKIP too (with a reactionary bent), the UKIPPERS are now sleeping with the fishes, which is a good thing. Out of the main parties, UKIP were the only party worse than the Tories.

[Greyblades]

Oh dear. Someone's missed their midday nap. Bottle of milk and straight to bed young man. Let the grown ups talk.


... ugh.
Husar! Get in here! I need a cleverer breed of troll to bash my head against.

[Idaho]

Given how Conservatives turned into UKIP too (with a reactionary bent), the UKIPPERS are now sleeping with the fishes, which is a good thing. Out of the main parties, UKIP were the only party worse than the Tories.

UKIP were never a main party except in the media, who were obsessed with them. They are just fringe Tories.

[Fragony]

Given how Conservatives turned into UKIP too (with a reactionary bent), the UKIPPERS are now sleeping with the fishes, which is a good thing. Out of the main parties, UKIP were the only party worse than the Tories.

Of course they are gone, they had only one objective

[Beskar]

Says the man massaging his bruised ego by trying to persuade himself, and anyone who will listen, that having a catastrophe upgraded into merely a minor defeat through the self sabotage of his opponent counts as a victory.

Corbyn is going to have his Battle of Thermopylae moment. Those thinking he will be replaced will be disappointed.

[Greyblades]

The greeks lost thermopylae.

He wont be replaced, but the complacency in the Tories will likely be gone next time and against any half decent conservative leader he will be outclassed.

This was his big chance to rise against the backdrop of a conservative disaster and he just wasn't good enough.

He likely wont get another

[Fragony]

Corbyn is going to have his Battle of Thermopylae moment. Those thinking he will be replaced will be disappointed.

I put 20 on that he will, feel free to join the bet

[Montmorency]

Greyblades, you seem to forget that Labor MPs carry votes, and the government cannot run solely on 318+10 votes: hence politics.

You also give a strange attribution to nebulous "leadership" as a factor in gaining specific seats, as opposed to external factors such as local characteristics and economics, and your consequent assumption that changes in "leadership" can somehow shift seats by the dozen absent context is fantasy.

[Idaho]

Ok. The reasons why this loss feels like a victory:

- May declared the election with a 20+ poll lead
- she had a personal approval rating 3 times Corbyn
- she expressly stated that losing even 6 seats would be a failure
- she had a press almost entirely on her side
- she had the BBC political reporting team staffed with tory Party members
- Corbyn was repeatedly declared unelectable. Predictions of a landslide to the tories were routine on all sides
- the blairite right and the political commentators all agreed that you had to be a neoliberal to stand a chance. Social democracy was dead as a concept.
- it was stated that Labour had long since lost the south and Scotland and was now losing the north.
- we were promised that this was the last hopeless stand for the Labour left. The blairites backed off to let Corbyn own the defeat. None of the experienced labour mps would serve so he had to run with a gaggle of oddities and no marks.

That is were we started. And were did we end up?

- the tories lost their majority
- May's credibility is in tatters. 5 years? She might not even give it 5 days!
- 72% of the youth vote turned out. No one in British politics has achieved close to that before.
- Corbyn got the highest share of the vote for a Labour leader in modern times.
- labour picked up seats in Canterbury ffs! Canterbury went red!
- social democracy has been proven to be electorally viable.
- honest politics and not spin and soundbites attracted voters

Did labour win? No - but if you had offered me even half of the above any time in the last 40 years, I'd have bitten your hand off!

I am delighted :bounce:

Oh and did I mention that we get to see some more tory collapse and civil war?

[Beskar]

The greeks lost thermopylae.

Exactly, but the greeks punched far above their weight as you are aware, thus the myth and legend of 300 Spartans.

To Corbyn and his supporters, they turned an impossible victory, as Furunculus mentioned about putting money on a 375-399 landslide victory for the Conversatives, into a bloody nosed Pyrrhic victory for the Conservatives resulting in a hung parliament.

In this mindset, they won't be uprooted, Corbyn has shown that he is "electable" by giving a challenge to all those who said Labour were completely out for the count. Only way for Corbyn to be ousted is if Labour managed to get a good candidate into parliament in this election, which will cause his supporters to side with them over him.

Edit: See Idaho's post above this one as an example of this in action.

[Greyblades]

Greyblades, you seem to forget that Labor MPs carry votes, and the government cannot run solely on 318+10 votes: hence politics.Labour MP's carry votes but for thier votes to mean anything they require a majority and that requires both cooperation of all the other minor parties and/or the consent of a portion of the likely conservative-UNP coalition. They are vastly more vulnerable to sabotage than the Tories are.

You also give a strange attribution to nebulous "leadership" as a factor in gaining specific seats, as opposed to external factors such as local characteristics and economics, and your consequent assumption that changes in "leadership" can somehow shift seats by the dozen absent context is fantasy.
What is strange is your dismissal of the leadership's role in party performance.

Corbyn is a lame duck with a sordid past, his front bench is a motley crew of incompetence sprinkled by the occasional bigot and as has been established Corbyn rules the roost and controls the campaign.
His leadership resulted in a heavily flawed campaign; laying out a financially ruinous manifesto filled with obviously impossible promises, allowing imbeciles like abbot run thier mouths in public, refusing to even lie about his unwillingness to use nukes for appearances sake.
With Corbyn's strategic brilliance his party was destined for irrelevance were it not from May's intervention.

Every reason people ever believed Labour was destined to be crushed can be traced back to corbyn and his choice in lieutenants, and every reason he wasn't can be traced to the actions of, or comparison to, his opponent.

He didnt succeed on his merits, he was buoyed by May's failure and a rush for "anyone else". Any assertion otherwise is the fantasy here.

[Elmetiacos]

Elmetiacos I do not think it is a good idea to abandon the possibility of going with a hard brexit, to desire it is not wise but to rule out the option is to surrender all the power in the negociations with the EU.

Parties promising no hard Brexit are basically saying Junker can offer us as shit a deal as he could desire, refuse to compromise in any way and we cannot say no.
You're falling into the trap of viewing the negotiations as if they were peace talks between two opposing blocs who are trying to resolve a dispute starting from opposing positions.

[Greyblades]

And you think the EU aren't viewing it like that?

Even ignoring that mentality and treating this like a business negotiation you must be willing to acknowledge that the other guy is fully willing to profit at your expense if you let him and your primary leverage is the ability to walk away from the table and deny him any profit.

If you tie yourself to the table he has little reason to not exploit you to the fullest.

[LittleGrizzly]

You're falling into the trap of viewing the negotiations as if they were peace talks between two opposing blocs who are trying to resolve a dispute starting from opposing positions.

It is representative of the different ideologies of the parties...

Corbyn would look to work with the EU to secure the best deal

May would look to fight the EU tooth and nail to secure the best deal

The former sounds much more like a strategy for success.

[Fragony]

You're falling into the trap of viewing the negotiations as if they were peace talks between two opposing blocs who are trying to resolve a dispute starting from opposing positions.

I see a useless overhead that is scared about people finding out it's of no use at all, and claws at eyeballs if it's noticed

[Elmetiacos]

And you think the EU aren't viewing it like that?

Even ignoring that mentality and treating this like a business negotiation you must be willing to acknowledge that the other guy is fully willing to profit at your expense if you let him and your primary leverage is the ability to walk away from the table and deny him any profit.

If you tie yourself to the table he has little reason to not exploit you to the fullest.
That mentality is not applicable to either side except possibly regarding the "divorce bill" which is really wrangling over what spending commitments the UK had already commited to. In any event, a hard Brexit isn't a threat, it's more like someone threatening to blow off their own foot with a shotgun while warning that it will wake up the baby in the next room.

[Idaho]

Trump, brexit, May. It's amazing how one person can be so consistently right, yet so consistently wrong.

[Idaho]

Labour MP's carry votes but for thier votes to mean anything they require a majority and that requires both cooperation of all the other minor parties and/or the consent of a portion of the likely conservative-UNP coalition. They are vastly more vulnerable to sabotage than the Tories are.

What is strange is your dismissal of the leadership's role in party performance.

Corbyn is a lame duck with a sordid past, his front bench is a motley crew of incompetence sprinkled by the occasional bigot and as has been established Corbyn rules the roost and controls the campaign.
His leadership resulted in a heavily flawed campaign; laying out a financially ruinous manifesto filled with obviously impossible promises, allowing imbeciles like abbot run thier mouths in public, refusing to even lie about his unwillingness to use nukes for appearances sake.
With Corbyn's strategic brilliance his party was destined for irrelevance were it not from May's intervention.

Every reason people ever believed Labour was destined to be crushed can be traced back to corbyn and his choice in lieutenants, and every reason he wasn't can be traced to the actions of, or comparison to, his opponent.

He didnt succeed on his merits, he was buoyed by May's failure and a rush for "anyone else". Any assertion otherwise is the fantasy here.

You are such a fool, I have no idea why I debating with you. Perhaps only so you don't sway the thoughts of more intelligent people.

The idea that Labour just showed up and were gifted the election is demonstrable nonsense. How can you get 72% of the youth vote to show up when traditionally only 20%ish normally vote if you are just the default "other option" of people who were going to vote anyway. How can you win Canterbury and run Hastings and Kensington to the wire if you are just attracting an apathetic fringe of protest votes from Tories. Total nonsense and as ever you humiliate yourself by parading your ignorance and stupidity.

[Fragony]

That mentality is not applicable to either side except possibly regarding the "divorce bill" which is really wrangling over what spending commitments the UK had already commited to. In any event, a hard Brexit isn't a threat, it's more like someone threatening to blow off their own foot with a shotgun while warning that it will wake up the baby in the next room.

Look at what was done to Greece, that is worse than accidently shooting yourself, it's simply criminal. Greece was used as a proxy to save German banks because it couldn't be done directly and Greece can never afford the 'loans' that went directly back. Fuck the eu

[Montmorency]

Labour MP's carry votes but for thier votes to mean anything they require a majority and that requires both cooperation of all the other minor parties and/or the consent of a portion of the likely conservative-UNP coalition. They are vastly more vulnerable to sabotage than the Tories are.

Yet that's wrong. In parliamentary government, large minorities have considerable policy and legislative influence - the larger, the more so. Even huge majorities do not often have the power to just act however they may please, and certainly not without the threat of imminently losing their majorites. This is without even getting into the 1/3-1/2 of post-war European governments that have been led by technical minorities, since this is largely a non-Anglo phenomenon, and Anglo legislatures tend to cluster operating majorities within 50-60% of seats. Notably however, minority government is the outcome of Conservatives with informal DUP support today.

The point is that power in politics is incremental and not all-or-nothing. This also means that the winset over the status quo increases the larger the differences between players are. The more opportunities Labor has to influence policymaking in this government, the lower the benefits of a Tory government, and more MPs = more opportunities.


What is strange is your dismissal of the leadership's role in party performance.

Corbyn is a lame duck with a sordid past, his front bench is a motley crew of incompetence sprinkled by the occasional bigot and as has been established Corbyn rules the roost and controls the campaign.
His leadership resulted in a heavily flawed campaign; laying out a financially ruinous manifesto filled with obviously impossible promises, allowing imbeciles like abbot run thier mouths in public, refusing to even lie about his unwillingness to use nukes for appearances sake.
With Corbyn's strategic brilliance his party was destined for irrelevance were it not from May's intervention.

Every reason people ever believed Labour was destined to be crushed can be traced back to corbyn and every reason he wasn't can be traced to the actions of, or comparison to, his opponent.

He didnt succeed on his merits, he was buoyed by May's failure and a rush for "anyone else". Any assertion otherwise is the fantasy here.

This is your personal impression of Corbyn and May, and the relation to empirical evidence is not evident. The case that May's performance alone affected public mood to such a degree that anyone other than Corbyn would have turned around a comfortable majority, or vice-versa for a Conservative majority, is on its face an attempt to invent a dramatic narrative. I suspect it is ungrounded in British history and modern events beyond the existence of individuals named Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May.

You asserted that:

1. Only one result at a point in time has any meaning (i.e. Labor formal majority).
2. A "good" leader is able to achieve this regardless of context.
3. A leader is "bad" so long as this threshold is not met.

These are all wrong. The real test is whether and how Labour can expand its role in Parliament and local governments on the way to future elections.

[Pannonian]

I see a useless overhead that is scared about people finding out it's of no use at all, and claws at eyeballs if it's noticed

I see a Dutch bloke pontificating about a British issue.

[Pannonian]

Yet that's wrong. In parliamentary government, large minorities have considerable policy and legislative influence - the larger, the more so. Even huge majorities do not often have the power to just act however they may please, and certainly not without the threat of imminently losing their majorites. This is without even getting into the 1/3-1/2 of post-war European governments that have been led by technical minorities, since this is largely a non-Anglo phenomenon, and Anglo legislatures tend to cluster operating majorities within 50-60% of seats. Notably however, minority government is the outcome of Conservatives with informal DUP support today.

The point is that power in politics is incremental and not all-or-nothing. This also means that the winset over the status quo increases the larger the differences between players are. The more opportunities Labor has to influence policymaking in this government, the lower the benefits of a Tory government, and more MPs = more opportunities.

This is your personal impression of Corbyn and May, and the relation to empirical evidence is not evident. The case that May's performance alone affected public mood to such a degree that anyone other than Corbyn would have turned around a comfortable majority, or vice-versa for a Conservative majority, is on its face an attempt to invent a dramatic narrative. I suspect it is ungrounded in British history and modern events beyond the existence of individuals named Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May.

You asserted that:

1. Only one result at a point in time has any meaning (i.e. Labor formal majority).
2. A "good" leader is able to achieve this regardless of context.
3. A leader is "bad" so long as this threshold is not met.

These are all wrong. The real test is whether and how Labour can expand its role in Parliament and local governments on the way to future elections.

May has set herself a threshold (a stronger mandate to back her in EU talks) and the electorate has moved in the other direction. Brexit talks and the attempt to gain a stronger electoral mandate was the reason May gave for putting aside the Fixed Term Parliaments Act and call a general election.

[Fragony]

I see a Dutch bloke pontificating about a British issue.

Your issues are also our issues but the Netherlands is just not as influential as the UK, we will always really agree with the UK but in the end always obey to others simply because we have no other option. A hard brexit is of the map I guess I hope the UK will continue being
really annoying. It's a very big thing if the UK leaves, for the twisted ideological side eurocrats are psychopats

[Pannonian]

Your issues are also our issues but the Netherlands is just not as influential as the UK, we will always really agree with the UK but in the end always obey to others simply because we have no other option. A hard brexit is of the map I guess I hope the UK will continue being
really annoying. It's a very big thing if the UK leaves, for the twisted ideological side

You can observe, but it's none of your business. Having to live through its reality, I find it intensely irritating to read your insistences that the pain will all be worth it. I despised the neolibs who told the Russians that in the 90s whilst living in New York or London, and I retain the same opinion about their modern day equivalents.

[Furunculus]

I put £20 on the tories getting 375-399 seats.
My belief is that it will be at the low end of that range (375-380).

Corbyn is a principled and decent man, much to admire in many ways. He just wants a Britain that is opposite to my own beliefs.
How principled and decent he is, is frankly irrelevant as far as my vote is concerned.
Rofl!

Continuing a long and honourable tradition of being wrong.:D

[Furunculus]

This is how institutional cultures rot from the inside.
You don't get to quote the second line without the context of the first.

[Fragony]

You can observe, but it's none of your business. Having to live through its reality, I find it intensely irritating to read your insistences that the pain will all be worth it. I despised the neolibs who told the Russians that in the 90s whilst living in New York or London, and I retain the same opinion about their modern day equivalents.

I know it irritates you. But in general the Dutch like the English more than they like the EU, I am no different there. What I would like to see is the UK and the Netherlands teaming up.

[Furunculus]

UKIP were never a main party except in the media, who were obsessed with them. They are just fringe Tories.

Not really true now is it? Ukip was a gateway drug to get the working class in labour heartlands to vote tory for the first time since Thatcher.

[Beskar]

Continuing a long and honourable tradition of being wrong.:D

*puts this in signature*

[Furunculus]

My lib vote failed to stop the crazy nats. :(

Dup will be sufficient to get brexit underway, clearing of the non contentious items such as foriegn nationals.

But nothing contentious will be negotiated before the german elections (and the french for that matter).
No one is handing those two heads of state a fait acccompli from a lame duck president.
Anyone who thinks this won't be decided by the europoen council is daft.

For this reason, there is no real brexit bar to another election, merely domestic tolerance.

[Pannonian]

My lib vote failed to stop the crazy nats. :(

Dup will be sufficient to get brexit underway, clearing of the non contentious items such as foriegn nationals.

But nothing contentious will be negotiated before the german elections (and the french for that matter).
No one is handing those two heads of state a fait acccompli from a lame duck president.
Anyone who thinks this won't be decided by the europoen council is daft.

For this reason, there is no real brexit bar to another election, merely domestic tolerance.

You reckon Ken Clarke won't be able to get another few Tories to cross the floor with him on Brexit?

[Furunculus]

You reckon Ken Clarke won't be able to get another few Tories to cross the floor with him on Brexit?

are you suggesting that brexit somehow stops?
it is the [only] issue the next gov't [must] deal with.

[Pannonian]

are you suggesting that brexit somehow stops?
it is the [only] issue the next gov't [must] deal with.

The DUP want the current economic status of Northern Ireland to continue, with Northern Ireland having the same status as the rUK. So whatever agreements exist between Northern Ireland and Ireland aka the EU, the rUK will share.

[Furunculus]

The DUP want the current economic status of Northern Ireland to continue, with Northern Ireland having the same status as the rUK. So whatever agreements exist between Northern Ireland and Ireland aka the EU, the rUK will share.

#fakenews

http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/dup-conservatives-largely-agree-shape-uk-eu-deal-election-result-poses-questions-answers/

[Pannonian]

With Sinn Fein not voting in Westminster, that leaves 643 seats, or 322 needed for a majority. The Tories currently have 318, or 319 if they hold Kensington. Add the DUP, and they're up to 329. 4 rebels, of which Ken Clarke can be guaranteed to be one, and the Tories no longer have a majority vote.

[Fragony]

are you suggesting that brexit somehow stops?
it is the [only] issue the next gov't [must] deal with.

Well they do that. We had it two times. The referendum for a EU-constitution was sabotaged, a major no was neglected after a minorchange. Same with the rediculous associaton-treayty with Ukrainian criminals, they just laid on an extra empty paper and it was not the same thing we voted against anymore.

[Pannonian]

#fakenews

http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/dup-conservatives-largely-agree-shape-uk-eu-deal-election-result-poses-questions-answers/

That largely confirms what I've said, in more detail, and perhaps with more emphasis. The DUP may back lesser political ties with the EU, but they're big on the economic ties. Which means no hard Brexit, and an end to the grandstanding nonsense May was indulging in.