|
jBrereton posted:Even though Gareth Snell may in fact be one of the shittest newly minted MPs ever, surely you can see how it might be in the party's advantage to have him and not Paul Nuttall win the seat just in terms of ~The Narrative~ which you think is the only thing going on? Sure. It's still mostly inside baseball though, and the much-anticipated UKIP-led upset against labour has failed to materialise in pretty much every other byelection that's been covered to date. I don't disagree that byelections play a role I just don't subscribe to the idea that they're as decisive or important as they're made out. This isn't getting excuses in early, it's plain labour's in trouble and they're probably gonna get hosed in the next GE. If they win this next byelection or lose it, it's not gonna augur the result further down the line.
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 11:11 |
|
|
Baron Corbyn posted:Hey, looks like The Sun have decided to back to posting straight up "ew gays" bullshit and outing people for no apparent reason. This is really pissing me off. Sadly it appears that IPSO can only take complaints about things other than accuracy from an affected person or their representative.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
Prince John posted:This is really pissing me off. They've pulled the article, so (hopefully) the guy and/or others made enough of a stink. Pesky Splinter posted:Looks like they've pulled that article from the Sun
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Simple explanation: maybe Drake Law's smut is owned by Murdoch and was underperforming.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Looke posted:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/14/ukip-leader-admits-claim-that-he-lost-close-friends-at-hillsborough-was-false Oh I wonder if that means Carter-Ruck will be sending out an apology after the email they sent yesterday? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:This isn't getting excuses in early, it's plain labour's in trouble and they're probably gonna get hosed in the next GE. If they win this next byelection or lose it, it's not gonna augur the result further down the line. If labour were in a position to possibly win the next general election there would be no question of them losing these by-elections.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
There's a really good Private Eye special report on the history of the revolving door between the Government and Civil Service, and the private sector here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:The tories already have a majority and labour is already useless, byelections aren't gonna change that. On the other hand you're saying that elections to parliament - the sole means of determining the make up of said party - are irrelevant to that. Do you see the contradiction here?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Cerv posted:On the one hand you've a complaint about the make up of the parliamentary party. Not really, since you're putting words into my mouth. Labour is screwed by more factors than just the makeup of the PLP and my gripe wasn't about byelections taking place, just the undue emphasis placed on them as predictors of labour's future electoral success. There wasn't really even an argument couched in my complaint so much as I was expressing boredom and frustration with the endless harping about how each byelection is so pivotally important that a labour loss indicates the end of labour as an electorally viable party or whatever bullshit the commentariat's trotting out this time. They desperately want a working-class UKIP surge and a shift away from traditional labour support to be a thing and that's the narrative they're going for, no matter how many times it fails to happen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
They're not a predictor, they're a measure. Losing one of these by elections would represent a disaster for labour, losing both is unimaginable. That's why I think labour will win both.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
Don't forget these are actually parliamentary by-elections, not just some local councils - they're definitely a better predictor, but still pretty limited since we live in interesting times. Especially in Stoke where the UKIP King is launching his crusade after Labour's unpopular parachute decided he was bored with being their MPOberleutnant posted:There's a really good Private Eye special report on the history of the revolving door between the Government and Civil Service, and the private sector here. There's a better scan here, looks good in a bad way baka kaba fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Feb 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Yes; the Tory majority effectively growing by 25% is not what any of us want. thank god we have a lib dem, an expert in winning elections, to tell us how elections are won
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
Can't wait for them to prop up the Tories again
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
I'm glad that we can poop on a poster for agreeing with another poster that elections are kinda important, because I guess he supports (supported?) the Lib Dems.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
Let's not get ahead of ourselves with crazy theories in this thread and claim there are Lib Dem supporters or something The Lib Dems' Fight Back Won't Save You quote:I won't tell you not to support the Lib Dems. There's no point. Nobody supports the Lib Dems. You might vote for them, you might join the party, you might put a big yellow Lib Dems sticker in your window – it doesn't matter. Supporting the Lib Dems would mean agreeing with their ideological position, endorsing their plan for change, seeking a Lib Dem government and ascribing to a generally Lib Dem cosmology: an understanding of the way the world works, from the nature of politics and the economy down to what really quivers deep in the human heart, that is inscribed on every level with an unmistakable Lib Demminess. You do not ascribe to the Lib Dem understanding of the world. Nobody does. There is no such thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I'm glad that we can poop on a poster for agreeing with another poster that elections are kinda important, because I guess he supports (supported?) the Lib Dems. This but unironically. She supports Lib Dems even after 2010-2015 and keeps trying sick burns on another political party. Which is funny and deserves to be mocked.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:This but unironically. She supports Lib Dems even after 2010-2015 and keeps trying sick burns on another political party. Which is funny and deserves to be mocked. I don't really think 'I agree that by-elections are important' is some kind of sick burn, but I guess descending into a chorus of 'oh but the lib dems suck!' must feel cathartic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I don't really think 'I agree that by-elections are important' is some kind of sick burn, but I guess descending into a chorus of 'oh but the lib dems suck!' must feel cathartic. I was more making fun of "you don't win elections if..." coming from a member of a party with no experience of doing that in living memory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
Baron Corbyn posted:I was more making fun of "you don't win elections if..." coming from a member of a party with no experience of doing that in living memory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:The lib dems won a parliamentary byelection just over two months ago. Apparently "living memory" ain't what it used to be. They won a byelection by hoovering up protest votes from people either too stupid to realise their protest wouldn't be listened to or too stupid to remember 2010-2015. I mean kudos for tapping into a group of voters too politically illiterate to realise what idiots they're being, but there's nothing politically brilliant about stealing UKIP's game plan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
kingturnip posted:They won a byelection by hoovering up protest votes from people either too stupid to realise their protest wouldn't be listened to or too stupid to remember 2010-2015. Back to the tried and tested 'insult people that don't agree with me' method of winning votes I see.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 09:40
|
|
|
 https://twitter.com/Arron_banks/status/831582207722528768?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 09:57
|
|
|
J_RBG posted:Let's not get ahead of ourselves with crazy theories in this thread and claim there are Lib Dem supporters or something A Good Article, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 09:57
|
|
|
Always a vote winning tactic along the lines of saying that jimmy savile was "misunderstood".
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 10:09
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:They're not a predictor, they're a measure. Really don't see Labour winning Copeland when their candidate actively avoids talking to the media and Jez hates nuclear power and nuclear submarines: the majority of employment in the area that isn't minimum wage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 10:10
|
|
|
kingturnip posted:They won a byelection by hoovering up protest votes from people either too stupid to realise their protest wouldn't be listened to or too stupid to remember 2010-2015. Perhaps people were just voting for a party that represented their views on the biggest political issue of the day. Would that be illiterate? If so what is the point of voting for anyone?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 10:37
|
|
|
The Lib Dems gave people one reason to vote for them. Which is one more than Labour has managed recently.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 10:43
|
|
|
Jippa posted:Always a vote winning tactic along the lines of saying that jimmy savile was "misunderstood". You're seriously equating saying Hillsborough was not Woodstock with saying Savile was not a paedophile?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 10:59
|
|
|
 https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/02/14/world/africa/ap-af-gambia-britain.html quote:BANJUL, Gambia — Gambia will soon return to the Commonwealth under its new government, Britain's foreign secretary said Tuesday after meeting with President Adama Barrow and pledging London's support for this small West African nation following the departure of its leader of 22 years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 11:14
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:The Lib Dems gave people one reason to vote for them. I vote Labour because they are less likely to destroy the NHS, erode worker rights and are generally less likely to invent bullshit laws. Notice I said less likely. This is where I feel we're at. And none of this has changed because Corbyn is not doing a good job at the moment or because I don't like the way Brexit is being handled. Regarde Aduck fucked around with this message at 11:31 on Feb 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 11:29
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:I vote Labour because they are less likely to destroy the NHS, erode worker rights and are generally less likely to invent bullshit laws. Notice I said less likely. This is where I feel we're at. And none of this has changed because Corbyn is not doing a good job at the moment or because I don't like the way Brexit is being handled. That's true but unfortunately you're not going to see Labour in government being less likely to do those things until labours leadership problem is resolved.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 11:33
|
|
|
Jedit posted:You're seriously equating saying Hillsborough was not Woodstock with saying Savile was not a paedophile? Jippa's being OTT, but I think I get what he means and I agree with it. Banks is deliberately trying to downplay Hillsborough, and specifically downplay its aftermath, by suggestings it's "just" a tragedy, something akin to a natural disaster. Hillsborough is a cultural event, and there's a reason it has resonance beyond, say, the Ibrox disaster, because "Hillsborough" doesn't just mean "that match where 96 people died," but it also means the willful and systematic lying and misrepresentation from the police and media, the lack of any official consequences, and the decades long campaign fought to try and change the official version and cultural memory of the event. The comparison with Saville, though not great and not one I would've chosen, does work to a degree, since Saville's case wasn't "just" about his crimes but the way they were ignored, neglected and enabled by institutional malaise and people in positions of authority being happy to ignore something disturbing because, frankly, the offender was much more culturally, socially, and politically powerful than the victims [edit: got Jippa's name wrong - too many J-names in this thread!] Niric fucked around with this message at 11:43 on Feb 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 11:40
|
|
|
Somehow your quote misses "Withdrew" there. I guess that's pretty good news. I wonder if Adama will turn into a dictator as well?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 12:25
|
|
|
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/15/bank-england-retain-plastic-5-note-vegan-protest-10-animal-fat When all around is things are going to poo poo, a small beacon of sanity
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
It's funny how switching to palm oil would have appeased most of those groups, when palm oil production kills far more animals than the half a cow needed for the entire UK banknote supply. They should introduce a poly £1 note next, and enter into full competition with the Mint's new lovely coin. Unrelated, what is this poo poo?  Giant flags and general appeals to 'traditionalism' make me immediately think bad things. Is this their brave new "Labour should be about our idealized conception of the traditional working Englishman, and not all this hippy 'queers and Asians have rights' stuff" pitch?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
drat that narrow, all-inclusive progressive politics aimed at all working people!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
quote:The hopes of British fishermen that the UK can win its “waters back” post-Brexit are expected to be dashed by the European parliament, despite the campaign promises of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, a leaked EU document reveals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:It's funny how switching to palm oil would have appeased most of those groups, when palm oil production kills far more animals than the half a cow needed for the entire UK banknote supply. Blue Labour is Tory Labour.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 11:11 |
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Blue Labour is Tory Labour. Red Labour is Tory Labour at this fuckin' point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 14:22
|
|
