Printable View
Why are there so few casualties? What was the occupancy? I understand that there is not even an estimate of the number of missing and the building is still hazardous to be within, but isn't there anything right now differentiating a final toll in the tens, and one in the hundreds (or thousands)?
Those are the numbers released so far. Entire families are still missing. It'll be a while before they can put everything together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Successive government have sat on this issue since 1999.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
There's no legislation in SNP-controlled Scotland or Labour-controlled Wales either.
The major issue appears to have been cladding and the lack of sprinklers - cladding is common throughout the UK and sprinklers do not need to be retroactively fitted anywhere in the UK except as part of major renovations. It seems unlikely that a few more fire stations would have appreciably improved things under those circumstances and in any case Boris had to work with the money he had and the UK is near to broke.
Conclusion - government complacency across Westminster and devolved administrations for over a decade - not specifically a Tory fault.
Hey Beskar, why don't you redirect some of that partisan anti-Tory feeling towards ALL politicians? Including, I might add, recently resigned Tim Farron and soon-to-be-elected leaders Vince Cable.
Hmm?
It is a rapidly shrinking demographic, can't help but feel they are trying to sink the ship before they have to hand over the wheel...Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Because that's what you'd do?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Apply basic empathy, Grizzly.
You're old, you might not live to see another election - what motivates you to vote? Self Interest? Is that really likely?
Quite frankly considering their voting patterns I can only assume that is why they have voted the way they have done repeatedly. TBH I'd just put it down to the likes of the Daily Mail and the Sun, although I guess the other side would say exactly the same about my lot.
No worries though, I think with the severe mess they are making of Brexit combined with bias already built up (for good reason) in the younger generations is going to lead to a better Britain in the long run, the Tories are incredibly toxic now for so many people.
Old people are naturally conservative. They want to preserve old values by which they lived most of their life.
Young people are naturally rebellious, they want change and have no patience and they tend to vote liberal, when they do vote.
Isn't it more likely that older people vote to preserve the status quo as a way to minimize risk in their lives? In your twenties, riding out a bad decade is possible if not convenient. In your seventies, your time and energy is much more limited.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Funnily enough, it's the Big C Conservatives who are the radicals. It's Labour who have tended to preserve the status quo state of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
This trope does not give us much of the story. I think we find that people who have some political views or orientations, maintain them throughout their lives to a large extent; that rather than a division between young and old, there is a division between eras, decades, or generations (as well as places) - and not in a linear conservative>liberal manner; that political positions which become more acceptable over time in the larger society, such as gay marriage, become more acceptable across most or all age groups, even to similar extents; that popular ideologically-marked criteria at one point in time shift or are replaced by other criteria, including vis-a-vis party identification or actual voting...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
This has been commented on a lot in recent years:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...ting-behavior/
http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/c...-gay-marriage/
https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/Lac...ing%202015.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...61379413000875
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4347987/
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-politics.html
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2017/04...35-and-50.html
It still amounts to a preponderance of Labour voters in the age groups giving way to a preponderance of Conservative voters in the age groups, with the crossover point in the 35-40 group. Every younger group of 5 or so years is more Labour than its older neighbour, every older group or 5 or so years is more Conservative than its younger neighbour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Been reading a fair bit of conservative reaction to the election, a little bit of enjoying the wailing but also to see how they respond.
As I have seen pointed out a couple of times, people didn't tend to just become conservative just by getting older but acquiring assets over time helped them become more so, I saw someone mentioning home ownership as a factor. Unless the Tories are going to start aiming policies at these middle age groups or these groups suddenly do start enjoying the wealth and home ownerships levels of the older age groups then I don't imagine they are likely to go that much to the right if at all.
I tend to feel there is a base level for each as well with turning large sections becoming difficult without extreme events.
You're talking about the existing people and relationships. Indeed, those who were born in the 1960s are overall more conservative than those born in the 1990s. This won't tell us much about the beliefs or voting habits in 20 years of those who are millennials now. I.e. the actual people who will become 35-40 in the future are more telling than the fact that they will be 35-40.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
As for the UK, the Thatcher Children, those born in the 1960s and 1970s, have tended to be more right-wing than those born in the previous decades, and more likely to vote Conservative. I told you that it isn't a linear progression.
Quote:
Those in the oldest age group are less likely to agree
with the Thatcherite position on redistribution than the youngest age group, but are more likely
to think poorly of benefit seekers and to want children to be taught to obey authority. The effects
for year of survey show that, with the exception of the inequality item, there are significant
period effects with increasing support for the Thatcherite position in all cases except support for
the death penalty. This suggests that, over a period of twenty or more years, the electorate
indeed became more Thatcherite, particularly with respect to negative attitudes about the
benefits system, the unemployed, benefit recipients and the welfare system more generally.
The coefficients for political generations in the APC models presented in Table 3, in
conjunction with the results from the Wald tests presented in Table 4, show that across eight of
nine indicators, Thatcher’s Children are more right wing and authoritarian than the generation
preceding them (Wilson/Callaghan’s Children). This provides support to Hypothesis 1. Blair’s
Babies are also more right wing and authoritarian than this political generation, confirming that
Thatcherite values were reproduced under New Labour, and become stronger and embedded in
the generation that came of age after Thatcher’s time in office. This is consistent with
Hypothesis 2. Thatcher’s Children and Blair’s Babies are even more right wing economically
than the generation that came of age before the post-war consensus. Blair’s Babies in particular
are almost as negative about benefits and the welfare system as the generation that came of age
before it was created. They are also nearly as authoritarian as the oldest generations, showing
that the trend toward modernization and greater social liberalism was at least slowed down in
Britain under the Thatcher governments.
The biggest problem in that respect is Brexit. With inflation increasing due to increased costs, and median income decreasing, people who don't bank with the Bank of Mum & Dad are going to get screwed. That is what incenses me about the top end of the Labour leadership, namely Corbyn and McDonnell, who can't see beyond the EU regulations that bar old school nationalisation and other socialist trappings. If median income goes down, all the homilies about socialism mean nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
I'm a small c conservative who believes in incremental improvements to life. Make things as stable as possible so that people can plan ahead, then make it possible for them to plan for a better future life. I detest revolution. And Brexit is the biggest revolutionary factor I've seen in my lifetime. I hate Brexit, but especially Lexiteers like Corbyn and McDonnell. At least Rexiteers have coherent worldviews, even if I oppose every single aspect of them.
That's because it is now 2017. Take another look in 2047. You'll find that the younger age groups tend to vote the Left party, while the older age groups tend to vote Tory, with the crossover in the group who were born in 2007-2012.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
What's the evidence, as opposed to contemporary youth forming a life-long bent toward Labor and perhaps those being born now forming an early bent toward Conservatives?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Back in the early days of Blair, it was noted that the Conservative Party was extraordinarily elderly, and it was estimated that the Conservative member base would die off within a decade or so. A couple of decades on, the Tories are in government, and the same age group trends noted by Churchill are still there. The trend has been there throughout my lifetime, and goes back before my lifetime. Why should I assume that things are going to be different when the evidence says otherwise?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Just don't be afraid of total chaos and yo will be fine
Did you vote UKIP in the last general election? Did your UKIP candidate lose his deposit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I can't but would. The EU needs nothing other than being burnedQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
It could work but everybody there must leave
Ahh so leaving was a good idea we should have just made sure everyone else in Europe was ready to jump ship at the same time?
Alternatively we'll continue to make a hash of it and force the rest of you even closer together....
offs Europe is not your terrrotory there is no reason to be in it, all the EU does is restringting trade for a country like the UK, intertnantional trade outside the EU is heavily punshid. The EU is not your friendQuote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
The EU is our market though. I can live without the EU being our friend. I'll have difficulty living without the EU being our market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Europe really isn't your hub, the UK could never compete. The EU is a horrible thingQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
50% of our exports go there. It's the nearest coherent market, with attending lower transportation costs. Do you recommend we teleport our goods to the other side of the planet instead? At least that would be a positive recommendation, unlike everything else you've said on the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
It may seem insensitively timed, but I hope that, even if we do leave the EU in its entirety, with part of the argument being to free up UK businesses from red tape and regulations, we will still regulate our services according to the higher standards, whether it be EU or UK legislated.
That market isn't going to disapear just because you guys hurted some ego's. You don't seem to understand that you have the best cards and eurocrates are scared because it's going to become obvious that they are of no use whatsoever, everything worked fine and they know thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Thus says someone living a world away in Dutchland. Meanwhile, I live in the UK, where I shop on the high street and see prices going noticeably up. When are you moving over here to share the wonderful extra-EU experience of the brave British?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
You don't have to actually pay that it'sl bluff that you mustQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
we do if we want a trade agreement - this idea we can not pay at least something and still find Europe receptive to a trade agreement is a poor joke...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Older people can become very selfish, begin to think up more and more entitlements and things the rest of society owes them etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
So quite likely, yes. Trying to sink the ship may go a bit far, but they may want to make the best of the years they have left and not even make the connection to the future of their children. Don't fall for the romanticized image of the wise old Hollywood grandpa. There may be some of them around, but that ain't make them a majority.
I really am scratching my head how any of you are able to ascertain the motivations of the elderly, selfish or otherwise.
I think the general idea is to have the British national anthem roaring in the background whilst footage of the battle of Britain plays on a large screen, then Churchill's voice booms out declaring that we will fight them on the beaches, we shall fight them in the fields and in the streets, we shall never surrender!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
Presumably at this point Johnny Foreigner would back down and cede to our demands.
Maybe one day you will learn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
@Montmorency: My apologies for taking so long to reply, I have been feeling drained recently and have been putting the more challenging subjects aside until I felt I was in a better mindset to approach them. I have been doing that a lot recently and it shames me to admit I have allowed some to be forgotten.
Yes they can take indirect actions that can disrupt the 51% block's cohesion or posture to increase their chances of growing into the next 51% block, but that is all a minority party is able to do. A minority party that cannot disrupt the majority block and build it's own block it is powerless no matter if it's size is 1% or 49%- that combined by my belief that labour is one of these powerless is my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Insert a "meet the new boss same as the old boss" joke about the state of american and british politics here.Quote:
When you note something like
you have to grasp that this is the basis for your political system, it's the expectation and what all the participants are organized about. If it were not the case, all governments would translate to one-party states.
Multi party democracies are fully capable of being dominated by a single party for periods of time; it is the possibility of regime change in election that defines a multi party democracy from single party, there is no required inevitability of such change.
Why would it be impossible?Quote:
You took it that Corbyn's bad leadership is directly responsible for Labor's lack of a majority in this election. Corbyn could well be a bad leader, or even an acceptable but otherwise inconvenient leader, but you didn't have license to associate leadership from Corbyn, poor or otherwise, with overall election results. At least some of the issue is related to a fundamental misunderstanding, a zero-sum one, of how democracies work, which led you to perceive the election outcome for Labor as a bad one in the first place. What do you make of the proposition that it is categorically impossible for a party like the Liberal Democrats to not have bad leadership?
Just because I blame Labour's lack of success in this election on Jeremy Corbyn does not mean I believe success is impossible without good leadership, an idea that is completely untenable when considering the performance of the conservatives.
My assertions in this causality is not produced from thin air, merely that I have not presented the reasons in my recent posts. I would not be averse to discussing what brings me to the conclusion, in a time when I am not as time constrained my internet access as I am now.
What is there some sort of mass telepathy granting second puberty that occurs when you reach thirty I have been kept in the dark about until now?Quote:
Maybe one day you will learn.
The point being that this isn't the correct trend to notice; even its impression extends only to the past several generations and may be better explained as a function than as a pure function of aging.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
For instance, in 1979, 1983, and 1987 the Conservative ascendancy saw 18-34 voters favor Tories over Labor in their proportion of the vote This only flipped under Blair, and that's when Labor had a huge lead among youth. This lead then disappeared in 2010. So while Tory biases at various times are larger in older groups, and Labor biases smaller, much of the results we see can be better linked to period-specific political circumstances and generational (as opposed to age) differences.
What you need to do to get a better grip on the relationship of age to politics is to compare generations rather than age brackets at one point in time. How do political beliefs and voting habits of those born in the 1930s and 1940s compare to those born in the 50s, then the 60s and 70s... and how do these change over time within that cohort, all of that. If one cohort is simply more left-oriented than their immediate successors and always have been, as seems to be the case for the oldest voting bloc in the UK, then we should look beyond some kind of 'senescence turning point' on a spectrum. That's not to say that absolute aging can't have an effect on political attitudes, but that this has to be supported and contextualized and not merely assumed as is commonly done.
Greyblades, what both majority and minority parties do beyond passing legislation is develop policies with their interest groups and target demographics, bargain individually and corporately with their opponents, and work locally or behind the scenes to prime the electorate for the next contest. Parties are actively engaged in governing even if they don't on paper have the front seat (unless they are just very small). Democracies are set up exactly to prevent minority groups (parties here) from being powerless, although different setups can grant more or less power.
Single-party rule in a democracy in itself weakens other parties because they do not have the chance to develop national infrastructure to a meaningful extent, and because there is less leverage with which to modify the ruling party's agenda. Look at the slippery-banana-peel performance of Japan's DPJ 2008-2012, to the point that the whole party in recent years had to be dissolved/merged (yet again) with others to maintain an opposition to the classic LDP hegemony over postwar Japan. A similar effect exists with very small or niche parties, in connection with the first paragraph. As an aside, parties like DUP are a weird kind of exception because they have otherwise been empowered, status quo parties in their own right.
I'm only saying here that it is incorrect to characterize a non-majority result as an unqualifiable failure for a party. Parties play for keeps, or they disappear.
Well, I would, but unfortunately the Lib Dems are too busy burying themselves within their own grave...Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Tim Farron disappointed me in Brexit and the General Election. To be fair, it could be the Media bias against the Lib Dems which makes them virtually invisible to the public eye and UKIP very visible with no MPs.
As for his Christian beliefs and progressive party nonsense, that was irritating. There is a fundamental difference between the Church and the Secular State. If he felt Homosexuality was a sin, he can say "According to my faith, sodomy is a sin. However, I don't deprive people the choice to engage in activities more in line with their own separate views and belief systems." There, problem solved. He would have nothing to justify to the creator either because it says "Judge others like you would like to be judged yourself", ie be judged and ruled fairly.
May makes for some gruesome watching. It's almost as though there's a manual for how to be a prime minister, with counterpoints of what not to do, and she's following every one of the latter points.
Theresa May chased from church as angry crowd brands Prime Minister a 'coward'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...rime-minister/
Prime Minister sneaking outside the back, avoiding the plebs, as they brand her a coward as she throws the entire London met police between her and the car, all 5 of them (after cuts) as she makes her escape.
Actually, it's "judge not, lest ye be judged."Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
I.e. you are not entitled to make moral judgements, because judged by the same standards you apply to others you will doubtless me found wanting.
In any case, in the UK there is no clear division between Church and State - we live in a sort of "soft Theocracy".
Maybe it was the need to apply moral judgement to others that got him down. He wasn't all that impressive anyway, and now Clegg is out of Parliament Cable will be next up, which means Lib Dems lurching to the Left and cuddling up to Corbyn's Labour.
The judgement comes from the media and especially the press, a relic of the days when people genuinely cared about character, as opposed to pretending that they do. There is no substantial way in which the CofE or religion in general affects everyday life, barring perhaps the shorter and limited working day on Sunday (nowadays a break from work rather than a religiously observed sabbath)Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
STRONG AND STABLE
https://youtu.be/ftY1NlPk5YY
Oh, really?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
So they didn't look like they were trying to rip her apart? Then?
Except they did, didn't they?
security concernsQuote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Given the vicious nature of the crowd her Police escort would have insisted she be extracted - not least given the recent terrorist attacks.
It's not good optics. In her position, she might as well have risked it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Bugger Jonathan Pie.
Too much dose of raw truth?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
What is he? What is he an expert on? Why should I listen to what he's saying?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
He is a comedian who examines current affairs and puts it through a lens outraged reporter. "telling it as it is". Not only are the points publicised but overshadowed, he delivers them in a raw way which speaks to straight to people without the pomp and fluff. If you are not wanting to listen to anything he says, might as well cover your eyes and ears and just avoid 99.9% of all places which discusses politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
A comedian "telling it as it is" through a character. How is he any better than his right wing equivalent who continually rails against PC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Back in the day, there was Rory Bremner, who was absolutely superb at looking at politics through different personas. I didn't rely on him to form my politics either. If you want to learn about politics via comedy, try Yes (Prime) Minister, which was sourced via high ups in political circles.
I own the boxset, and despite your claim, I don't rely on him to form my opinions, they are just more typically aligned with my already existing opinion. If you look back in this thread, I already made comments to which he later said in the video and I doubt he uses me as source material.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
So you like watching him because he confirms your biases. Echo in other words. Have you ever learned anything from watching him, that you didn't already know?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
I watch and listen to a lot of things, not all I agree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
As for political sitcoms, ever watched The Newsstateman? I used to be a big fan when I was younger, even got to watch Rik Mayall perform live. Though in that version, he spoofed New Labour, you would have loved that.
This can be the case with the old and senile - it is not the case with anyone of that age group I have met who retains their faculties. This includes, in addition to many family friends, my parents and by aunts and uncles. My family is quite intellectual and we discuss politics frequently so I can tell your their opinions with some confidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
With regard to Corbyn specifically, I can tell you my elders see hims as anything from a dangerous revolutionary making common cause with the IRA to "useful idiot" terrorists have used to grant themselves legitimacy.
My personnal experience of this age group is that they become more inflexible and sometimes cynical as they age, but they do not become selfish or cruel. If your experience of your own family is different then I apologise.
He's putting forth a caricature, one that (among other things) blames the sitting government for everything when, as noted, this is a problem in the "Liberal" parties that control th devolved administrations too - and the problem is apathy (and lack of funds).Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Then again, Kensington has been a Conservative/Lib-Dem district for the past generation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
I saw the original, just as I saw the original Red Dwarf. And like the revived Red Dwarf, I didn't watch the new New Statesman. I caught Blackadder Back & Forth, but that only confirmed by view that revived comedies are nowhere near as good as the originals. Brass Eye wasn't as good as The Day Today either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
It's the modus operandi of someone who's never had to make things work, but is only interested in pointing out that things don't work. That's why I hate idiots who parrot the HIGNFY method of dismissing someone or something with a one liner, often in the form "Is this the same xxx who did xxx once upon a time?" If someone who properly knows the subject and what these telltale signs mean points it out, then I'll bow to their judgement. But some wannabe comedian? I don't think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Cladding buildings was a Labour policy, designed to reduce heating bills for the poor and elderly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The potential issue here seems to be the specific form of cladding used, since AFAIK most if not all buildings use cladding of some sort.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
In the UK most buildings use cavity insulation. Cladding is used to retrofit older buildings, it was a big thing under Blair and Brown especially.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Article on the various reports and complaints made about the structure and fire risk over past two decades.
Quote:
There is growing evidence that the rush by private firms to fulfill council contracts as cheaply as possible led to less expensive cladding being used that was not as fire resistant.
The Reynobond cladding fixed to the Grenfell tower last year was made from powder-coated aluminium panels that are usually filled with plastic insulation, which is flammable.
On Friday Worcester based firm Omnis Exteriors said it had been asked to supply cheaper cladding to the installer, Harley Facades, which did not meet strict fire-retardant specifications.
The safer sheets were only £2 a square metre more expensive meaning that for an extra £5,000 the building could have been encased in a material which may have resisted the fire for longer. The cheaper version is banned from use on tall buildings in the US and Germany.
So, internal vs. external cladding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Is it a problem then with the policy, or with local implementation (Tory-led or otherwise)? Point out some references on the policies in question.Quote:
Cladding is used to retrofit older buildings, it was a big thing under Blair and Brown especially.
At any rate, the current populist position is that the recent cladding was installed as an aesthetic feature rather than as a purely infrastructural one.
Meanwhile, here's an op-ed declaiming against high-rises in concept as anti-social and un-ergonomic compared to low-rises. Can't we just have a Brutalist renaissance in flats?
High Rises are definitely evil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
In the UK the wall cavities are usually filled with soft lagging, not solid panels such as those used on the high rise. On older buildings it might be internal with plasterboard over the top, in newer buildings it'll actually be between two layers of bricks or concrete.
I would say that the cladding on the building was intended to be both insulation and aesthetic. The idea being to make the building look less tired for the residents as well as everyone else. Like everything local government does, though, it was done too cheaply.
Theresa May is being escorted away from the public, due to "safety concerns" as PFH put it, whilst Jeremy Corbyn is at Glastonbury, receiving an encore of cheers and chanting praising him.
There is definitely a big difference between the two leaders.
One of them lives in 10 Downing Street, the other one doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
A sad indictment of the state of British politics and the ignorance which media outlets have fostered among the masses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
It just occurred to me that Corbyn is a Hipster's politicians. They think he's new and fresh because they're too young to remember the period he's harking back to.
I've posted links to The Wilderness Years before. Onscreen accounts from every Labour leader from the last 40 years (with the exception of John Smith, who was dead). Widely recognised by politicians and politicos of all colours as one of the best documentaries on politics ever made, it was dismissed here as "a video". And then you have Beskar posting videos of Jonathan Pie, a comedian speaking via a persona, and claiming that it's "the raw truth". Michael Gove may be a :daisy:, but he was speaking the truth when he said that Britons have had enough of experts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Corbyn is doing what he loves - basking in the adulation of believers, criticising others whilst doing sweet FA: he can be hugging people and attending pop concerts because he is not running a country. Any policies involving money aren't based in reality - upping money to everyone with increased wages (why stop at a minimum wage of £10 an hour? Why not £20?) As if the crippling inflation of the 1970's was a good thing. Proof? Evidence? Basic viability? Pah, you right wing plant!Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
I don't particularly like May. She seems to be a rather robotic person with few drives beyond being in power. But then how does that differ from most other politicians?
And local politicians appear to be if anything worse - any powers facets that they have been tasked with often fail scrutiny which is why the Government is so keen to have none.
~:smoking:
If you put it like that, you can make anything sound bad. Let me do the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Pannanion likes to point to opinions of two-bit politico's who comment that Corbyn smells funny and must be stopped at any cost, because they dislike having a bit of democratic socialism in the democratic socialist party, calling it unelectable and fails to understand why the membership wants him as its leader. He likes to call anything giving anti-Corbyn opinion as 'primary sources' and 'experts', but when a political comedian calls out on a current government policy of putting a veneer over poverty with these flammable cladding, he calls it dumb and dismisses it even though it is a current national scandal which he described plainly and bluntly because his copy of the Daily Mail had a new article where they drew Corbyn supporters as the IRA. So whilst Orwell in Animal Farm warns of sheep bleating, Pannanion prefers like them to defer to toe the line the pigs give and not think for himself.
I am sure you feel the above might come across as an unfair representation, so don't do it yourself.
I pointed towards a documentary that's practically universally highly regarded by people who have made a career of politics or studied politics. The documentary featured people talking to the camera and explaining themselves and their actions. Here are some of the talking heads from that documentary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Jim Callaghan (Labour leader 1976-1980, PM 1976-79)
Michael Foot (Labour leader 1980-1983)
Neil Kinnock (Labour leader 1983-1992)
Tony Blair (Labour leader 1994-2007, PM 1997-2007)
Gordon Brown (Labour leader 2007-2010, PM 2007-2010)
Jeremy Corbyn (Labour leader 2015-)
Going beyond leaders of the Labour party, here are some of the other talking heads (that I can remember).
Roy Hattersley
Denis Healey
Tony Benn
Gerald Kaufman
Note the difference in calibre between the above and Jonathan Pie, whom you regard as some kind of authority on politics. Actually, I'll have another skim through the first episode and list a few more names.
Peter Shore
Michael Meacher
Joe Ashton
Tony Banks
Roy Jenkins
Shirley Williams
David Owen
Chris Mullin
Jack Straw
Mike Thomas
If you don't recognise any of the names, add MP as a suffix.
And in comparison,
I'm sure Paul Merton is topical too. I don't regard him as an authority on politics and government though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
I will reply properly when I can. But I do have a question, I remember your documentary but I don't remember anyone dismissing it or voicing anything against it?
I do remember a incident where you referenced an MP who talked about Corbyn thugs barging into offices and intimidating people. This incident has also been investigated since by the Speaker of the House and it was discovered that the person in question was talking a huge pile of cow platter as they were just trying to use the media to smear Corbyn and those who work for him. I remember Idaho calling the source out on that one and linked to a reporters article on it and you told him his source was bad as she is an MP and a 'primary source' whilst he just linked to a reporter.
On work break and on phone, but Google should be able to provide the names and details of the incident for review.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7156991.html
Where have you Theresa May supporters seemingly disappeared to? I thought you would be over the moon to find out that Theresa May actually found a money tree and is spending over £billion for the Government to become "Strong and Stable".
£100millin per vote, what a steal!
Tories like winners. They liked may when they thought she would win. Now they pretend they never liked her.
Meanwhile the latest social attitudes survey results:
61% of people think it is wrong for benefit claimants to use legal loopholes to increase their payments,compared with 48% who think it is wrong to use legal loopholes to pay less tax.
The view that it was acceptable to use legal loopholes to pay less tax was most strongly felt among people who were better off.
Tories... Loss aversion and self interest.
Of course offering tax breaks to wealthy people and encouraging old white people to vote with scare stories of waves of immigration is democracy. Whereas offering improvements in pay and public services and encouraging young people and ethnic minority groups to vote is cynical bribery and undemocratic.
Someone observed the other day that, given that there are about 10 Conservative MP's in Devon-and-Cornwall we could also hold the government to ransom as this area is always under-funded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
It should also be pointed out that Theresa May was never popular, she was however seen as competent.
Her miss-handling of the election campaign destroyed any real belief in her competency.
Corbyn awfully popular on the Opposition benches now, isn't he? People clambering over themselves to apologise and ask for a seat on his Front Bench.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Political parties need to win elections - they will always support a leader they think will win.
If I was Corbyn, I would enact an old skool purge of the blairites. Well at least get a few of them deselected and have the rest kiss the sword.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Then do advise your MPs to do it and not to be taken for granted. Devon and Cornwall are within the Union too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
If I was being honest, Theresa May should have tried to reach out to the opposition, such as Labour, in attempt to craft compromises on policies rather trying to ramrod them through Parliament.
Isn't that just a bit, well, Stalinist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Strangely enough, this was suggested by a Labour supporter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
The thought of such "Pork Barrel" politics in the UK horrifies me though.
And you're wrong, we're not part of the Union - we're part of England - and so is Cornwall whether they like it or not.