|
Hey now that cognac locker won't stock itself.
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 06:11 |
|
|
It's desperate times indeed when 'managing to hold seats in by elections' is seen as a form of success. Isn't it something like 40 years since an opposition party failed to do this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
kingturnip posted:'Labour insider's are like 'compassionate Tories' - inventions of the press.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Whereas you feel the other way round, I guess/ I mainly feel annoyance that this is always the narrative and people seem oblivious to the fact that if the result is a no-win scenario for the leadership then the reporting of it is essentially meaningless. Contrast with this article in the Mirror alleging that UKIP are 'secretly afraid of winning' in Stoke because a loss would actually be better in the long term. Any result is bad for Labour, any result is good for UKIP. The narrative is already written, reality is irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
When you're in opposition, contesting a seat you already hold in a by-election, there isn't a 'good result' - only an expected one at best.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:When you're in opposition, contesting a seat you already hold in a by-election, there isn't a 'good result' - only an expected one at best. I agree but wouldn't you agree that the moronic chicken littling by the Labour right is partly responsible for Corbyn supporters viewing each by election defence as a vindication of his leadership? Just look at Oldham, which was a very easy Labour defence and should have been presented as exactly that, but the Labour right and their pals in the media spent the whole time telling us that UKIP were going to win and the by election was a referendum on Corbyn, so when Labour racked up 60% of the vote they looked incredibly loving stupid and Corbyn looked like he'd won a big victory. Same thing in the council elections where they claimed Labour was going to lose hundreds of seats. As bad as Corbyn is as politics, they're worse and they have lovely views on top of that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
If Blair promised not to follow America into any more wars would you have him back?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
Not sure I really want a man who believes that god talks to him and tells him what to do in charge of anything. Much less would I believe anything he promised.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I hate the tendency of the press to describe any incidence of an expert correcting public opinion as 'condescending', but Blair is not an expert and he did sound condescending about the Brexit thing. Seaside Loafer fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Feb 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
Would it be better to have brexit and ten more years of tories, but not take part in another middle eastern war, or to have another middle eastern war but overturn brexit and put labour in power for a decade?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
Im not an apologist for that guy he has simply said something that needed to be said in a public way, might actually make something happen, doubt it but you never know.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
jabby posted:I mainly feel annoyance that this is always the narrative and people seem oblivious to the fact that if the result is a no-win scenario for the leadership then the reporting of it is essentially meaningless. Well, duh. But what do you think?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:If Blair promised not to follow America into any more wars would you have him back? gently caress no, following America into wars is the only thing we've got left, otherwise we'll rot and die on this island forgotten and unmourned. At least if we're sucking their knob we might get some table scraps.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
jabby posted:Contrast with this article in the Mirror alleging that UKIP are 'secretly afraid of winning' in Stoke because a loss would actually be better in the long term. To be honest, if Nuttall wins, he almost certainly will be up in election court for the whole 65 Oxford Street affair (if not for false statements on the nomination form, possibly for false statements about his personal character). A protracted court case that runs the risk of the UKIP leader being disqualified and banned from holding elected office would definitely not be in their best interests.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 09:10
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Do you have any evidence that 'new labour members energised the ground game' or are you just assuming that this is a thing that happened? Eh, I get the thinking behind the three-line whip but it's a hell of a time for Corbyn to start remembering party discipline is a thing. Also even if it was absolutely 100% the right thing to do as part of a wider strategy, he must surely have known that quite a few people would defy it and now he ends up just looking even weaker and less in control of the party. Realistically once we got to this point I don't think there actually is a winning strategy, in any meaningful terms. Someone with better political chops might be able to use this as a leaping-off point to a series of attacks on every last thing that comes out of the negotiations and hope that this can be used to force another referendum (or maybe even a whole GE) to head it off, and I don't think Corbyn - or indeed anyone in the PLP - has those chops, in the face of an almost universally hostile press. loving hell at this point Corbyn is so unpopular probably the best thing he can do to head off Brexit is come out enthusiastically for it and appear on Strictly doing a tango with Nigel Farage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 09:25
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Would it be better to have brexit and ten more years of tories, but not take part in another middle eastern war, or to have another middle eastern war but overturn brexit and put labour in power for a decade? Can't we have both?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 09:34
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 10:06
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I hate the tendency of the press to describe any incidence of an expert correcting public opinion as 'condescending', but Blair is not an expert and he did sound condescending about the Brexit thing. I don't think there's much crossover between 'charismatic people' and 'economists' tbqh
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 11:06
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:I don't think there's much crossover between 'charismatic people' and 'economists' tbqh What are you talking about?  He's like Doctor Who with his glasses and yelling about stuff that sounds sort of plausible enough but has little bearing to the real world. Excellent! Although I guess this means soon reality will be replacing Charlie Brooker media productions, just as it did Armando Iannucci.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 11:55
|
|
|
namesake posted:He's like Doctor Who with his glasses and yelling about stuff that sounds sort of plausible enough but has little bearing to the real world.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 12:43
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Pesto basically single handedly destroyed Northern Rock lol [citation needed]
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
Brexit is a really bad idea and we don't have to do it so I guess I basically agree with Tony Blair.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 13:07
|
|
|
We are having. a red. white. and blue. Brexit. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
Mostly blue though almost all blue 100% blue
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 13:54
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Mostly blue though 'd have guessed most of the emphasis would have been on white more than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:'d have guessed most of the emphasis would have been on white more than anything else. Most of Europe is white as gently caress though so it kind of begs the question, are the racist brexiteers going to be happy once they realise that most of the immigrants they didn't want actually come from outside the EU?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Most of Europe is white as gently caress though so it kind of begs the question, are the racist brexiteers going to be happy once they realise that most of the immigrants they didn't want actually come from outside the EU? Eh there is a substantial amount of xenophobia against people who actually are from Eastern Europe as they're able to bring enough of home with them (shops, goods, language) to freak out the bigots. Naturally if the Polish shops close and then the high street empties then they'll still blame immigrants somehow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Most of Europe is white as gently caress though so it kind of begs the question, are the racist brexiteers going to be happy once they realise that most of the immigrants they didn't want actually come from outside the EU? They'll just move on to the next bogeyman.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Would it be better to have brexit and ten more years of tories, but not take part in another middle eastern war, or to have another middle eastern war but overturn brexit and put labour in power for a decade? Britain is a comparatively privileged country, and much as the Tories want to keep that wealth out of the hands of the greater public, Britain could still maintain a better standard of living going it alone than Jordan (or whichever Middle Eastern country we haven't attacked in a while) would under a barrage of missiles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
That's kinda a dumb dilemma because at this rate we'll have Brexit and be part of Trump's coalition of the willing for Operation Make Iran Great Again. (I also don't think British participation matters much at all to how these middle east interventions turn out, including Iraq, but I don't think that's a worthwhile debate)
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
Why is the Guardian hyping Dianne Abbott so much, is she about to challenge for leadership or something?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
Don't worry too much about another Iraq - the relentless defence cuts since 2003 mean it would be literally impossible to contribute in that way again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:Why is the Guardian hyping Dianne Abbott so much, is she about to challenge for leadership or something? Hey, maybe Corbyn's faction is actually deploying some media strategy to hype up its key members for once.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
mediadave posted:Don't worry too much about another Iraq - the relentless defence cuts since 2003 mean it would be literally impossible to contribute in that way again. Plus Iran has a much larger, much more enthused, army and a terrain that is great for strategic defence. Only way America is taking Tehran is with nuclear weapons and Russia might have something to say about America nuking their ally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
Iran barely spends anything on its military, don't buy into the Israeli hype. I doubt Trump will attack them but who knows.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Iran barely spends anything on its military, don't buy into the Israeli hype. They don't need to spend much when they have numbers and terrain. They're not using bows and arrows yaknow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
Fangz posted:That's kinda a dumb dilemma because at this rate we'll have Brexit and be part of Trump's coalition of the willing for Operation Make Iran Great Again. British involvement in Libya recently and Egypt historically have been important and influential but you're right about desert storm not really being our problem in the way the holocaust wasn't really the quisling's problem god I love saying quisling
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
Fangz posted:That's kinda a dumb dilemma because at this rate we'll have Brexit and be part of Trump's coalition of the willing for Operation Make Iran Great Again. That "and" should probably be stressed. If we stay in the EU we will probably be part of future American adventures in the Middle East anyway. If we leave, it will be certain because we'll be beholden to the US. We may as well stay rich.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Iran barely spends anything on its military, don't buy into the Israeli hype. There are more sources than Israel. Iran has a much stronger army than Iraq. Afganistan's military was basically none existent. It also has all the command structure problems that plague all Arabic militaries. The country would be a fortress and would be attacked like a fortress. The Americans would win easily but they would do so with massive strikes on population centres. Way higher civilian casualties than Iraq. Anyone who wants a war with Iran is either ignorant or actively blood thirsty.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 06:11 |
|
|
I genuinely don't even know why American foreign policy ghouls have it in for Iran. Perhaps they don't know either and it's just some grudge they inherited from the Bush years. I mean, I know they pretty much lust for brown death, but the special hard-on of hate they have for Iran is just kind of perverse even by their standards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 16:19
|
|
