|
Pissflaps posted:I still don't think labour will lose either by-election but even if it were to happen, and there was to be a leadership challenge, I don't think it could happen until the same time of the year as the last one, and Corbyn's supporters will still vote for him anyway because the parliamentary fortunes of the Labour Party are a secondary concern. Secondary to actually providing a political stance that isn't "The Tories but slower", maybe. E: 1107 AD Chinese money is printed in 3 colours to stymie counterfeiting. mehall fucked around with this message at 09:08 on Feb 21, 2017 |
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 09:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 17:18 |
|
|
baka kaba posted:You literally want Labour to lose the next election so you can rub Corbyn's nose in it like a naughty puppy No i literally want labour to win the next election. I want Corbyn to remain leader so his followers can witness the consequences of their idiocy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 09:17
|
|
|
do you people ever get tired of arguing with pissflaps about corbyn gently caress sake
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 09:45
|
|
|
Jose posted:do you people ever get tired of arguing with pissflaps about corbyn gently caress sake Most people agree with me now tbf.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 09:50
|
|
|
Jose posted:do you people ever get tired of arguing with pissflaps about corbyn gently caress sake There sadly isn't a way for the thread to count the masses of us who aren't arguing with Pissflaps, you only see the ones who do. The thread has the same problem as British politics in general, which is that the right constantly dictates the topic of conversation. "Politics has failed through a lack of competing narratives."
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 10:04
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:^^^I know it's early but come on. Close your left eye or something drat He ordered his MPs to vote for Tory hard Brexit, one where the top priority is keeping foreigners out even if it hurts the economy as Theresa May has made clear. Labour put down some sensible amendments but then chose to vote for the Bill after they were all rejected, ie a Bill which just gives Theresa May the power to do whatever she likes. He can't turn around in a couple of years and say actually that was a mistake and hard Brexit isn't working without looking silly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 10:09
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:No i literally want labour to win the next election. I want Corbyn to remain leader so his followers can witness the consequences of their idiocy. Pretty sure most of his supporters are ok with losing. Once in government you have to actually do stuff, and if you voted, or campaigned for a governing party, you are sort of responsible for what gets done. It's a generational thing; there's one generation whose formative political experience was Iraq, and another where it was Thatcher. They will never see eye to eye on where the really important boundary between 'good thing' and 'bad thing' is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 10:10
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:No i literally want labour to win the next election. I want Corbyn to remain leader so his followers can witness the consequences of their idiocy. The traditional centre left is loosing ground all over the western world (Trump, Le Pen, Wilders ... ) assuming you think this is a bad thing, how does the strategy of doubling down on centre leftness (which people are demonstrably sick of) while undermining your own party whenever possible combat the global rightward shift?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 10:22
|
|
|
Paxman posted:He ordered his MPs to vote for Tory hard Brexit, one where the top priority is keeping foreigners out even if it hurts the economy as Theresa May has made clear. Erm... when exactly did that happen, then? Because the Bill they voted for, says, in it's entirety: quote:BILL That's it. That's the entire law. Nothing about, hard, soft, red, white, blue or Full English Brexit. Literally just a law saying "Start the process". There is now at least two years of negotiation over how this will actually happen and fuckloads of politicking to happen here and in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 10:30
|
|
|
Carborundum posted:The traditional centre left is loosing ground all over the western world (Trump, Le Pen, Wilders ... ) assuming you think this is a bad thing, how does the strategy of doubling down on centre leftness (which people are demonstrably sick of) while undermining your own party whenever possible combat the global rightward shift? Who is 'undermining their own party'? How does Corbyn's failure to perform as leader of the Labour Party represent a better way to combat the rise of the right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 10:31
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Who is 'undermining their own party'? Haha, okay.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 10:33
|
|
|
Carborundum posted:Haha, okay. If you mean me then that's odd because I'm not a Labour Party member and I'm not sure how sharing my opinion on an Internet forum could be 'undermining' it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 10:43
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Boo loving hoo. Two whole elections lost you say? One of which came after three labour governments? Better gently caress up the Labour Party for at least the next fifteen years just to be sure. "At least the next fifteen years" has so far equalled a year and a half, 25% of that time taken up with fighting a leadership challenge. Corbyn's position is currently fairly untenable and for better or worse, Corbyn is probably gone before the next election. He's going to be a three year experiment along the lines of Ian Duncan Smith as Tory leader.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 10:43
|
|
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39031546quote:Hospital services in nearly two-thirds of England could be cut or scaled back, BBC analysis of local plans shows. And it saves money because people are expendable
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 10:48
|
|
|
The PLP smeared poo poo all over the wall and people are wondering why the electorate still think Labour smells?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 10:48
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:The PLP smeared poo poo all over the wall and people are wondering why the electorate still think Labour smells? Nobody else buys this idea that labour MPs are the reason why Corbyn is bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 10:53
|
|
|
Undead Hippo posted:"At least the next fifteen years" has so far equalled a year and a half, 25% of that time taken up with fighting a leadership challenge. Corbyn's position is currently fairly untenable and for better or worse, Corbyn is probably gone before the next election. He's going to be a three year experiment along the lines of Ian Duncan Smith as Tory leader. The difference being is that Corbyn is hopefully paving the way for another left-winger while the Tories realised IDS was a dead-end as leader.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 10:56
|
|
|
I hadn't realised only 2 US presidents in the last 50 years got a state visit and trump is getting one lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 11:05
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Erm... when exactly did that happen, then? Because the Bill they voted for, says, in it's entirety: It literally just gives the Prime Minister the power to take us out of the EU without any safeguards or controls whatsoever. We know what that means in practice because the Prime Minister has told us (for example, in a speech on January 17). Labour and other opposition parties attempted to amend the Bill. For example, one Labour amendment would have specifided key principles the Government must seek to negotiate during the process, including protecting workers’ rights, securing full tariff and impediment free access to the Single Market. That's great, but when the amendments were defeated the Labour leadership ordered its MPs to vote for the Bill anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 11:07
|
|
|
Jose posted:I hadn't realised only 2 US presidents in the last 50 years got a state visit and trump is getting one lol I'm not sure pissing off America shortly before a hard Brexit would be the wisest course of action. He may be a detestable chunt but he will still be a detestable chunt for the next four years and we will need him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 11:11
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:I'm not sure pissing off America shortly before a hard Brexit would be the wisest course of action. He may be a detestable chunt but he will still be a detestable chunt for the next four years and we will need him. Hi Chamberlain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 11:13
|
|
|
Pissing off America is always the right thing to do, no matter the consequences.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 11:15
|
|
|
Paxman posted:That's great, but when the amendments were defeated the Labour leadership ordered its MPs to vote for the Bill anyway. I'm a Corbyn supporter but i'll admit this was baffling to me. I guess they really wanted the narrative that Labour supports Brexit in some form. Still wish Corbyn would go and throw out more socialist soundbites like he did with the wage capping suggestion, so we can Tories panicking about people asking difficult questions like "Why do we put up with rich people taking all the money?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 11:17
|
|
|
Gort posted:Corbyn convinced his party to vote overwhelmingly for Remain, Gort posted:but is principled enough to see through Leave as it has a democratic mandate. And it's just a coincidence that it's what he's wanted himself for the last 30 years. goddamnedtwisto posted:Erm... when exactly did that happen, then? Because the Bill they voted for, says, in it's entirety: They've not voted to force May to go for the hard brexit, but they've voted to allow it when she's said publicly that's what she wanted it. You're splitting hairs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 11:17
|
|
|
May will just go off to Brussels and come back in two years and declare that hard brexit is the only option as the uncaring Eurocrats refuse to listen to the reasonable demands of the British people and if you say otherwise you're lying because you weren't spending late nights at the negotiating table listening to johnny Frenchman demand Britain straightens its bananas and make German the official language to be allowed to even look at euro
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 11:32
|
|
|
Jose posted:I hadn't realised only 2 US presidents in the last 50 years got a state visit and trump is getting one lol Huh? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_visits_to_the_United_Kingdom_and_Ireland
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 11:54
|
|
|
Carborundum posted:The traditional centre left is loosing ground all over the western world (Trump, Le Pen, Wilders ... ) assuming you think this is a bad thing, how does the strategy of doubling down on centre leftness (which people are demonstrably sick of) while undermining your own party whenever possible combat the global rightward shift? Meanwhile you have Martin Schulz doing better than Merkel in the polling at the moment in Germany basically on the strength of his apparent commitment to reversing some of that kind of "labour reform". I don't think he's particularly sincere about it, but it's helped to reawaken some of the German left that has been in a very long CDU-CSU-SPD funk.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 11:56
|
|
|
Jeza posted:Huh?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 11:57
|
|
|
Jeza posted:Huh? Obama and Bush Jr are the only ones listed there as having made a UK state visit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 11:58
|
|
|
Jose posted:I hadn't realised only 2 US presidents in the last 50 years got a state visit and trump is getting one lol Yep, 4 in history. Nixon, Reagan, Dubya and Obama
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 11:59
|
|
|
To be fair if the last two Prez's got one you might be expecting the current one to as well. If he or she wasn't Trump that is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 12:00
|
|
|
The way I read it, every President except one in 36 years has had a state visit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom%E2%80%93United_States_relations#State_and_official_visits But if you want to quibble official terminology, at least the last three in a row have had state visits.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 12:03
|
|
|
Jeza posted:The way I read it, every President except one in 36 years has had a state visit. You can check the Royal website then, because they say only 2 have had a state visit since 1952, Bush Jr & Obama.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 12:07
|
|
|
Jeza posted:The way I read it, every President except one in 36 years has had a state visit. Interestingly, the US only considers Bush and Obama to have had state visits https://uk.usembassy.gov/our-relationship/visits-of-presidents-of-the-united-states-to-the-united-kingdom/
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 12:13
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:A state visit is the one with the horses and tiny cannons
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 12:14
|
|
|
Just call him Mr Carronade.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 12:24
|
|
|
Trump is a dangerous, narcissistic, bigoted cockwomble who utilises hate and greed relentlessly to achieve his goals. Perfect date, excellent compatibility with the British government and press, who are excited to learn more about his "drop all thinly veiled pretences/dogwhistles and just go full fash" approach. It's not going to look pleasant in the history books but not much will for this era. Might get a good protest or three out of it too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 12:24
|
|
|
Just because the state visits of previous presidents didn't meet the personal criteria of a state visit by the exact standards of the loving Royal household because they didn't stay the entire time in Buckingham Palace and receive a 21 gun salute does not mean they weren't state visits. Bill Clinton was met by the PM and went to Downing Street, went to Buckingham Palace, had the American anthem played, inspected a military honour guard, had a state banquet, addressed Parliament, did a bunch of other head of state stuff like laying wreaths before jetting off to Ireland. Because it was the time of the peace process and they only have so much time. This is just pedantry. It isn't at all surprising or controversial that Donald Trump would get a state visit, even if you want to go by the fact that only the previous two sitting presidents have had super official ones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 12:30
|
|
|
Have we discussed the fact that Milo Yabbadabbadoo was taken out by the most British possible scandal: defending paedophilia, yet?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 12:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 17:18 |
|
|
Jeza posted:Just because the state visits of previous presidents didn't meet the personal criteria of a state visit by the exact standards of the loving Royal household because they didn't stay the entire time in Buckingham Palace and receive a 21 gun salute does not mean they weren't state visits. Bill Clinton was met by the PM and went to Downing Street, went to Buckingham Palace, had the American anthem played, inspected a military honour guard, had a state banquet, addressed Parliament, did a bunch of other head of state stuff like laying wreaths before jetting off to Ireland. Because it was the time of the peace process and they only have so much time. It's not pedantry for fucksake. The argument isn't "Donald Trump should not come to the UK at all". He's the President of the USA, of course he's coming here, that part is unfortunate but unavoidable. It's purely "we should not be rolling out the red carpets and giving him all the bells & whistles because he's loving scum". The fact that 2 Presidents have had State Visits (let's use capitals here for you) since 1952 hints at the significance of this. But sure, give May a pass for toadying up to the reactionary. Tesseraction posted:Have we discussed the fact that Milo Yabbadabbadoo was taken out by the most British possible scandal: defending paedophilia, yet? I sure hope not, he's not worth discussing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 12:36
|
|