|
quote:According to the BBC’s Norman Smith, Osborne was not particularly forthcoming when asked if he was the beneficiary of an offshore fund. He replied by saying that all his financial arrangements were declared in the register of members’ interests. When asked again about offshore funds he terminated the interview. I thought his handlers knew better than to let Osborne anywhere near TV cameras or journalists.
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 11:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 22:26 |
|
|
Back to are contry: e: ^^fffuck  Grauniad posted:According to the BBC’s Norman Smith, Osborne was not particularly forthcoming when asked if he was the beneficiary of an offshore fund. He replied by saying that all his financial arrangements were declared in the register of members’ interests. When asked again about offshore funds he terminated the interview. Perhaps we will see the death of Gideon? If we can't take hamface's scalp I'll take Gideons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 11:09
|
|
|
Fans posted:They've never needed to, but the purpose of Superdelegates is to block grassroots activists like Bernie. It's their entire reason for being. You really think they're going to press the big old self destruct button rather than accept a guy who every poll says would beat any republican candidate easily?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 11:12
|
|
|
the davey statement about benefiting in the future is somehow even weaselier than the previous ones Suggests to me theyre worried there will be more detail leaked later and don't want to get caught out. or maybe it's just because there's no loving way he didn't benefit at some point
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 11:14
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:You really think they're going to press the big old self destruct button rather than accept a guy who every poll says would beat any republican candidate easily? Yes, because the Democrats are also largely pro corporate and financed by the 1%, and we can't have some
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 11:15
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
ThomasPaine posted:You really think they're going to press the big old self destruct button rather than accept a guy who every poll says would beat any republican candidate easily? If they need to for Hillary to win, which they probably won't, Yes they would do that. The Republican field is pretty awful, I imagine they'd think Hillary can lose the Bernie vote and still win, especially since most are loudly crying they'd never vote for her anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 11:15
|
|
|
the ultimate clusterfuck situation would be a four way race caused by the popular candidates both being screwed by the establishment jn their party (which I think bernie could win)
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 11:17
|
|
|
Shillary vs. Jeb! vs. Trump vs. Bernie, the perfect storm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 11:18
|
|
|
This would be bad for Corbyn.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 11:21
|
|
|
I'm just really hoping Cruz manages to keep his momentum. He literally cannot win at this point (even if he won every single delegate from here on in he's still short) but all he needs to do is get more than ~200 more delegates of the ~700 left and it's a contested convention. Where CHAOS REIGNS.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 11:23
|
|
|
Phoon posted:the davey statement about benefiting in the future is somehow even weaselier than the previous ones All of this constant reclarifying wouldn't even be necessary if they hadn't established a pattern of saying exactly the opposite of what they mean then afterwards saying "We didn't say it in specifically this way with these exact words in this exact order so everyone should have known we meant we were going to cut tax credits/destroy the NHS/sacrifice your babies to the dark lord". That's part of the reason why Corbyn is so popular and it is heartbreaking that his method of saying things he actually means rather than trying to spin them constantly or hide his true motives is seen as weak and not fitting for a politician.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 11:24
|
|
|
Phoon posted:the ultimate clusterfuck situation would be a four way race caused by the popular candidates both being screwed by the establishment jn their party (which I think bernie could win) neither sanders nor trump has the time to run as an independent, it requires mass signature drives also yes, the democrat party is to the right of all tories bar the current government, who as previously established are not really conservative but reactionary idiots, and would block Sanders with superdelegates because that's the point of the fuckers. The republicans would also block Trump but their free delegate count isn't anywhere near the same as the democrat superdelegates, if it was Trump would already be behind Cruz and Trump is now suffering massively in polls post the abortion comment. Americans are not interesting. America is not interesting. American politics is interesting in a "what not to do" way. David Cameron will not co-operate with Labour, and the Downing Street release on "prove it" is a bluff, since the government ultimately control what the audit can and cannot do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 11:26
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:to the right of all tories bar the current government, who as previously established are not really conservative but reactionary idiots What do ~proper~ British conservatives want, and which politicians represent them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 11:31
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Mate when you take the superdelegates out of the mix Sanders is really not far behind Clinton and has many northern states he's likely to do well in ahead of him. Clinton's strongholds in the south have all voted already. And if he gains more pledged delegates it's highly unlikely that the superdelegates would block that decision - there'd be open rebellion in the party. I honestly think he can pull this off, though I accept that it's going to be a tough slog. Clinton is a significant way ahead of Sanders by Democrat primary standards - 250 delegates is an extremely tough gap to close when all the state votes are proportional. Sanders doesn't just have to win, he has to win by insane numbers - I think someone calculated it'd be about 70% in each state from now on - to move past Clinton and lure away her superdelegates. Sorry, man, it's looking like a clear run for President Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 11:32
|
|
|
blowfish posted:What do ~proper~ British conservatives want, and which politicians represent them? A truly conservative government would keep things as they are. Conserving the status quo. The Tories are more interested in seeing how poor you can make someone before they die. At first we thought it was penniless but thanks to the concept of debt they have invented the economic particle known as the antipenny which they blast paups with until they die of humiliation poisoning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 11:38
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I'm just really hoping Cruz manages to keep his momentum. He literally cannot win at this point (even if he won every single delegate from here on in he's still short) but all he needs to do is get more than ~200 more delegates of the ~700 left and it's a contested convention. that means there is a chance cruz becomes president though and he's so much worse than trump
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 11:39
|
|
|
Jose posted:that means there is a chance cruz becomes president though and he's so much worse than trump No. The Establishment hate Cruz and it's estimated that Cruz would give the biggest Democratic sweep in a century. They're pushing him now to prevent a Trump candidacy, they will kill him if necessary come the convention.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 11:42
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:A truly conservative government would keep things as they are. Conserving the status quo. The Tories are more interested in seeing how poor you can make someone before they die. At first we thought it was penniless but thanks to the concept of debt they have invented the economic particle known as the antipenny which they blast paups with until they die of humiliation poisoning. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 11:44
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:This would be bad for Corbyn. This statement is his "Thanks Obama"
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 11:46
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:A truly conservative government would keep things as they are. Conserving the status quo. The Tories are more interested in seeing how poor you can make someone before they die. At first we thought it was penniless but thanks to the concept of debt they have invented the economic particle known as the antipenny which they blast paups with until they die of humiliation poisoning. I think that argument misses the timescale. To the Tories, the status quo they're trying to conserve isn't the post-war consensus or even the Thatcher years, it's the Victorian era, when all a man needed to achieve his goals was to be a) a man, b) white, and c) rich, without all the pettyfogging idiots wanting him not to use babies as fuels in his furnace dragging him down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 11:51
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Clinton is a significant way ahead of Sanders by Democrat primary standards - 250 delegates is an extremely tough gap to close when all the state votes are proportional. Sanders doesn't just have to win, he has to win by insane numbers - I think someone calculated it'd be about 70% in each state from now on - to move past Clinton and lure away her superdelegates. Sorry, man, it's looking like a clear run for President Clinton. You'll all have egg on your face when I am proved right! I was right about Corbyn and I'm going to be right about this goddamit! e: seriously though, if the superdelegates remain stubborn it'll be interesting to see the insane fallout should he claw it back and get to the convention with the most pledged delegates. If Trump gets the most republican delegates but gets blocked thanks to politicking around a contested vote too I'll be stockpiling the popcorn. ThomasPaine fucked around with this message at 11:59 on Apr 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 11:55
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:I think that argument misses the timescale. To the Tories, the status quo they're trying to conserve isn't the post-war consensus or even the Thatcher years, it's the Victorian era, when all a man needed to achieve his goals was to be a) a man, b) white, and c) rich, without all the pettyfogging idiots wanting him not to use babies as fuels in his furnace dragging him down. That makes them regressives. Which we knew, but it's also fun to type out explicitly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 11:56
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:You'll all have egg on your face when I am proved right! I was right about Corbyn and I'm going to be right about this goddamit! You don't get it! Bernie Sanders is unelectable, just like Corbyn!
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 11:57
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:That makes them regressives. Which we knew, but it's also fun to type out explicitly. Always great to see "pettyfogging " in conversation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
blowfish posted:What do ~proper~ British conservatives want, and which politicians represent them? Possibly some sort of mix of 50s conservatism and the less heinous bits of the coalition government like legalising gay marriages?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
Who the hell knows, maybe this will all be rendered irrelevant by Kanye actually going through with his presidential bid and cleaning house somehow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 12:00
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:You'll all have egg on your face when I am proved right! I was right about Corbyn and I'm going to be right about this goddamit! It's not going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 12:01
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:It's not going to happen. I'm getting the weirdest sense of deja vu
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 12:02
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I'm kind of curious (as a software developer myself) what a job writing software for the NHS is like McKesson stopped supporting their MUMPS based Patient Administration System in 2014, but that at least allowed querying by a SQL like query
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 12:04
|
|
|
Also I find it useful to think of conservatives like this: proper 'conservatives', which form a lot of the tory core vote, are basically your nice old gran. A bit racist maybe (out of ignorance over malice usually though not always) but generally pleasant and considerate if terrified of change and overly nostalgic. The current Tory government are hyper libertarian free market fundamentalists, though they are willing to make use of traditional conservative rhetoric and make certain concessions to avoid alienating their voters/backbenchers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 12:08
|
|
|
blowfish posted:What do ~proper~ British conservatives want, and which politicians represent them? old-school tories like Major are already condemning Austerity as unnecessary, his comments were a day before IDS resigned. And to take IDS resignation at face value, a conservative will only gently caress the poor if necessary, not for the hell of it. Knowing as we do that no tory can ever be a moral or reasonable person, this is interpretable as Tories don't *want* to gently caress the poor, they *believe* in loving the poor, for the good of society. Take your pick of the southeast's MPs and you'll have your old-school tories. Brazier's a great one: national service, hanging, treason, that kind of stuff. That's conservative. The front bench doesn't have any of these; they're not election-winners. ThomasPaine posted:Also I find it useful to think of conservatives like this: proper 'conservatives', which form a lot of the tory core vote, are basically your nice old gran. A bit racist maybe (out of ignorance over malice usually though not always) but generally pleasant and considerate if terrified of change and overly nostalgic. The current Tory government are hyper libertarian free market fundamentalists, though they are willing to make use of traditional conservative rhetoric and make certain concessions to avoid alienating their voters/backbenchers. This. It's a combination of One Nation rhetoric and American Libertarian Rand-strain policy. Voting conservatives value and treasure the NHS and believe there is fat to be cut: Cameron conservatives just want to sell everything because they fundamentally don't think a government should actually run a country. They are dangerous, evil, and completely wrong on the point, and it could be well worth the effort for Labour to use Europe as a way to hammer home the point that these current party representatives are not the people the vote base think they are. Spangly A fucked around with this message at 12:11 on Apr 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 12:08
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:hyper libertarian free market fundamentalists Well, apart from the authoritarian surveillance state bit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 12:09
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:You'll all have egg on your face when I am proved right! I was right about Corbyn and I'm going to be right about this goddamit! The superdelegates don't need to make a decision. The odds on Sanders even edging ahead of Clinton are extremely low for the reasons I mentioned above, and so long as has has, say, 2250 state delegates to her 2251, they're under no obligation to switch sides. This isn't like Corbyn. We know what's happening here, and it's not looking good for Sanders.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 12:10
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Well, apart from the authoritarian surveillance state bit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 12:11
|
|
|
https://www.globalwitness.org/en/press-releases/david-cameron-majority-british-public-want-you-act-tax-havens/quote:Over three-quarters (77%) of British adults agree with the statement that “David Cameron has a moral responsibility to ensure that the UK’s Overseas Territories are as transparent as possible”. Agreement is even stronger among Conservative supporters (80%) and older Britons (85% for those aged 45+) I'm sure this will ensure something happens
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 12:12
|
|
|
Jose posted:https://www.globalwitness.org/en/press-releases/david-cameron-majority-british-public-want-you-act-tax-havens/ this is a great example of actual big-C Conservatives emerging from their life-long dementia briefly and actually having a look at David Cameron. Guavanaut posted:And the 'ban scary things that scare us even if they're ill defined or illogical' bit. nah that's definitely the old school. e; although I'd argue that May's resolute failure at everything she does is more indicative of her not having any moral beliefs of her own. The absolute half-arsed nature of her reforms show she simply doesn't care about the specifics of her own policy; because she's only there to wait for her turn as asset-stripper-in-chief.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 12:13
|
|
|
Jose posted:I'm sure this will ensure something happens Does Cameron talking bollocks count as 'something' in this circumstance?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 12:16
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:e; although I'd argue that May's resolute failure at everything she does is more indicative of her not having any moral beliefs of her own. The absolute half-arsed nature of her reforms show she simply doesn't care about the specifics of her own policy; because she's only there to wait for her turn as asset-stripper-in-chief. I do like how basically everything May has done has been one long drawn out fur cup. Although her dunking on BOZZA LEJERND's dumb as poo poo water tanks was pretty hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 12:18
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:nah that's definitely the old school. They're both definitely both part of the old school regressive paternalism. The surveillance isn't going to be used against peers of the realm and their private affairs (unless expedient to others in power), it's for protecting good citizens against those
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 12:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 22:26 |
|
|
Guavanaut posted:And the 'ban scary things that scare us even if they're ill defined or illogical' bit. Yes right wing libertarianism is self-contradictory bullshit, I agree. 'Freedom from state control! (Unless we stand to lose out). I think you can make the argument that economic freedom is the be all and end all to a true right libertarian and therefore control in order to ensure that specific freedom (by preventing dissent) is permissible. Really though I just think it's actually a sham ideology selfish jackasses use to legitimise themselves. They don't actually believe in any abstract position, they just subscribe to whatever lets them get away with what they're doing - see the banks crying for state bailouts. I imagine the founders of neoliberal philosophy in its pure sense (So Friedman etc) would be just as disgusted as we are. Yeah, they supported a terrible flawed idea but christ at least they were consistent. E: hahaha nice filter ThomasPaine fucked around with this message at 12:25 on Apr 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 12:23
|
|