|
El Grillo posted:I'm not sure what you're on about here. For one thing, the majority of the party has now clearly woken up to the fact that we need a genuine program of investment, i.e. tax/borrow/spend, and to take some major services back into public ownership. If they haven't, then yeah they are just too dumb to exist and should go, but I don't think that's the case. Owen Smith has been saying very clearly that JC's greatest achievement has been to pull the party over to the left again & make us provide a clear alternative to the Tories. If the best thing Owen Smith can offer is "Jeremy Corbyn's right" then why do we not vote for Jeremy? If the overton shift is such a good thing then let's continue it, and let's furthermore continue to reform the party so that it can continue to reflect public opinion by handing power to the membership. I see very little reason to trust a man who last year was advocating for the privatisation of the NHS, who is the eventual product of a deeply undemocratic coup by the political elite of the labour party, when he says "alright yeah this popular guy was right now hand things back over to us and we'll do all these policies he suggested." We can consider handing power to someone else when we have the capacity to revoke it again. And that means mandatory selection of MPs every GE, making them subject to review by their CLPs, and a change in leadership candidacy to allow candidates other than the PLP favorites to get on the ballot.
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
El Grillo posted:Yes I am aware of the study, hence (in part) the discussion on the previous page. To the best of my knowledge, he has literally done both of these things. But even if we assume that he hasn't for the sake of argument it wouldn't matter to the traditional media if he did, which the LSE study amply shows. So at this point you're basically asking for that very same vacuous and undefined "doing more" that the Labour right has been yelling about for the past nine months. If you want to be taken seriously you could try to first define exactly what you're asking for and then explain how Corbyn could have realistically reached these goals, because this handwavy poo poo is just going in circles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:I dunno. Is there a rise in mental health problems in the 21st century or are we just a whole lot more comfortable about talking about them than we used to be? A bit of both, plus a bit of 'we've actually done a lot of science to identify and better diagnose these issues rather than just downplaying them as needing to man up or whatever'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
This is the information era, there is a need to categorise everything. In children for example, there's no such thing as behavioral difficulties or growing pains or what have you any more, it's because of very specific conditions, degrees of Asperger's, etc. It's why there are more subgenres of metal than stars in the galaxy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 19:05
|
|
I can't get enough of are Dan
|
forkboy84 posted:I dunno. Is there a rise in mental health problems in the 21st century or are we just a whole lot more comfortable about talking about them than we used to be? And I'm saying that despite the fact that it is still incredibly hard to actually talk about it. I'd like to blame it on modern capitalism & the consumerist society we've created, where we judge ourselves by unreasonable standards of popular culture & so forth. Maybe it's a bit of both. Not done the research to say with any confidence. I certainly don't think the solution is reverting to 19th century attitudes to mental health problems, especially with teenagers though like this douche nozzle seems to suggest. Teenage years would be stressful enough with all the hormones & poo poo without having to deal with school & exams & what feels like having to decide what you want to do for the rest of your life when you really haven't grown much past the point of "I want to be a footballer when I grow up". Throwing a Head with attitudes like that on top just seems barbaric. I'd guess it's like the difference between saying "this guy has cholera" in which case you'd give the guy some antibiotics and tell them to rest and be careful what fluids they drink, and saying "this well has cholera" in which case you'd dig a new well, or put water treatment in, or whatever. I'm not disputing whether antibiotics work, just that giving them to everyone while saying "this well is the only well that works, we can't change it" seems like a bad way of dealing with an epidemic, and also seems like what we're doing at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
HJB posted:degrees of Asperger's, etc.[...] why there are more subgenres of metal than stars in the galaxy. Checks out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
It's a poo poo theory anyway. That's nowhere near even the low estimate of stars in the galaxy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
HJB posted:This is the information era, there is a need to categorise everything. In children for example, there's no such thing as behavioral difficulties or growing pains or what have you any more, it's because of very specific conditions, degrees of Asperger's, etc. Hush you, clearly blackened death metal is wildly different from technical death metal, and funeral doom is a world a way from sludge doom. This is important information.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:
I think the damage is already done but if in the early days it was given a completely different name that didn't include "depression" I think it would be treated differently. As ridiculous as that sounds I reckon it's true. I see people I have worked with reacting to stories of celebrities etc with "boo hoo some ones feeling depressed" and these are parents who will probably go on to be grand parents soon. Statistically they will have multiple people in their family/close friend group that have this. What do those people think when they see this being mocked (they probably don't go to the doctor). Jippa fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Jul 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I'd guess it's a bit of both. Maybe less 'consumerist society' and more 'we blame the individual for their failings to extract themselves from the situation we put them in' and then put them in a range of boxes. The whole there's no such thing as society thing. Which also existed in the past but at least there was religion and extended family to act as opiates of the masses, they're far from perfect for anything and everyone, but they just got asset stripped like the rest in the name of neoliberalism rather than improved. I often feel like the popular social view of "quality of life" is entirely aggregate, like the sum of all the stuff that affects you can be averaged out into a general "happiness score" and that's how happy you should be. Whereas I feel as though the way it ought to be viewed is as a series of lots of little scores and if any one of them isn't satisfied then your maximum level of happiness is pretty seriously curtailed. It's why I don't like saying that "life is better now" because what I mostly think is that life is different now and while a number of our needs are met far better than any time in our history, some of them I think most certainly aren't being met, possibly less so than at any point in our history. And I think there's probably a hefty dose of "well regardless you should be happy because you have a fridge and a television" which will fight the latter view vehemently, some kind of horrible religious work ethic kind of bollocks that tells people to feel guilty because it's morally correct. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Jul 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:I'm not sure what you're on about here. For one thing, the majority of the party has now clearly woken up to the fact that we need a genuine program of investment, i.e. tax/borrow/spend, and to take some major services back into public ownership. If they haven't, then yeah they are just too dumb to exist and should go, but I don't think that's the case. Owen Smith has been saying very clearly that JC's greatest achievement has been to pull the party over to the left again & make us provide a clear alternative to the Tories. Everybody knows this. The disagreement is about how to interpret the public's love affair with the Tories. The Pissflapian view is to blame Corbyn 100%. In the minds of people like him it is Corbyn's fault the media don't like him and so it's his fault they continue to run propaganda against him. They also claim it is his fault the party turned against him because of "bad leadership". These people typically ignore the recursive loops occuring. Why is his leadership bad? Because he can't control his party. Why can't he control his party? Because his leadership bad. He's ineffective in PMQ because his own party leaks to the Tories. Why do they leak? Because he's ineffective in PMQ. It is seriously this loving stupid. The real question is... do they especially hate Corbyn or is it anyone on the left? Because if it's anyone on the left they will simply do to them what they did to Corbyn only this time you won't have a nice old man who makes jam just deflecting it all. No you'll have Owen Smith crying in a corner desperately running ever further to the center and beyond to make the papers stop picking on him. And then we end up back where we started and everyone votes Tories anyway. The elephant in the room is that maybe the British public are just horribly right wing and it might take decades for another shift. If this is the case then no amount of leadership change is going to help Labour. If the British public are soldier loving, patriotic god fearing folk then the party for them is the Conservatives. Wanting the Labour party to turn itself into some monster chimera of right and leftist policy to try and poach electorate leftovers is folly and short sighted. At least with Corbyn in charge the opposition will have a true leftist voice. Smith won't win the GE either, but neither will he effectively combat the Tories from his position as the opposition. He dares talk of Corbyn's lack of patriotism when he lacks any conviction at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Every time someone says Corbyn should compromise on Trident I get really confused. Trident and anti-war are literally the most important part of his reputation. If he ever buckled on that he'd be completely done for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
TheRat posted:Every time someone says Corbyn should compromise on Trident I get really confused. Trident and anti-war are literally the most important part of his reputation. If he ever buckled on that he'd be completely done for. I thought he had compromised by leaving it to an open vote rather than applying the whip?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Labour has operated and indeed governed whilst up against a hostile press before. They were able to get their message out by having a clear messaging strategy, discussing what they wanted to get out each day, message discipline and a recovering alcoholic Scot to crush people's precious bits if they stepped out of line. They should probably do those things again. Also a few days back, but in the list of things that Labour did that were good: requiring free entry to museums and galleries that accept government funding was a fantastic achievement. It has become so popular that Cameron did his first sacking as PM when some newly appointed minister suggested they could go back to being pay for entry without having cleared it with Cameron first. I'm sure some people will say that this is a sop to the middle classes, and to people who live in cities. But that's partly the point - you need to appeal to a wide base. I know that I'm going to get soaked under a left wing Labour government if they adopt the various income and NI rises and re-bandings they've proposed. I'd like some stuff that appeals to me and my family. Theresa May knows this game - that's why she's letting her ministers make noises about more grammar schools. They're popular with the middle classes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Vengeance of Pandas posted:I thought he had compromised by leaving it to an open vote rather than applying the whip? Sure, but people are saying he shouldnt vote/campaign against.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Vengeance of Pandas posted:I thought he had compromised by leaving it to an open vote rather than applying the whip? No, compromise properly, i.e. just agree with what we say.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Milotic posted:I'm sure some people will say that this is a sop to the middle classes, and to people who live in cities. Some people can gently caress off, knowledge is not something poor people don't like.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
TheRat posted:Every time someone says Corbyn should compromise on Trident I get really confused. Trident and anti-war are literally the most important part of his reputation. If he ever buckled on that he'd be completely done for. How, also, do you compromise on trident? "Ok we'll build half the submarines and only some of the warheads will be active, also we won't tell anyone which ones."
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:How, also, do you compromise on trident? You joke but that's not that far from the actual Lib Dem policy on Trident since 2014.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
TinTower posted:You joke but that's not that far from the actual Lib Dem policy on Trident since 2014. Wait, poo poo yeah wasn't there a suggestion that because we need x number of subs to keep a constant presence and the deterrant to actually work, we could compromise by building fewer and just not telling people when they're at sea?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Wait, poo poo yeah wasn't there a suggestion that because we need x number of subs to keep a constant presence and the deterrant to actually work, we could compromise by building fewer and just not telling people when they're at sea? ahh yes, the ol' pannukeicon
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Führer weather in York for Jeremy
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Wait, poo poo yeah wasn't there a suggestion that because we need x number of subs to keep a constant presence and the deterrant to actually work, we could compromise by building fewer and just not telling people when they're at sea?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
OvineYeast posted:OJ has an interview with Jeremy Corbyn: why are you putting this unelectable man being reasonable and articulate about important issues in this thread
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
dex_sda posted:why are you putting this unelectable man being reasonable and articulate about important issues in this thread do you live in the UK?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:I dunno. Is there a rise in mental health problems in the 21st century or are we just a whole lot more comfortable about talking about them than we used to be? And I'm saying that despite the fact that it is still incredibly hard to actually talk about it. I'd like to blame it on modern capitalism & the consumerist society we've created, where we judge ourselves by unreasonable standards of popular culture & so forth. Maybe it's a bit of both. Not done the research to say with any confidence. I certainly don't think the solution is reverting to 19th century attitudes to mental health problems, especially with teenagers though like this douche nozzle seems to suggest. Teenage years would be stressful enough with all the hormones & poo poo without having to deal with school & exams & what feels like having to decide what you want to do for the rest of your life when you really haven't grown much past the point of "I want to be a footballer when I grow up". Throwing a Head with attitudes like that on top just seems barbaric. Like food banks, racial abuse and gender reassignment surgery, I think mental health issues are just more reported these days. Wherever the truth lies, I hope the sertraline keeps working for you. Some say following the news makes ppl more pessimistic though so if you wanted to try some practical research in how your environment affects you you could try to do something else with your time and see if your low points are as frequent /pronounced.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If the best thing Owen Smith can offer is "Jeremy Corbyn's right" then why do we not vote for Jeremy? Cerebral Bore posted:To the best of my knowledge, he has literally done both of these things. But even if we assume that he hasn't for the sake of argument it wouldn't matter to the traditional media if he did, which the LSE study amply shows. Or the interview or a speech where he's really hammered that home in a well-constructed, compelling way. You can't, because he hasn't. He has talked a lot about the effects of austerity and how bad that is. He has said little-to-nothing since being elected about what we would do as an alternative (Corbynomics disappeared like a fart in the wind; see Richard Murphy's criticism of the leadership). He has, in fact, said barely anything about solid policy proposals whatsoever, and he has been heavily criticised by former members of his shadow cabinet (some of whom are anti-trident, anti-austerity, lifelong socialists themselves) for failing in this way and pretty much every other (the NPF still hasn't met for over two years). If you can show what 'the best of your knowledge' is based on, that would be great. I would genuinely be really happy to see any evidence that Jeremy has done any of the very necessary and very basic things I outlined above. Regarde Aduck posted:Everybody knows this. The disagreement is about how to interpret the public's love affair with the Tories. The Pissflapian view is to blame Corbyn 100%. In the minds of people like him it is Corbyn's fault the media don't like him and so it's his fault they continue to run propaganda against him. They also claim it is his fault the party turned against him because of "bad leadership". These people typically ignore the recursive loops occuring. Why is his leadership bad? Because he can't control his party. Why can't he control his party? Because his leadership bad. He's ineffective in PMQ because his own party leaks to the Tories. Why do they leak? Because he's ineffective in PMQ. It is seriously this loving stupid. I'd disagree the public has a love affair with the Tories. 23% of the electorate does not represent a love affair, and neither does 36.9% of voters. The Tories aren't some unstoppable electoral force. They're just (unfortunately) politically competent in a way we weren't in 2010, 2015 and are not currently. We don't have to turn ourselves into a monster chimera, though taking a stand on unilateral vs. multilateral disarmament of nukes probably isn't particularly productive in an electoral sense. We just have to have clear, consistent and well-founded messaging to undermine the other sides' economic platform. We have been dreadfully lacking that since 2008. Regarding Corbyn's leadership, well see above, but his PMQs performances weren't bad because there were leaks, they were bad because he is bad at PMQs. The joe public letter things got tired incredibly quickly and in any case was useless to start with because, after having gotten a response to the initial question, Jeremy just let Cameron's answers go and didn't pursue him in the slightest. It's not surprising, JC is not a natural leader although with him being a good debater I had hoped he'd be a little better than he has been. I would never argue the media dislike him just because he's shown poor leadership, that would be ridiculous. They are biased. We know this. It has not helped that he has shown poor leadership and it especially hasn't helped that his messaging has been all over the place and generally rubbish. He needs to cut through the bias and the spin. If that is even possible, it is only possible with clear messaging and a policy platform.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Round of applause for this whole measured, thoughtful conversation, god drat
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Jose posted:do you live in the UK? I would say "thank god, no" but I'm from Poland so it's a bit of an out of the frying pan and into the fire situation
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Do you know how PMQs works?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Do you know how PMQs works? Hey I didn't know the restrictions on replying to the PM in them until about a week ago, maybe he doesn't either
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Milotic posted:Labour has operated and indeed governed whilst up against a hostile press before. They were able to get their message out by having a clear messaging strategy, discussing what they wanted to get out each day, message discipline and a recovering alcoholic Scot to crush people's precious bits if they stepped out of line. They should probably do those things again. Was the press really hostile to Blair? In 1997 he had the support of The Star, The Sun, The Graun, The Indy, The Mirror, & their Sunday equivalents. Meanwhile the Tories didn't even get the support of The Times, which was basically neutral. Tony Blair got that support because Tony Blair was a very establishment politician, despite having never had a cabinet post before being PM. He did not represent a significant change to the post-Thatcher status quo. Jeremy Corbyn is meanwhile arguing for things which are quite outwith the current norms of British politics, or even world politics, something that hasn't really been represented in anyway in the governing of this country for decades. A strong state. The rejection of the idea that the profit motive is always better & more efficient than state run industries. That the profit motive is in fact the only motive required, regardless of industry. Clearly the majority of newspapers are owned by people who benefit from the status quo. The reasons for them opposing that change...not hard to understand. Also, Alistair Campbell Scottish? I mean, really? He's born in Yorkshire, grew up in Lancashire, went to university in Cambridge & spent most of his career in London. Tony Blair is more Scottish than Alistair Campbell, and yet nobody talks about him as a Scot. Breath Ray posted:Like food banks, racial abuse and gender reassignment surgery, I think mental health issues are just more reported these days. Wherever the truth lies, I hope the sertraline keeps working for you. Following politics closely is definitely bad for my mental health. OK, that's an exaggeration, it doesn't really make it worse, if I'm having a bad time of it's generally just something that creeps up on me without a stimulus. But I do react less calmly to bad news stories when I'm down. Unfortunately I have poor self-restraint and about the longest I can go without following the news is 2 days. Actually, the worst part of when I'm down is I'm more likely to respond to Pissflaps' poor trolling. They don't tell you this, but that's the real downside of depression... forkboy84 fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Jul 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Do you know how PMQs works? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:Please elaborate! THe PM is not obliged to actually answer and nobody is allowed to call him on it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
From what I've gathered watching PMQ with Cameron, it exists solely so the PM can make snappy one-liners towards the one asking.
Broken Cog fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Jul 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:THe PM is not obliged to actually answer and nobody is allowed to call him on it. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Broken Cog posted:From what I've gathered watching PMQ with cameon, it exists solely so the PM can make snappy one-liners towards the one asking. Pretty much, yes. It's not a debate. The format is literally 'a question is asked and the PM makes a statement in response' with some ridiculous parliamentary embellishments because we have a ludicrous government. For more see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister%27s_Questions
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Following politics closely is definitely bad for my mental health. OK, that's an exaggeration, it doesn't really make it worse, if I'm having a bad time of it's generally just something that creeps up on me without a stimulus. But I do react less calmly to bad news stories when I'm down. Unfortunately I have poor self-restraint and about the longest I can go without following the news is 2 days. Real-talk, one of the reasons I stopped following the UK megathreads (other than the terrible shitposters, of whom most seem to have left thankfully) was because it was getting terribly depressing, so I chose to take a break - made the closest I got to UK news reading the UK politoon thread - and instead started reading the US megathreads instead. Comfortably removed disasters, a completely new shitshow of politicians to laugh at, and the pleasing thought that at least it wasn't this bad back in Blighty. Well, that last point might not be as accurate soon. Anyway the thread is a lot better now, so we can all enjoy the annihilation of the UK together!
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
Broken Cog posted:From what I've gathered watching PMQ with Cameron, it exists solely so the PM can make snappy one-liners towards the one asking. The most disgusting thing with Cameron is he frequently 'answers' with a question- which, even if the Opposition MP has another question right away, they are Not Allowed to address.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:06
|
|
