Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, with David Cameron on the verge of packing his bags, I suppose it's time to assess his 'legacy,' for want of a better word.
I'll declare from the start my loathing of all things related to the Conservative party, but by God, Cameron was as ineffective a PM that Britain has ever had.
A PR man masquerading as a Prime Minister, a leader of the Conservative Party who wasn't even a Conservative (he was New Labour through and through) and perhaps most damning of all, a PM who abandoned ship in the middle of the worst crisis in British history since WW2.
His vision of one nation conservatism failed, his big society policy was a shambles, he preceded over a shameless attack on the least well off sections of British society, and the rise of foodbanks and DWP sanctions on his watch will follow him to the grave.
He dodged bullets in his early days thanks to a willing stooge called Nick Clegg acting as a human shield for him, won elections on the basis that the alternative choice was the ghastly Gordon Brown or the tailor's dummy calling himself Ed Miliband, got lucky in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, shamefully rolled up the white flag to the EU went he tried to negotiate a better deal for the UK, and badly miscalculated about holding an EU referendum...
Incompetent, ineffective, and badly out of his depth, David Cameron MP, was one of the poorest Prime Ministers Britain has had in living memory, or even further back.
Final rating 3/10
Cameron had to resign. In this he had a modicum of honour. He completely screwed the pooch over Brexit, he so mishandled the remain campaign so badly alongside Osbourne (the guy who did the real disappearing act), that he had no future.
Leave the EU and your shares will fall, leaverthe EU and house prices will fall, leave the EU and it will hurt our banking sector and international trade.
He forgot that the UK electorate is not made up entirely of stockbrokers, shareholders and banking industry workers. Most of his scares not only had no effect on the average working joe, but in many cases benefited them. "House prices might fall?" Good, rent is too high. "Stocks and shares plummet?" They never shared any the good times, why should we care if they lose out now, it doesnt effect everyone erlse and is a good shock to the entitled classes that change must come.
Cameron's stockbroker arguments to Remain were blue collar worker and the disenfranchised underclass reasons to Leave.
It showed how little thought he had placed not only in this huge gamble with the nations future, which he commited uis to solely to outmaneuver Farage and Eurosceptics in his own party; but how little he considered the welfare of any but a privileged few.
I agree with the rest of your assessment, 3/10 is about right fro Cameron.
Even allowing for how piss poor Cameron was, Gordon Brown was far worse. Cameron was shallow and unconcerned, but he did have balls, genuine leadership skills and got the UK to have some credibility after the pissweak Gordon Brown which everyone in foreign diplomatic circles exploited. Blood-in-the-water is a fair assessment of how world politcal and financial leaders saw the Brown government and the PM himself. Brown was spineless and incapable for standing up for the UK even on issues he was passionate about. Cameron inherited a culture of contempt and exploitation from the White House, Kremlin and Beijing which he quickly turned around by proving he had balls and could stand his ground in negotiations.
Blair was a war criminal and makes him far worse in my book. Blair was a genuinely clever man and a strongman, I respect him for that, because he managed to hoodwink the vast majority of the electorate with his 'New Labour', and most people still dont understand how the con trick he pulled two decades on works. He also did far more damage to the UK by his social disestablishmentarianism than any other Prime Minister in modern history. The damage others did was transientary, Blair's damage was irreperable as he disrupted the nations underlying culture in his self serving reforms. And as the Russians understood from their transition to the Soviet era cultural damage destabilised, divides and what is broken is often lost forever. Iraq finished him, but this was his principle crime.
Callaghan and Major were both decent and competent people surrounded by self serving incompetents and corrupt exploiters and paid the price. Maggie had enormous faults but even larger talents and shook up the nation and gave us a viable economy - for a price.
In my assessment we had decent Prime Ministers up until 1997, then crap from that moment onwards. As fro the parties behind them though, they have been rotten to the core since the late 60's.
Cameron's greatest advantage i.e not being Gordon Brown, could only take him so far. He needed substance to fall back on. But when you beelive in nothing, stand for nothing, and are little more than a walking policy vacuum, his premiership was bound to fail.
I honestly believe Cameron would have been more happier in the Labour party as a Blairite.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
UK scientists dropped from EU projects because of post-Brexit funding fears
Doubts over the UK’s ability to win future project grants mean some EU partners are avoiding working with British researchers
Britain’s vote to leave the EU has unleashed a wave of discrimination against UK researchers, with elite universities in the country coming under pressure to abandon collaborations with European partners.
In a confidential survey of the UK’s Russell Group universities, the Guardian found cases of British academics being asked to leave EU-funded projects or to step down from leadership roles because they are considered a financial liability.
In one case, an EU project officer recommended that a lead investigator drop all UK partners from a consortium because Britain’s share of funding could not be guaranteed. The note implied that if UK organisations remained on the project, which is due to start in January 2017, the contract signing would be delayed until Britain had agreed a fresh deal with Europe.
The backlash against UK researchers began immediately after the June referendum when the failure to plan for a post-Brexit Britain cast serious doubts over the chances of British organisations winning future EU funding. British researchers receive about £1bn a year from EU finding programmes such as Horizon 2020, but access to the money must be completely renegotiated under Brexit.
The 24 universities in the Russell Group are regarded as Britain’s elite institutions. With Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh, University College London and Imperial College among their number, they are renowned for world-class research and academic excellence.
One leading university said anecdotal evidence that UK applicants were being dropped from EU bids came almost straight after the vote. Since then they had witnessed “a substantial increase in definitive evidence that EU projects are reluctant to be in collaboration with UK partners, and that potentially all new funding opportunities from Horizon 2020 are closing”.
Incidents reported by the universities suggest that researchers across the natural sciences, the engineering disciplines and social sciences are all affected. At least two social science collaborations with Dutch universities have been told UK partners are unwelcome, one Russell Group university said in the survey.
Speaking at Oxford’s Wolfson College last Friday, the university’s chancellor, Chris Patten, said Oxford received perhaps more research income than any European university, with about 40% coming from government. “Our research income will of course fall significantly after we have left the EU unless a Brexit government guarantees to cover the shortfall,” Lord Patten said.
The uncertainty over future funding for projects stands to harm research in other ways, the survey suggests. A number of institutions that responded said some researchers were reluctant to carry on with bids for EU funds because of the financial unknowns, while others did not want to be the weak link in a consortium. One university said it had serious concerns about its ability to recruit research fellows for current projects.
Some Russell Group universities declined to comment for the survey, and not all of those which did knew of any discrimination against their researchers. Though one university said concerns over the impact of the referendum had become a part of almost every conversation about research, their academics were continuing with funding applications as usual.
A week after the referendum, science minister Jo Johnson told academics and industry figures he had raised concerns over potential discrimination against UK researchers with the EU science commissioner, Carlos Moedas. Johnson has asked a team at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to gather evidence for discrimination and urged organisations to report any incidents. Until the UK left the EU, he said the situation was “business as usual”.
Others see it differently. Joe Gorman, a senior scientist at Sintef, Norway’s leading research institute, said he believed UK industry and universities would see “a fairly drastic and immediate reduction in the number of invitations to join consortiums”.
Only 12% of bids for Horizon 2020 funds are successful, a rate that falls by more than half in highly competitive areas. Given the low probability of winning funds at the best of times, Gorman said it was natural risk aversion to be cautious of UK partners. In many cases, British organisations will not have a clue they have lost out. “If you don’t get invited to the party, you don’t even know there is a party,” he said.
“I strongly suspect that UK politicians simply don’t understand this, and think it is ‘business as usual’, at least until negotiations have been completed. They are wrong, the problems start right now,” he added. As a former European commission official, Gorman oversaw research projects and now advises universities and companies on how to succeed in EU-funded research programmes.
According to Gorman, the UK government must make a clear and immediate statement on how Britain will take part in future EU projects from outside the union. “All the talk is about when negotiations will start,” he said. “We don’t want that. People want to know now what is going to happen. This could all be solved by one pronouncement from one minister.”
Another obstacle British researchers face is the potential bias, whether conscious or not, of the independent evaluators who score applications for EU funding. Xavier Aubry at Zaz Ventures, a consultancy that works with consortiums to win Horizon 2020 funding, said Switzerland was discriminated against at the evaluation stage after its 2014 referendum to restrict immigration.
Aubry’s firm operates a “no win, no fee” policy, which has left him second-guessing how the evaluators will respond to the Brexit vote. “Right now the problem is that we don’t know how the evaluators will react, he said.” “Even if they are briefed that they should not discriminate, they could have unconscious biases.”
As a result, he thinks British organisations will have to bring more to the table to justify the risk of them being included in a consortium. “We are becoming more strict,” he said. “But we are not telling people to stop working with the UK.”
Which is entirely to be expected. There is no guarantee of British universities remaining part of the programmes in 2+ years time and none of these programmes will be completed within two years (remember that a PhD takes 3-4 years and then consider that many of these research projects are post-doctoral level research). So why would anybody choose to partner with a group who may have to drop out and jeopardise the whole project halfway through?
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/07/12 13:18:49
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Indeed, even if you ignore their record on Scotland entirely, the fact these bumbling idiots couldn't foresee the potential outcomes of their own shambolic coup attempt is a pretty comprehensive condemnation of their ability to predict things - I wouldn't trust them to tell you for sure if the sun will rise tomorrow, nevermind the genuine mood of their electorate.
They're right-wingers so they will not and can not allow leftism to reclaim the party and their particular flavour of liberalism prevents them from understanding why Corbyn has principles and why people find that appealing. They believe he's doing the same thing they would, play power games and build his Personal Brand® out of pure self-interest, instead of being ideologically committed to Labour actually representing working-class people and pursuing policies that are judged to be moral.
Kilkrazy wrote:Of course they are real members in the sense of having paid a subscription and got a party card that admits them to the annual conference and so on. However, as recent joiners, clearly they aren't the long term hard core party activists, because they would already have been members.
The operation of the party works at several levels. Being a basic member only gives you a vote in a few circumstances. It isn't enough to select Corbyn as leader because he is left wing of the party, and think the job is done.
If the new £3 members want to transform the party away from its current centrist position they need to work from the grassroots. They may have to deselect MPs they dislike and find candidates who are more left-wing. To do this they need to start going to meetings, get voted onto the selection committee and so on.
This isn't impossible but it will require a level of commitment and organisation that isn't automatically provided by buying a £3 membership.
I agree with this. Most of the people I know my age (twenties) who signed up for their £3 memberships have done nothing else with regards to Corbyn bar sharing a few facebook posts. I think one went to a rally once. That's out of about 15 people. If that's in any way representative of the new influx, Corbyn's supporters aren't so much 'the Labour membership' as they are 'A bunch of vaguely liberal-inclined types who thought politics should work like Big Brother with a £3 text vote'.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Well, with David Cameron on the verge of packing his bags, I suppose it's time to assess his 'legacy,' for want of a better word.
I'll declare from the start my loathing of all things related to the Conservative party, but by God, Cameron was as ineffective a PM that Britain has ever had.
A PR man masquerading as a Prime Minister, a leader of the Conservative Party who wasn't even a Conservative (he was New Labour through and through) and perhaps most damning of all, a PM who abandoned ship in the middle of the worst crisis in British history since WW2.
His vision of one nation conservatism failed, his big society policy was a shambles, he preceded over a shameless attack on the least well off sections of British society, and the rise of foodbanks and DWP sanctions on his watch will follow him to the grave.
He dodged bullets in his early days thanks to a willing stooge called Nick Clegg acting as a human shield for him, won elections on the basis that the alternative choice was the ghastly Gordon Brown or the tailor's dummy calling himself Ed Miliband, got lucky in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, shamefully rolled up the white flag to the EU went he tried to negotiate a better deal for the UK, and badly miscalculated about holding an EU referendum...
Incompetent, ineffective, and badly out of his depth, David Cameron MP, was one of the poorest Prime Ministers Britain has had in living memory, or even further back.
Final rating 3/10
Eh. I'd be more inclined to give him a five out of ten. Why? Because whilst not much of note happened under his watch, not much of note happened under his watch. It isn't necessarily a bad thing. We didn't get into any major wars, the economy did alright, and tomorrow more or less went on like today. Yeah, sure, a lot of support for these in need got cut down, and student fees went up. Not particularly impressive. On the other hand, same-sex marriage got legalised, forced marriage was banned, the modern slavery bill was passed, and postgraduate education got funded. On the scales, I'd say things probably work out about even. Some good, some bad, you know?
Cameron was a placeholder, but he was dignified enough to clock when his time had come and step down with a minimum of fuss and time. None of the Tony Blair 'will I/won't I'. There were enough potential successors/talent that it wasn't like the Tory party was going to dissolve into years of ineffectual infighting like Labour.
So all in all? 5/10. He won't be missed, but he will be forgotten. Like many Prime Ministers before him.
Yodhrin wrote:
I think anyone putting faith in the predictive power of Labour party officials should have a think back to what happened in Scotland of late. Many in Labour are keen to write off their dismemberment north of the wall as some freakish one-time event driven by irrational nationalist sentiment and that we'll all come to our senses any day now and restore them to their rightful place(a sentiment especially common among the Labour MPs who got chucked out). They've been saying that since the 2015 UK election, and before then they said it after the 2011 Holyrood election, and again before that at the 2007 Holyrood election. The SNP, we have been endlessly told for over a decade, are a "busted flush", always moments away from final defeat and with it the triumphant return of Labour. It's a political Zeno's Paradox, with red Achilles never quite able to catch the yellow Tortoise as he boasts he will.
The Scottish Parliament will "kill nationalism stone-dead!", was the confident prediction of now-Lord George Robertson and his PLP pals in the late 90's.
"A freak occurrence, a protest vote, no more than that", came the cry from down south in 2007.
"Brown will put paid to these SNP usurpers! Afterall, all the Jockos need is to hear our pronouncements in the right accent." the PLP told us in 2009.
"Iain Gray, that's the man to see off these SNP jokers!" they declared in 2011, immediately prior to the SNP winning a majority, a deliberately nigh-impossible feat in the Labour-designed Holyrood electoral system.
"Hah, a referendum, what are they like, support for independence will never go north of 25%, you'll see" pronounced SLab bigwig Duncan Hothersall, with similar sentiments coming from McTernan and various PLP staffers, right before they turned a nearly 40 point lead into a narrow 10 point victory.
"Send Jim Murphy back up there, he'll show the SNP what's what, having him jog about in a Scotland footie top for the cameras and promise to bring back bevvy at matches, they'll be eating out of his hand!" the UK party insisted, immediately before being reduced to a single Scottish MP in a night of landslides so large they repeatedly broke the BBC's "swingometer" graphic.
"That Kezia Dugdale, she's a good one, made Jim a fine deputy, no doubt we'll be back on top with her at the helm!" was the sentiment of the Party in the days before the 2016 Holyrood elections in which Labour fell so far they actually became the third party behind the Tories, who more than half of Scotland still have a bone-deep and visceral hatred of.
Now all that is not meant to be crowing about the SNP's recent success, nor even is it particularly meant as a dig at Labour as a whole, but it's hardly the predictive record of Nostra-sodding-damus is it. I would strongly caution English supporters of Labour against putting any significant amount of stock in what MP's believe about their own electorate, because time & again they've been shown to be hopelessly out of touch and prone to wildly, desperately flailing around for any scrap of data they can twist into a justification for their existing belief that really everyone agrees with them, only sensible innit etc.
I'm fifty fifty on that. I agree that the SNP are here to stay on the political scene. They've got a very hard core voter base. and I don't thinkg we're ever going to see a Scotland where Labour holds as many seats as the SNP do now in the foreseeable future.
I'm not convinced though, that Labour is done for, and will never win a seat back. I don't believe the SNP has such a grip on the hearts and minds of Scotland that they'll be able to hang onto their current extensive majority if Labour succeed in reforming in an effective way. I believe Labour is running out of time, and has at best, fifteen years to do so. If they don't, then yes, the SNP will probably continue to dominate Scotland (although I reckon the Lib Dems will steal a few seats back). There are still enough Labour voters in Scotland though, that I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up looking at a 50/40/10 makeup of SNP/Labour/Others Scottish Parliament in ten years, you know?
They're right-wingers so they will not and can not allow leftism to reclaim the party and their particular flavour of liberalism prevents them from understanding why Corbyn has principles and why people find that appealing. They believe he's doing the same thing they would, play power games and build his Personal Brand® out of pure self-interest, instead of being ideologically committed to Labour actually representing working-class people and pursuing policies that are judged to be moral.
The funny thing I find is that most people I know who bought the £3 vote have no idea what Hard or old school Labour even is, or the faintest clue about anything to do with economics or politics. They don't even necessarily know what Corbyn's policies are beyond 'I REPRESENT THE PEOPLE AND WILL MAKE THINGS BETTER'.
They've just heard that he's not like other politicians (which in all fairness; he isn't), and voted for him based on that and the above soundbite. The minute you start asking whether they think his economic policies are feasible, you get blank looks. Much like Brexit I suspect, most of Corbyn's supporters support him because of an exasperation with the current political elite for various social/economic reasons, rather than any ingrained belief or actual knowledge of the political situation.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/07/12 13:43:56
Jeremy Corbyn has called for "calm" and "dignity" from Labour members after leadership challenger Angela Eagle's constituency office was vandalised.
A brick was thrown through the window of the constituency office on Monday.
Mr Corbyn said that "as someone who has received death threats this week" he condemned the "threatening act" and the other "abuse and threats" MPs faced.
The Labour leader urged members and supporters to "treat each other with respect and dignity".
It comes as Labour's National Executive Committee prepares to rule on whether Mr Corbyn should automatically be included in the party's leadership ballot, triggered by ex-shadow business secretary Ms Eagle's leadership challenge.
Unions say party rules are clear that the Labour leader must be in any leadership contest, but his opponents say he needs the nominations of 51 MPs or MEPs to stand.
The ruling NEC could face the threat of legal action from Mr Corbyn.
In a statement on the attack on Ms Eagle's office, Mr Corbyn said: "It is extremely concerning that Angela Eagle has been the victim of a threatening act and that other MPs are receiving abuse and threats.
"As someone who has also received death threats this week and previously, I am calling on all Labour Party members and supporters to act with calm and treat each other with respect and dignity, even where there is disagreement.
"I utterly condemn any violence or threats, which undermine the democracy within our party and have no place in our politics."
Ms Eagle launched her leadership challenge on Monday, saying Mr Corbyn had failed to connect with Labour voters and said she could provide "strong" leadership to "heal our country in these dangerous times".
BBC political correspondent Iain Watson said the decision the NEC reaches on the leadership ballot rules could have far-reaching consequences.
He said if the Labour leader is required to get 51 nominations in order to stand he could struggle to get on the ballot as only 40 of his party backed him on a motion of no confidence recently.
Labour-commissioned legal analysis states Mr Corbyn needs the nominations - just like any challenger - but unions say, as existing leader, he does not.
The BBC has seen legal advice sent to Unite by solicitors that states: "The rules by which the Labour Party is governed are unambiguous: the leader does not require any signatures to be nominated in a leadership election where there is a potential challenger to the leadership."
The solicitors make clear that legal action will be launched unless Mr Corbyn is automatically on the leadership ballot, and they would halt any leadership election by applying to the High Court for an injunction.
What the Labour rule book says:
ii: Where there is no vacancy nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of Party conference. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20% of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void.
Mr Corbyn, who has never had much support among his party's MPs, was elected as leader overwhelmingly in a vote of Labour members and registered supporters last year.
He had been due to speak at the Unite union's policy conference in Brighton on Tuesday afternoon, but he will not now do so as it clashes with the party's NEC meeting.
Unite union general secretary Len McCluskey has warned Labour not to seek a "sordid little fix" to prevent Mr Corbyn defending his leadership.
He said it would be "alien to the concept of natural justice" if the Labour leader was not "automatically on the ballot paper".
The rules were "not ambiguous" and the incumbent "must be able to defend themselves", he said.
Ms Eagle, former shadow business secretary, launched her leadership challenge against Mr Corbyn on Monday.
Her bid for the job followed days of her calling for Mr Corbyn to resign, after a succession of walkouts from the shadow cabinet in protest at his leadership.
Ms Eagle told BBC Radio 4's Today that "now" was the time for Labour to elect its first female leader, especially given the Conservatives were getting a second female prime minister in Theresa May.
Asked how she would differ from Mr Corbyn as leader, she said: "I wouldn't be hid in my room, not talking to Labour members."
'Just emotion'
She accused Mr Corbyn of failing to campaign with "enough confidence" to stay in the European Union during the UK's recent referendum.
And she said unlike Mr Corbyn, she would not be calling for Article 50 - which kick starts the formal process for leaving the EU - to be signed straight away.
"That would cause chaos. We need to spend more time disentangling ourselves from the EU in a way which does the least damage. So I wouldn't rush to the exits," she said.
She also defended her tearful response in a number of TV and radio interviews after she quit the shadow cabinet, saying she had tried unsuccessfully for nine months to make Mr Corbyn's leadership work.
"It was just emotion that I had been unable to deliver that," she said.
"There is more than one way to be a leader and I think being in touch with your emotions is quite important. It was a difficult day. Politicians ought to be human beings and leaders can be human beings."
Owen Smith, MP for Pontypridd and Labour's former work and pensions spokesman, has said he would consider making a rival leadership challenge.
'I've failed'
Meanwhile, a YouGov poll for the Election Data website suggested that of 1,221 trade union members surveyed, 63% thought Mr Corbyn was doing badly as leader, compared with 33% who thought he was doing well.
Some 76% said it was unlikely that Mr Corbyn would ever become prime minister, while 69% said it was unlikely Labour would win the next election while he was leader.
Union representatives take up 12 of the NEC seats - about a third of the total.
Deputy leader Tom Watson told a parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) meeting that his abandoned peace talks with union leaders earlier this month had failed to close the gap between MPs and pro-Corbyn elements of the party.
He said: "For years I've been told I'm a fixer. Well I've tried to fix this, I've really, really tried, and I've failed.
"I've tried to find a way forward for the party between two apparently irreconcilable decisions.
"Clearly the vast majority of the PLP has already made it clear they wouldn't countenance a settlement that involved Jeremy staying in place."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/12 13:57:20
I'm fifty fifty on that. I agree that the SNP are here to stay on the political scene. They've got a very hard core voter base. and I don't thinkg we're ever going to see a Scotland where Labour holds as many seats as the SNP do now in the foreseeable future.
I'm not convinced though, that Labour is done for, and will never win a seat back. I don't believe the SNP has such a grip on the hearts and minds of Scotland that they'll be able to hang onto their current extensive majority if Labour succeed in reforming in an effective way. I believe Labour is running out of time, and has at best, fifteen years to do so. If they don't, then yes, the SNP will probably continue to dominate Scotland (although I reckon the Lib Dems will steal a few seats back). There are still enough Labour voters in Scotland though, that I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up looking at a 50/40/10 makeup of SNP/Labour/Others Scottish Parliament in ten years, you know?
That wasn't particularly my angle, more that Labour MP's and PLP bods couldn't predict that rain will make you wet than an assertion Labour are done forever - I broadly agree with your point. Labour could come back, but they'll have a real job of it if we remain within the UK. I doubt we would see a Scottish Parliament with those kind of numbers though, even if independent.
There's a solid 15-ish% of your traditional, well-off, paternal, oldschool Tories. Probably another 10-ish% of people who consider themselves "liberal centrists" but when push comes to shove many will vote Tory, the sorts of people who were fully aboard the New Labour project. Probably roughly 5% are nominally leftists, but are such hardcore Unionists that they'll put aside all their socioeconomic principles if they fear Labour aren't being sufficiently bellicose in their condemnation of the SNP for anything and everything. The Tories have their current level of support by combining their 15% base with most of the 5% hardline Loyalist group, and the chunk of the "liberal centrist" bloc who're not in the SNP. I expect they will be able to sustain that 20-25% range for the foreseeable future if we remain within the UK. Our Tories aren't quite as neoliberal as the UK mothership, but they're still Tories.
Labour's problem is their "broad church" up here has completely splintered. The SNP has hoovered up most of the left & centre-left voters, as well as a goodly chunk of the actual centrists, and the libertarian left went to the Greens rather than Labour when the Lib Dems collapsed. Labour are left with a rump electorate consisting mostly of centrist professionals, older "not gonnae change now" voters, the portion of the nominal-centrists who can't quite bring themselves to vote Tory and who see the Lib Dems as a waste of time, the ever shrinking portion of the working class unconvinced by independence, and those among the hardcore Loyalists who can't bring themselves to vote Tory. Which was bad enough, but they're taking another blow right now because the people most likely to reconsider their current allegiances as a result of Brexit are the centrist professionals who don't yet support the SNP, but prize the European aspect of their identity or rely on single-market access for business reasons. Resident EU citizens, regardless of socioeconomic status, are also going to be less likely to support even tentatively Unionist parties in future.
The result of all that is their activist base has been thoroughly hollowed-out and they have no real money coming in, they had to rely on mailshots paid for in large part by the UK party to get their leaflets out at the last Holyrood election. So aye, they could come back, but I doubt it will be any time soon. Independence would give them their best shot, but given Kezia's still doing foot-stamping "But I wanna UK ANNA EU! Waaah!" interviews rather than taking the opportunity to acknowledge reality, I don't know if they'd be up to grabbing that chance. Hopefully someone would, there needs to be a party of labour even if it's not the Labour Party.
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
Ketara wrote: The funny thing I find is that most people I know who bought the £3 vote have no idea what Hard or old school Labour even is, or the faintest clue about anything to do with economics or politics. They don't even necessarily know what Corbyn's policies are beyond 'I REPRESENT THE PEOPLE AND WILL MAKE THINGS BETTER'.
They've just heard that he's not like other politicians (which in all fairness; he isn't), and voted for him based on that and the above soundbite. The minute you start asking whether they think his economic policies are feasible, you get blank looks. Much like Brexit I suspect, most of Corbyn's supporters support him because of an exasperation with the current political elite for various social/economic reasons, rather than any ingrained belief or actual knowledge of the political situation.
Rather a flawed man who consistently supports leftist values than a liberal who knows exactly what he can get away with.
Wolfstan wrote: JC may have the support of 300,000 party members, that still leaves nearly9 million Labour voters out there who haven't had their say. The only way to confirm what they thought would be to have a General Election and see how Labour do, but as somebody has mentioned, the Labour MP's probably have a good idea on the mood of the electorate. Which is why they want rid of him..
I think anyone putting faith in the predictive power of Labour party officials should have a think back to what happened in Scotland of late. Many in Labour are keen to write off their dismemberment north of the wall as some freakish one-time event driven by irrational nationalist sentiment and that we'll all come to our senses any day now and restore them to their rightful place(a sentiment especially common among the Labour MPs who got chucked out). They've been saying that since the 2015 UK election, and before then they said it after the 2011 Holyrood election, and again before that at the 2007 Holyrood election. The SNP, we have been endlessly told for over a decade, are a "busted flush", always moments away from final defeat and with it the triumphant return of Labour. It's a political Zeno's Paradox, with red Achilles never quite able to catch the yellow Tortoise as he boasts he will.
The Scottish Parliament will "kill nationalism stone-dead!", was the confident prediction of now-Lord George Robertson and his PLP pals in the late 90's.
"A freak occurrence, a protest vote, no more than that", came the cry from down south in 2007.
"Brown will put paid to these SNP usurpers! Afterall, all the Jockos need is to hear our pronouncements in the right accent." the PLP told us in 2009.
"Iain Gray, that's the man to see off these SNP jokers!" they declared in 2011, immediately prior to the SNP winning a majority, a deliberately nigh-impossible feat in the Labour-designed Holyrood electoral system.
"Hah, a referendum, what are they like, support for independence will never go north of 25%, you'll see" pronounced SLab bigwig Duncan Hothersall, with similar sentiments coming from McTernan and various PLP staffers, right before they turned a nearly 40 point lead into a narrow 10 point victory.
"Send Jim Murphy back up there, he'll show the SNP what's what, having him jog about in a Scotland footie top for the cameras and promise to bring back bevvy at matches, they'll be eating out of his hand!" the UK party insisted, immediately before being reduced to a single Scottish MP in a night of landslides so large they repeatedly broke the BBC's "swingometer" graphic.
"That Kezia Dugdale, she's a good one, made Jim a fine deputy, no doubt we'll be back on top with her at the helm!" was the sentiment of the Party in the days before the 2016 Holyrood elections in which Labour fell so far they actually became the third party behind the Tories, who more than half of Scotland still have a bone-deep and visceral hatred of.
Now all that is not meant to be crowing about the SNP's recent success, nor even is it particularly meant as a dig at Labour as a whole, but it's hardly the predictive record of Nostra-sodding-damus is it. I would strongly caution English supporters of Labour against putting any significant amount of stock in what MP's believe about their own electorate, because time & again they've been shown to be hopelessly out of touch and prone to wildly, desperately flailing around for any scrap of data they can twist into a justification for their existing belief that really everyone agrees with them, only sensible innit etc.
The membership evidently believe the party exists to represent their interests, and the PLP evidently believes the membership exists to support their bid for power and nothing more. I don't see how that dispute is resolvable - either Corbyn, as he is entitled to be according to party rules, is on the ballot and will in all probability handily defeat anyone stood against him, in which case the party's MP's will have to desert because they've made their position within a Corbyn-led party untenable with this very public farce of an attempted coup; or the PLP will find some underhanded way of keeping Corbyn off the ballot, in which case only two scenarios are really plausible: almost all of them will be deselected and they'll have won the battle to oust Corbyn but lost the war to keep Labour as a managerial centre-right party, or there will be a huge exodus of members and union disaffiliations leaving them in the same state as the Scottish branch of the party - devoid of money and activists and unable to campaign.
Indeed, even if you ignore their record on Scotland entirely, the fact these bumbling idiots couldn't foresee the potential outcomes of their own shambolic coup attempt is a pretty comprehensive condemnation of their ability to predict things - I wouldn't trust them to tell you for sure if the sun will rise tomorrow, nevermind the genuine mood of their electorate.
If you lean towards extremes, left/right wing, you are likely to only mix with people of the same ideology. So therefore the supporters of Jeremy Corbyn and likely to be meeting people that reinforce the belief that he is what the Labour party needs. All those new members that voted for JC, and those joining, are all of the same ideology. No matter what they say they, can’t possibly know what the majority of Labour voters are thinking.
The MP’s calling for him to step down will have a better feel for things as they will be meeting these voters. This is probably why they feel he needs to go, there is concern that Labour won’t win the next election. The idea that these MP’s are self-serving actually reinforces the concerns over JC. If they are so concerned about keeping their seat and all the benefits that go with it, they will want Labour to be attractive to the general public. JC might be motivated by noble ideals, but his appeal will be too limited.
Live your life that the fear of death can never enter your heart. Trouble no one about his religion. Respect others in their views and demand that they respect yours. Love your life, perfect your life. Beautify all things in your life. Seek to make your life long and of service to your people. When your time comes to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song, and die like a hero going home.
Lt. Rorke - Act of Valor
I can now be found on Facebook under the name of Wulfstan Design
Wolfstan wrote: [ No matter what they say they, can’t possibly know what the majority of Labour voters are thinking.
The same can be said of the PLP, in fact the membership is actually a better indicator of actual voters by the simply fact that there are far more of them so at least they have a better sample size. At this stage there needs to be a proper leadership election (including Corbyn) and whatever the vwinner is it needs to be absolutely respected by all parties if Labour is going to be taken in any way seriously.
If you lean towards extremes, left/right wing, you are likely to only mix with people of the same ideology. So therefore the supporters of Jeremy Corbyn and likely to be meeting people that reinforce the belief that he is what the Labour party needs. All those new members that voted for JC, and those joining, are all of the same ideology. No matter what they say they, can’t possibly know what the majority of Labour voters are thinking.
The MP’s calling for him to step down will have a better feel for things as they will be meeting these voters. This is probably why they feel he needs to go, there is concern that Labour won’t win the next election. The idea that these MP’s are self-serving actually reinforces the concerns over JC. If they are so concerned about keeping their seat and all the benefits that go with it, they will want Labour to be attractive to the general public. JC might be motivated by noble ideals, but his appeal will be too limited.
Sorry, but that's a load of tripe, as illustrated above in the post you quote. Surely, if MPs are so sensitive to the realities of their electorate's views, all those Labour MPs up here wouldn't have managed to spend the last decade being consistently, repeatedly, unrepentantly wrong, to the point where they were finally got rid of with swings of 30-35%, sometimes with majorities so many thousands strong the seats were considered "bastions" of Labour flipping completely the other way.
As for noble ideals and limited appeal - polling consistently shows the electorate are far, far to the left of the PLP in terms of their policy preferences, to the point that nationalisation of utilities, transport etc routinely comes back between 60 and 70%, the problem is they've been convinced we can't afford to do those things. Now, Jeremy might not be any more able to persuade people that's wrong than his predecessors, but this idea that he's a raging Trot trying to appeal to a nation of Little Thatchers is just flat out untrue.
But regardless, the opinions of the PLP on Corbyn's electability are not sufficient justification to overrule the democratic will of the party membership and change the rules of the party on a whim to exclude the incumbent leader who is entitled to be on the ballot. If the PLP want to launch a leadership challenge, that's their right, ill-advised though it is at the present time, but this grotesque perversion of the democratic process - staggered, orchestrated resignations with media collusion to try and force him to step down, then when that failed throwing out the party rulebook and removing him from the ballot via a secret vote of the NEC - is disgusting behaviour, and if the goal is genuinely to make Labour "electable"(maybe I'm old fashioned by the way, but I always thought you did that by persuading people to agree with you, not by just vacantly trotting along in the wake of public opinion as interpreted by focus groups), is ludicrously and hilariously counter-productive. If this farce actually succeeds in offing Corbyn the party is going to go into full-scale rebellion, the unions will pull their funding, and the media narrative for the next five years is going to be of a Labour party tearing itself to pieces, assuming Labour survives as a coherent entity at all.
Electable? Labour in this state couldn't win a school talent show, nevermind a national election, and nobody's to blame for that but the PLP morons who apparently launched this whole debacle without ever once asking themselves what they'd do if Corbyn didn't so as he was told.
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
Sorry, but that's a load of tripe, as illustrated above in the post you quote. Surely, if MPs are so sensitive to the realities of their electorate's views, all those Labour MPs up here wouldn't have managed to spend the last decade being consistently, repeatedly, unrepentantly wrong, to the point where they were finally got rid of with swings of 30-35%, sometimes with majorities so many thousands strong the seats were considered "bastions" of Labour flipping completely the other way.
As for noble ideals and limited appeal - polling consistently shows the electorate are far, far to the left of the PLP in terms of their policy preferences, to the point that nationalisation of utilities, transport etc routinely comes back between 60 and 70%, the problem is they've been convinced we can't afford to do those things. Now, Jeremy might not be any more able to persuade people that's wrong than his predecessors, but this idea that he's a raging Trot trying to appeal to a nation of Little Thatchers is just flat out untrue.
I'd hasten to add that even if an MP is aware of the local feeling on a matter, it doesn't necessarily translate into an actual shift in party policy. Your MP can be completely in touch and still bound by the central party machine and politicking, indeed, I think that is more often the case than not.
I also feel it should be noted that just because the public wants something does not make it a good or practicable idea. The will of the public is sovereign and must be followed, but if the people who have the means/knowledge believe the public will to be bloody disastrous and try and obstruct it for (what they believe to be) the good of the nation, I'm not entirely surprised. I disagree, mind you, but I can understand it. When it comes to Corbyn, all politicking aside, I suspect a not inconsequential number of Labour MP's are in that position. They've been saddled with Corbyn by the £3 a vote X-Factor crowd, but they're more than aware of the fact that he probably can't win an election, and it would be even more disastrous if he did. The constant tarring of the entire PLP as evil plotting Blairites is so simplistic, I'm not surprised the people on my FB (namely, the ones who support Corbyn but know nothing about politics) have seized upon it with such eagerness. There are plenty of normal Labour MP's, who do represent their constituents and want the best for everyone, who also think he's a bloody disaster waiting to happen.
, then when that failed throwing out the party rulebook and removing him from the ballot via a secret vote of the NEC
In all fairness, the wording involved could be interpreted both ways, and it kind of is the function of the NEC Committee to provide clarity where definition is ambiguous. I agree that it's pretty shifty behaviour to try and prevent him from running the way they are, but if those are the rules of the party then....well, those are the rules of the party. If Corbyn cannot raise the 51 votes required to be nominated like everyone else can, that's not on anybody but him.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/07/12 17:29:15
We didn't get into any major wars under Cameron? That wasn't for lack of trying. Remember, he got us involved in the bombing campaign against Libya and helped destabilise that country.
He wanted to bomb Syria too and remove the Syrian regime, which would have put us at risk of direct conflict with Russia. (Bombing their military ally and all that). IS would have been in any even stronger position with a defeated Assad regime leaving a power vacuum in its wake.
Thank god Cameron's folly and ego was foiled.
The man wanted to be Blair Mark 2, he even declared himself the "Heir to Blair" back in the days when Blair's reputation wasn't yet toxic.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: We didn't get into any major wars under Cameron? That wasn't for lack of trying. Remember, he got us involved in the bombing campaign against Libya and helped destabilise that country.
He wanted to bomb Syria too and remove the Syrian regime, which would have put us at risk of direct conflict with Russia. (Bombing their military ally and all that). IS would have been in any even stronger position with a defeated Assad regime leaving a power vacuum in its wake.
Sure. But none of it happened. When the time comes to write the history books and consider the lasting impact his tenure had on the country (or legacy, for the popular phrase), things 'Cameron wanted to do but never managed to' won't really rank very highly. Lobbing a few explosives around in the Middle-East four or five times ahead of major announcements, which is what actually happened, is something that practically every American/British/French premier does these days. It's hardly unique and doesn't have much of an impact on things at home if you're not considering something specific like the causes of terrorism. It doesn't qualify even as a 'war' let alone a major one, and I'd be surprised if it gets more than a footnote in the big ol book of 'Things Past Prime Ministers Did'.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/07/12 17:51:12
Which is entirely to be expected. There is no guarantee of British universities remaining part of the programmes in 2+ years time and none of these programmes will be completed within two years (remember that a PhD takes 3-4 years and then consider that many of these research projects are post-doctoral level research). So why would anybody choose to partner with a group who may have to drop out and jeopardise the whole project halfway through?
Yes it is and was warned of before the vote. The UK is looking at losing about £1.4bn per annum in research funds from the EU by withdrawing completely. It would be the same effect as scrapping the Science and Technology Research Council. The UK does very well out of the EU funds and which hence allows it punch above it's weight in research terms as it can attract some of the best people from throughout the world. This in effect raises the ratings of the Universities.
The long term issue is that without match funding it's likely that University ratings will drop and hence the attraction to foreign students will diminish greatly as they pretty much choose universities based on their ratings internationally. A significant amount of University money arises from foreign student fees which means that they will lose access to the EU funding in the short term and in the long term more money from the fees. The age of many great research universities are hence numbered in the UK (the Oxford's and Cambridge's will likely survive as they get very generous donations) if a long term solution to the funding is not found (and it isn't expected to come from the UK government).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
angelofvengeance wrote: Corbyn always reminds me of the annoying peasant from Monty Python & The Holy Grail lol.
So we are suggesting that the tory leadership contest is then some 'farcical aquatic ceremony'? Sounds about right though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/12 18:25:38
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
, then when that failed throwing out the party rulebook and removing him from the ballot via a secret vote of the NEC
In all fairness, the wording involved could be interpreted both ways, and it kind of is the function of the NEC Committee to provide clarity where definition is ambiguous. I agree that it's pretty shifty behaviour to try and prevent him from running the way they are, but if those are the rules of the party then....well, those are the rules of the party. If Corbyn cannot raise the 51 votes required to be nominated like everyone else can, that's not on anybody but him.
There's no ambiguity at all:
That's from the 2010 conference, detailing the change that was made which is now in the party handbook, and why it was made. If there's no vacancy, challengers need nominations. Explicitly changed from everyone needing them. There's no way I'm aware of to twist the English language enough to introduce ambiguity there, but the NEC are trying their damndest apparently.
And if there was any doubt whatsoever that this is a politically-motivated stitch up rather than the honest attempt to clarify the rules it's been presented as, it's just emerged that the NEC is only accepting submissions from the legal expert who supports the PLP line. The one who supports the factual, reality-based Corbyn position isn't being permitted to speak or even enter the session.
I'd hasten to add that even if an MP is aware of the local feeling on a matter, it doesn't necessarily translate into an actual shift in party policy. Your MP can be completely in touch and still bound by the central party machine and politicking, indeed, I think that is more often the case than not.
I also feel it should be noted that just because the public wants something does not make it a good or practicable idea. The will of the public is sovereign and must be followed, but if the people who have the means/knowledge believe the public will to be bloody disastrous and try and obstruct it for (what they believe to be) the good of the nation, I'm not entirely surprised. I disagree, mind you, but I can understand it. When it comes to Corbyn, all politicking aside, I suspect a not inconsequential number of Labour MP's are in that position. They've been saddled with Corbyn by the £3 a vote X-Factor crowd, but they're more than aware of the fact that he probably can't win an election, and it would be even more disastrous if he did. The constant tarring of the entire PLP as evil plotting Blairites is so simplistic, I'm not surprised the people on my FB (namely, the ones who support Corbyn but know nothing about politics) have seized upon it with such eagerness. There are plenty of normal Labour MP's, who do represent their constituents and want the best for everyone, who also think he's a bloody disaster waiting to happen.
Then they can either follow party procedure, issue an honest challenge, and abide by the result, or they can bog off to a party that more closely matches their views. Again; even if everything these MP's fear is 100% right, that doesn't give them the right to overrule the membership and second-guess the electorate. And frankly, I think this whole "£3 a vote X-Factor crowd" style sneering is exactly what's wrong with UK politics - why is it Corbyn's failure if he can't persuade PLP members to nominate him, but the voters' failure if the PLP can't persuade them Corbyn is a bad choice?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/07/12 18:35:15
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
Ketara wrote: They've been saddled with Corbyn by the £3 a vote X-Factor crowd,
You would save word count if you just wrote "scum". You would also save the time spent on coming up with ways to not actually call them scum but still mean it.
, then when that failed throwing out the party rulebook and removing him from the ballot via a secret vote of the NEC
In all fairness, the wording involved could be interpreted both ways, and it kind of is the function of the NEC Committee to provide clarity where definition is ambiguous. I agree that it's pretty shifty behaviour to try and prevent him from running the way they are, but if those are the rules of the party then....well, those are the rules of the party. If Corbyn cannot raise the 51 votes required to be nominated like everyone else can, that's not on anybody but him.
There's no ambiguity at all:
That's from the 2010 conference, detailing the change that was made which is now in the party handbook, and why it was made. If there's no vacancy, challengers need nominations. Explicitly changed from everyone needing them. There's no way I'm aware of to twist the English language enough to introduce ambiguity there, but the NEC are trying their damndest apparently.
And if there was any doubt whatsoever that this is a politically-motivated stitch up rather than the honest attempt to clarify the rules it's been presented as, it's just emerged that the NEC is only accepting submissions from the legal expert who supports the PLP line. The one who supports the factual, reality-based Corbyn position isn't being permitted to speak or even enter the session.
Your image link is broken. Here's the actual current text, from the BBC.
I believe the ambiguity is not so much as to whether a challenger needs nominations, as it is whether or not the current leader needs them. Or as the BBC puts it: 'Do the words "in this case any nomination" apply only to challengers, or do they suggest the sitting leader needs the backing of MPs and MEPs too?'
It simply doesn't say. The only thing made clear is that challengers require them, not whether a current leader does. There's a precedent whereby in '88, Kinnock, the Labour leader in identical circumstances, says he was required to seek the back of an appropriate number of PLP members. If there was no ambiguity, why would he have done this? The answer is simple, it was unclear, so he just got on and did it because he had other things to worry about, and could easily manage the requisite number of nominations. Corbyn, meanwhile, has a spot more difficulty, so is querying it.
With regards to the NEC, the NEC can do what they like. That's the point. One ofheir functions is to clarify matters like these, they can interview whoever they like. I still agree it's probably a stitch up, but I reiterate; if Corbyn not only cannot manage the requisite number of nominations to handwave this away, but also has the NEC of the Labour Party slated against him, that's on nobody but him. If he can get caught on technicalities, the technicalities are still the rules. If the rules are unclear, they are decided by the NEC, and if the NEC doesn't like him? Tough. I'm sure Thatcher was very sad when her own party removed her too.
My image link works fine on my screen, but here it is rehosted:
EDIT: The point of the image being; the rule as it exists today was explicitly changed to clarify that only challengers must seek nominations. There is no ambiguity.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/12 18:44:14
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
Ketara wrote: They've been saddled with Corbyn by the £3 a vote X-Factor crowd,
You would save word count if you just wrote "scum". You would also save the time spent on coming up with ways to not actually call them scum but still mean it.
I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth, and to remove the vitriol from your own before you choke on it. I'd count some of those £3 a vote crowd as being extremely close friends. That still doesn't detract from the fact that they know nothing about politics, nothing about economics, nothing about the Labour Party generally, and indeed, nothing about Corbyn. I've seen so many factually incorrect attacks from those friends against the Tories and Blairites shared on FB that I've stopped even bothering to comment on them.
Yodhrin wrote:
And frankly, I think this whole "£3 a vote X-Factor crowd" style sneering is exactly what's wrong with UK politics
I'm not sneering, and if that's what came across, it was a miscommunication. I'm simply aware of what the people who I know chipped in to get Corbyn where he is are like (that is, mainly keyboard activists with no real knowledge of or involvement in the Labour party), and assume they are part of a larger trend. They might very well not be, but most of the times I've seen a Corbynista active in a facebook, Guardian, or BBC comments thread, they've simply reinforced that stereotype. Again, perhaps they are not representative, I'll acknowledge that happily, but it's been my experience, and I'll stand by it.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/07/12 18:54:33
Forget Corbyn - he's only the 'leader' of the oppositon.
There is a much bigger problem on our hands - another unelected PM foisted on us.
Fair enough, we're a parliamentry democracy, but when you have a one horse leadership contest, and when even 200,000+ Conservative party members are denied a vote on who gets to be their leader, you know something is wrong!
Add to the mix that Osborne intervened to stop the Americans investigating HSBC and you have ask yourself what kind of mickey mouse democracy are we living in?
Meanwhile, having finished shedding crocodile tears for the victims of his Iraq fiasco, Tony Blair is sunning himself on a luxury yacht off the coast of Sicily!!!!
What kind of nation is this? Blair should be in the dock!!!
Somebody get me me the hell out of this corrupt cesspool of a nation. Give me Scottish independence now!!!
Rant over!!!
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
My family's sociall group back home in Scotland are an interesting mix that I don't think is talked about much.
Generally speaking, SNP voters, want to stay in the UK, opinions kind of mixed on Europe.
Speaking in broad strokes, the caricature of the logic is along the lines of.
Tory is a rivh snobby scumbags, living off of old money never worked a proper job in their life. Not voting for them.
Labour is a rich scumbag in bed with and paid for by the union's whose only goal is to make them and their mates richer, screw everyone else along the way.
SNP, well I know him. I have a chat with him when I'm getting the morning paper. Good bloke that.
Good Job Brits on leaving the EU. If I was a part of that country and voted to leave I would be extremely offended by the recent remarks about how the British people voted incorrectly. Telling an entire nation they are wrong because they don't agree with your viewpoint is rather ignorant.
SemperMortis wrote: Good Job Brits on leaving the EU. If I was a part of that country and voted to leave I would be extremely offended by the recent remarks about how the British people voted incorrectly. Telling an entire nation they are wrong because they don't agree with your viewpoint is rather ignorant.
Telling a nation that they're wrong and then backing your argument up, however, isn't.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
There is a much bigger problem on our hands - another unelected PM foisted on us.
(
Newsflash.
ALL our Prime Ministers and First Ministers are unelected. The electorate vote for constituency MPs. Those MPs or the controlling parties with a majority of democratically elected MPs select a leader by varied means dependant on the party and office.
And no there is nothing wrong with that system, we don't need premier elections to accompany parliamentary elections. It would be a fething mess.
SemperMortis wrote: Good Job Brits on leaving the EU. If I was a part of that country and voted to leave I would be extremely offended by the recent remarks about how the British people voted incorrectly. Telling an entire nation they are wrong because they don't agree with your viewpoint is rather ignorant.
Telling a nation that they're wrong and then backing your argument up, however, isn't.
Actually this isnt how it works.
Brexit is advisory and must be respected. respected means going through the procedures towards leaving, activating the process procedurally. However that is done domestically not through the irrevocable Article 50. of the Lisbon Treaty.
There is plenty of time during the process to halt reverse or amend the process.
Voting for Brexit doesnt mean 'we leave today', no matter what Merkel and Juncker might want. It mean that the UK government respects the people and considers leaving and makes plans for that event.
A number of analysts (including mysefl) worked this out a fortnight ago, and the idea of doing it this way is gaining traction slowly. Recent comments say that Brexit might take six years. This means triggering Article 50 in four, and that assumes the public are still behind it. Meanwehile we move towards the exit. Create lists of legislation to be repealed such as the European Commnunities Act 1972 and discuss them in parliament. All of these actions are directly in respect or the public will.
If over the next four years the public change their mind, so be it.
If over th next four years Brexit leads to a need for EU reform that makes the EU into something Uk citizens would be more happy to be part of, so be it.
The one thing that should not be done is obeying Junckers demand for article 50 to be triggered within 14 days of Camerons suiccessor being slected. This is especially because when the EU unelected burweaucracy wants to make pol;itical moves they take their own sweet time, often several time longer than comparable bodies. The Canada-EU trade deal has taken nine years to work out, and isnt signed yet.and will never be hurried. How dare they demand we do things on their timetable, which is extra extra short, when they have no respect for efficiency .
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/07/12 20:10:01
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
SemperMortis wrote: Good Job Brits on leaving the EU. If I was a part of that country and voted to leave I would be extremely offended by the recent remarks about how the British people voted incorrectly. Telling an entire nation they are wrong because they don't agree with your viewpoint is rather ignorant.
Telling a nation that they're wrong and then backing your argument up, however, isn't.
And if that argument is based on "belief" and not fact then it still is wrong. It was rather amusing how after the vote the British economy tanked for a day or two and the liberal media jumped all over it. usually with something along the lines of "SEE WE TOLD YOU SO!, STUPID BRITISH PEONS!"
And now after a very short period of time the economy has not only stabilized but is trending upwards and has more then recovered its losses. I don't see those same media outlets saying "whoops our bad".
SemperMortis wrote: Good Job Brits on leaving the EU. If I was a part of that country and voted to leave I would be extremely offended by the recent remarks about how the British people voted incorrectly. Telling an entire nation they are wrong because they don't agree with your viewpoint is rather ignorant.
Telling a nation that they're wrong and then backing your argument up, however, isn't.
And if that argument is based on "belief" and not fact then it still is wrong. It was rather amusing how after the vote the British economy tanked for a day or two and the liberal media jumped all over it. usually with something along the lines of "SEE WE TOLD YOU SO!, STUPID BRITISH PEONS!"
And now after a very short period of time the economy has not only stabilized but is trending upwards and has more then recovered its losses. I don't see those same media outlets saying "whoops our bad".
The pound is still down. There's still massive uncertainty in the markets. Perhaps reality simply has a liberal bias?
Even then, how is it arrogant to lay down your case and argue that this was a mistake?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/12 20:26:59
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
There is a much bigger problem on our hands - another unelected PM foisted on us.
Fair enough, we're a parliamentry democracy, but when you have a one horse leadership contest, and when even 200,000+ Conservative party members are denied a vote on who gets to be their leader, you know something is wrong!
I'm torn on this one.
When I was younger, Gordon Brown came into power shortly after I'd taken an interest in politics and I considered it outrageous. Then someone pointed out to me that the party and their ideals was voted in, not the figurehead, and if your vote would change because of who was standing at the top, you were a bit of an idiot. Then someone else pointed out to me that a change in leader could equate to a change in ideals. Then Brown got booted out, and I didn't think about it again.
Fastforward to now, and I'm still slightly torn, but I come down marginally on the side of 'no election needed'. Why? Because a leadership election of sorts was held, and the first two rounds voted on. And because I saw this chart on the BBC which showed me that actually, it's really not that uncommon in British political history, and there's sufficient precedent for it to be constitutionally and morally permissible.
Not only that, a general election right now would probably result in Labour tearing itself apart further, and I have no desire to strengthen the Tory majority even more. It's fine where it is.
Finally, May actually can't call a general election if she wanted to. Under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, 2/3 of the house have to vote on it, or a vote no confidence lost. She could call a vote, but I doubt she'd actually win it. Labour want to moan and gripe right now, the last thing they actually want is an election.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/07/12 21:13:46
Legion: Dark Angels 
