|
OwlFancier posted:Clean eating sounds like something Kellogg would have come up with. e: Well then. 1927 - The UK changes its name to reflect most of Ireland leaving. Most of Saudi Arabia leaves too, but no name change. Guavanaut fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Feb 24, 2017 |
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:12 |
|
|
What could this even mean?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Nu Labour started PFI and basically parachuted disinterested posh people into places like Stoke and took them for granted. I blame 'the moderates' for Labours reputation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
jabby posted:What could this even mean? Corbyn mumbling a bit, Abbott sounding out of breath and a couple of lovely tweets I expect. Pantsuit posted:Nu Labour started PFI and basically parachuted disinterested posh people into places like Stoke and took them for granted. I blame 'the moderates' for Labours reputation. Yeah if Labour does lose either seat there's no way Team Corbyn will take responsibility, and people like you won't expect him to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Dimbleby also just said that it's looking like Copeland staying Labour as well. Hurrahs all round!
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:It's inconceivable that the opposition could lose a by election to the government. It hasn't happened for something like forty years. This is debatable. You're thinking of the Mitcham and Morden by-election in 1982 (so 35 years). But the sitting MP actually stood again - as an SDP candidate - so while the seat did switch from Labour to Conservative you could argue that the SDP, rather than the main opposition party (Labour), were the ones defending that seat. Maybe that's a stretch, but if you do see it this way then it's more than 40 years since the main opposition party managed to lose a seat it was defending in a by-election. You have to go back to the 1880s or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Paxman posted:You have to go back to the 1880s or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
Private Eye posted:Dimbleby also just said that it's looking like Copeland staying Labour as well. Hurrahs all round! I'd not get carried away yet. Mind Brexit night when Nigel Farage looked loving miserable and was talking about how it was not looking good for Leave? It'd be positive if they manage to hold both seats but let's wait and see
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Carswell moaning that UKIP is never given 'the benefit of the doubt'. Why would you get the benefit of the doubt when very often you're shown to be lying?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:It'd be positive if they manage to hold both seats but let's wait and see Labour holding both seats would be neutral not positive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Labour holding both seats would be neutral not positive. You mean that your narrative includes no possible positive outcome for Labour? There's a shock.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
jabby posted:You mean that your narrative includes no possible positive outcome for Labour? There's a shock. Not when they're the opposition contesting by-elections for two seats they already hold, no. I suppose a positive could be if they had persuaded more people to vote Labour in one or both seats - that might provide some evidence (finally) that Corbyn can engage with people who don't normally vote.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
I'm sure no matter what, we'll all be saying This is bad for Corbyn.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
jabby posted:You mean that your narrative includes no possible positive outcome for Labour? There's a shock. Increasing their majority would be a positive. Anything less would not look great for a party hoping to get into government in 3 years time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Yeah if Labour does lose either seat there's no way Team Corbyn will take responsibility, and people like you won't expect him to. Lol m8, many people blame Labour for beginning the privatisation of the NHS via PFI and see Labour as ignoring and abandoning them. Of course this os wrong, but this is how people feel thanks to the actions of Nu Labour. They shoulder the blame.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Not when they're the opposition contesting by-elections for two seats they already hold, no. Yes, Labour increasing their majorities would be a good outcome for them. See? It's not difficult.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Pantsuit posted:Lol m8, many people blame Labour for beginning the privatisation of the NHS via PFI and see Labour as ignoring and abandoning them. Of course this os wrong, but this is how people feel thanks to the actions of Nu Labour. They shoulder the blame. Yes this is what I said. People like you won't expect the labour leadership to bear any responsibility. This is why Labour is hosed. jabby posted:Yes, Labour increasing their majorities would be a good outcome for them. See? It's not difficult. No, more nuanced than that. I was told that Corbyn will appeal to people who don't vote Labour. I want to see more people voting for labour, not labour merely increasing their share with the same voters due to suppression of turnout.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
jabby posted:You mean that your narrative includes no possible positive outcome for Labour? There's a shock. Labour winning another by-election despite the incredibly negative polling is a positive for the country because it means not losing Labour MPs at a time we need a strong opposition. It's also a positive for Labour because it hints that things aren't quite as apocalyptically bad as the polling indicates. It's also positive because it likely postpones another fruitless leadership challenge that will just further divide the party, at a time we need a strong opposition. It might also make other MPs considering resigning to hurt the leadership and the party reconsider. Which is important because... We need a strong opposition! How positive it is depends on the majority. But retaining the seats while losing Hunt and Reed is a net gain. But this is all hypothetical and I'm preparing for the worst.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
Private Eye posted:Dimbleby also just said that it's looking like Copeland staying Labour as well. Hurrahs all round! Good news if true but I'm not sure how he could know, big constituency, polls close at 10pm, they can't have counted too much by now. Maybe Labour's heartlands have turned out really well and that's the basis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Increasing their majority would be a positive. Anything less would not look great for a party hoping to get into government in 3 years time. I don't think there's any illusions of Labour winning in 2020. Which is a disaster for sure. But even with the PM being hopeless, Brexit coming along and probably rocking the economy, there remains a hugely unpopular leadership who has failed in being aggressive enough to capitalise on the populist mood, and a total lack of replacements you can feel confident in doing all that better, especially combined with the boundary reform. It's miserable but I just can't see Labour doing better than reducing the majority, maybe a minority government or another coalition.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
If nothing changes the Tories will come out of the next election with a massively increased majority.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:I don't think there's any illusions of Labour winning in 2020. Which is a disaster for sure. But even with the PM being hopeless, Brexit coming along and probably rocking the economy, there remains a hugely unpopular leadership who has failed in being aggressive enough to capitalise on the populist mood, and a total lack of replacements you can feel confident in doing all that better, especially combined with the boundary reform. Elections can lead to funny things, Trump was nowhere at this stage for example (albeit a different system) and everyone went mad for Nick Clegg for two weeks because he could talk in public. I don't disagree with you though, they need to sort themselves out. Pissflaps posted:If nothing changes the Tories will come out of the next election with a massively increased majority. This is true.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
And in my last Dimbley said post. He just said that you can't abolish private schools because it's against a UN convention? Does anyone know about this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
Private Eye posted:And in my last Dimbley said post. He just said that you can't abolish private schools because it's against a UN convention? Does anyone know about this? Considering the USSR was a founding member of the UN I'd be surprised.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
What sort of time are we expecting results? Saw 3am on twitter.PST posted:I'm going through fairly aggressive (cut everything, nuke everything) cancer treatment at the moment and my conclusion is that the medical staff are amazing. Everything non-medical in the NHS is a shitshow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
Private Eye posted:And in my last Dimbley said post. He just said that you can't abolish private schools because it's against a UN convention? Does anyone know about this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
The opening of This Week makes me want to self-harm. What an appalling show.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
I really enjoyed it. Great fun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Considering the USSR was a founding member of the UN I'd be surprised. jBrereton posted:Finland doesn't have private schools. I don't see why you couldn't abolish private schools unless closing those schools will mean there is no education provision for the people in those schools at that time, which would be against UN conventions on the right to education. His exact words were: "You know you can't abolish private schools. It's against the United Nations" At 23:39 Private Eye fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I really enjoyed it. Great fun. Perhaps the most monstrous thing you've ever said.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Private Eye posted:And in my last Dimbley said post. He just said that you can't abolish private schools because it's against a UN convention? Does anyone know about this? Gonna say it's a reference to Article 13.3 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) quote:The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to choose for their children schools, other than those established by the public authorities, which conform to such minimum educational standards as may be laid down or approved by the State and to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
Paxman posted:Maybe that's a stretch, but if you do see it this way then it's more than 40 years since the main opposition party managed to lose a seat it was defending in a by-election. You have to go back to the 1880s or something. Respect won Bradford West in 2012. The SDP and SNP won seats from Labour in the 1980s. Upsets happen in by-elections when you have more than one opposition party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:Gonna say it's a reference to Article 13.3 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Well I think the fairly obvious solution is to come up with some really fun minimum standards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:Respect won Bradford West in 2012. The SDP and SNP won seats from Labour in the 1980s. Upsets happen in by-elections when you have more than one opposition party. We were talking about the opposition losing a seat to the government.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/834916757081055232?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Looks like Copeland's gone Tory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Apraxin posted:https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/834916757081055232?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw It's just spin. Labour can't have lost it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
Paxman posted:Maybe that's a stretch, but if you do see it this way then it's more than 40 years since the main opposition party managed to lose a seat it was defending in a by-election. You have to go back to the 1880s or something. As per the Guardian live blog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Govan_by-election,_1988
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:It's just spin. Labour can't have lost it. We shall see Pissflaps, we shall see
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Oh never mind, lost to the government
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:12 |
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:As per the Guardian live blog Labour weren't the governing party in 1988.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 01:12
|
|