|
Guavanaut posted:Also giant clay constables walking through the walls of rich kid parties and arresting them all for coke would be a quick way to get drug laws changed. Robocop would be the bane of every conservative government ever because they prattle on about morality but they're dirty as gently caress behind scenes, every single one of them.
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:58 |
|
|
ShaneMacGowansTeeth posted:christ, I'm due to move in with my girlfriend at some point this year and we're going to have stay in London for at least two years until her eldest has finished his GSCEs and we're both already terrified about how we're going to cover the rent quote:It being plain that as a poor young man with a family I could rent no houses at all in this most undesirable region, I next looked for rooms, unfurnished rooms, in which I could store my wife and babies and chattels. There were not many, but I found them, usually in the singular, for one appears to be considered sufficient for a poor man's family in which to cook and eat and sleep. When I asked for two rooms, the sublettees looked at me very much in the manner, I imagine, that a certain personage looked at Oliver Twist when he asked for more. Luckily some things never change, and you should have no difficulty cramming your family into one room with a few other tenants!  
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Yeah, for three people you're gonna end up spending at least £1500 if you want to be near a Zone 1/2 tube station. "Living wage" is a joke by the way, I have no idea how anyone not in tech/fin survives. she lives in zone three, within walking distance of Hanwell, Ealing Broadway and West Ealing to the north and Boston Manor, Northfields and South Ealing and it's not a particularly nice three bed terrace either. Also, she also has a just about to three year old who is just too drat cute for her own good
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:It's Corbyn's fault that that decline - largely through labour's time in government, and entirely expected - wasn't reversed. Do you ever think to look at data before you make blind assertions? Lets look at the top dozen or so of those in the shadow cabinet and compare them to our good friend Jamie Reed. Some people who increased their constituency vote share in 2010 and 2015 GEs: Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbott, Emily Thornberry, Maria Eagle Someone who didn't: Jamie Reed Some people who increased their constituency vote share in the 2015 GE: John McDonnell, Tom Watson, Angela Eagle, Andy Burnham, Pat Glass, Barry Gardiner, Jon Trickett, Heidi Alexander, Jon Ashworth... Someone who didn't: Jamie Reed Why is it Jamie Reed couldn't increase his vote share in 2015 in a northern seat in a general election Labour thought it might win?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:Why is it Jamie Reed couldn't increase his vote share in 2015 in a northern seat in a general election Labour thought it might win? Mate...Jamie Reed isn't an MP anymore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
ShaneMacGowansTeeth posted:she lives in zone three, within walking distance of Hanwell, Ealing Broadway and West Ealing to the north and Boston Manor, Northfields and South Ealing and it's not a particularly nice three bed terrace either. Also, she also has a just about to three year old who is just too drat cute for her own good I don't know anything about that particular location but in general in London, living in zone three near a conventional rail station with regular services into central London is fine (assuming you even need to go into central London, which probably means one of you works there). A tube station is nice but far from essential. I live in zone three and take the train in to work. It's 20 minutes to London Bridge or about 27 mins to Charing Cross, and then there's the tube if I need it. I mean, I'm not pretending the housing situation isn't lovely but don't bankrupt yourself even more than necessary by thinking you need to live near a tube station.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Hallucinogenic Toreador posted:Supposedly this is based on the average child receiving £131,832.94 over 25 years, or £5273.32 a year. That (according to HSBC) includes earning an average of £14,457.12 by age 25. Given that the median household income for two adults is £23,556 it has to be total bollocks. This is really funny. I dunno, I got pocket money from maybe the age of 5 or 6 but for the first few years you're talking 50p in exchange for basic chores. By the time I was a teen it was possibly £10 a week. I can't see it amounting to much. Wish I was getting £5k a year but somehow can't see it being affordable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Mate...Jamie Reed isn't an MP anymore. We're talking about Copeland, how is Jamie Reed who was their MP for nearly 12 years not relevant here? The fact that Jamie Reed couldn't buck the trend of Labour's decline in support even in 2015 is noteworthy. But don't let me interrupt your narrative. forkboy84 posted:This is really funny. I dunno, I got pocket money from maybe the age of 5 or 6 but for the first few years you're talking 50p in exchange for basic chores. By the time I was a teen it was possibly £10 a week. I can't see it amounting to much. Wish I was getting £5k a year but somehow can't see it being affordable. Probably includes help for living costs at university and other cash gifts for things like cars they can't just skim 25% off. What an utterly recommendation to make and another indicator on what a terrible trajectory our society is on. It would be interesting to see what they think the "average" 0-18 figure is. But still prior to university I never got even a large fraction of what they're describing and I was from a relatively well off family... They unironically used the phrase "lucrative" to describe pocket money. loving hell. Lord of the Llamas fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Namtab posted:Is this a thing you think happens? TBF there are some guys who are officially on 'benefits' who are transparently on retainers for information of interest to the security services.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:We're talking about Copeland, how is Jamie Reed who was their MP for nearly 12 years not relevant here? The fact that Jamie Reed couldn't buck the trend of Labour's decline in support even in 2015 is noteworthy. It is pretty relevant that the long-term Labour MPs for Stoke and Copeland were notoriously poo poo and hosed off 18 months into the job because they didn't see the future going their way. It's easy to mock the idea that people rejected the political establishment by voting Tory, but in those areas Labour were the political establishment. This isn't to let Corbyn completely off the hook either. He has failed to provide a decent break from the past or present himself as an anti-establishment figure. People who aren't interested in politics don't see him as the totally different kind of politician we do. jabby fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
jabby posted:It is pretty relevant that the long-term Labour MPs for Stoke and Copeland were notoriously poo poo and hosed off 18 months into the job because they didn't see the future going their way. It's easy to mock the idea that people rejected the political establishment by voting Tory, but in those areas Labour were the political establishment. I'm not sure I agree with describing incumbent MPs (Hunt was only a 2010 intake though, hardly "long term") as "only 18 months into the job" but the fact they got re-elected and hosed off purely for careerist reasons is pretty damning. Labour aren't the "political establishment" in Stoke though, the council is a "independent"/Conservative coalition. We'll never know how much Nuttall's self destruction contributed to the final result but it's noteworthy that Snell was a vocally angry remainer and had other embarrassments and he still managed to only lose 2% on Labour's 2015 vote share.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:We're talking about Copeland, how is Jamie Reed who was their MP for nearly 12 years not relevant here? The fact that Jamie Reed couldn't buck the trend of Labour's decline in support even in 2015 is noteworthy. He contested the seat a couple of times and won. Even if he personally told people to stop voting for him in 2015, he didn't play a part in the by-election this week. The fact that the result is utterly disastrous is not 'my narrative' - it's the narrative of anyone who wants to see a labour government again in their lifetime. Votes lost on Corbyn's watch are Corbyn's responsibility. But please, carry on blaming literally everything and everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:He contested the seat a couple of times and won. Even if he personally told people to stop voting for him in 2015, he didn't play a part in the by-election this week. What a load of "presidential" system bollocks and exactly the kind of over simplification of reality we need to get away from. Corbyn's unpopularity obviously didn't help but the fact there was a pre-existing decline that the Copeland CLP couldn't stop or didn't understand is obviously very significant here. All other things being equal it was clear Labour was at risk of losing Copeland in 2020 anyway. And the idea that the conduct of a vocally rebellious MP who resigned as the denouement of a prolonged public tantrum isn't relevant to the by-election is laughable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
If Jamie Reed was losing votes because he is Jamie Reed then why wasn't this decline reversed by somebody who wasn't Jamie Reed under a labour party lead by Corbyn? If Corbyn isn't the antitode to the problems that you say are caused by 'blairite new labour' then what is the point of him?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:he didn't play a part in the by-election this week. lol your continued denial of the contextual nature of reality is more ludicrous than any of us hoping corbyn might suddenly turn into arthur scargill with guns
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:If Jamie Reed was losing votes because he is Jamie Reed then why wasn't this decline reversed by somebody who wasn't Jamie Reed under a labour party lead by Corbyn? There's a difference between being the cause of a problem and being unable to reverse it. Socialist policies are the antidote to Blair, even if Corbyn's leadership isn't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
I think to be honest party reorganization is the long term antidote. If there actually was a party where the agenda and representation wasn't set by london poshos that might make people trust their politicians a bit more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:lol your continued denial of the contextual nature of reality is more ludicrous than any of us hoping corbyn might suddenly turn into arthur scargill with guns This might be the best one yet. jabby posted:There's a difference between being the cause of a problem and being unable to reverse it. So none then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:If Jamie Reed was losing votes because he is Jamie Reed then why wasn't this decline reversed by somebody who wasn't Jamie Reed under a labour party lead by Corbyn? You seem to have completely misunderstood my point. Quelle surprise. I never said Jamie Reed was losing votes because he was Jamie Reed. The vast majority of voters don't know or give a poo poo who their local MP is individually but vote on a party political basis (Stephen Bush has had good things to say about the over-estimation of the "personal vote" effect in the NS podcast on a few occasions) so I'm not blaming Reed as a causal factor in the decline, but there's a pre-existing factor at force in Labour's Copeland decline that doesn't seem to be understood. It's completely stupid to ignore the fact that Labour's vote in England went up by ~3.5% in the 2015 GE (in the north specifically probably more) and yet Copeland seemed to buck this trend and continue on its linear trend downwards. The whole point of a constituency based parliamentary democracy is to have a strong local link with your local political parties and politicians and their electorate. The idea that somehow you can elect a leader and wave a magic wand and win is complete fantasy. One of the planks of the Corbyn movement in the Labour party was to restore the power and responsibilities of local parties and stop commanding from Labour HQ and stop parachuting in candidates who have nothing in common with an only cursory interest in their electorates. I had an interesting conversation this week with one of my local Councillors who made the observation that one of the other negative effects parachuted candidates have is that they rarely have local government experience and are useless in their interactions with the councillors in their area and this problem is only compounded by the reality that some of those councillors will likely have been rejected for selection for that very seat and so resent the MP to some degree. So the fact that Jamie Reed was legitimately a local lad makes the Copeland trend all the more worrying as the Copeland CLP should've had a better grip on what is going on in their area. Perhaps they took it for granted that Labour always won there and suffered a similar ignoble decline that Scottish Labour did. In conclusion, Corbyn's unpopularity in Copeland doesn't help but it's clearly a marginal effect and not the primary cause of Labour's loss by any means. Lord of the Llamas fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Feb 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:In conclusion, Corbyn's unpopularity in Copeland doesn't help but it's clearly a marginal effect and not the primary cause of Labour's loss by any means. Yeah labour is turbofucked.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Yeah labour is turbofucked. Yeah we probably should've figured out something was wrong when the SNP won Holyrood in 2007. Bloody Corbyn.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:No, but it only needs to affect a few people to make a difference. You can't just draw a line between the 2015 result and 2017 result and say hey look, it goes downhill even before Corbyn became leader later in 2015. The only actual data we have (in that grqph at least) is a result in May 2015 and one in February 2017. There's nothing there which tells us when support starts to plummet. What the rest of the graph tells us is that support fell while Labour was in power compared to the massive overwhelming landslide in 1997, which should be obvious. If we want to see what New Labour did to Labour support in Copeland we'd need to go back to elections before New Labour, probably to before Neil Kinnock began the process of reforming the party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
Corbynism cannot fail, it can only be failed, comrades.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Corbynism can fail, so long as Labour continues to move to the left. Maybe we need an organization to keep some force on that for a time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Not So Fast posted:Corbynism cannot fail, it can only be failed, comrades. He's right
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Not So Fast posted:Corbynism cannot fail, it can only be failed, comrades. Could you enlighten us to what ideas are there that make Corbynism a thing? Corbyn the man certainly can fail. I suspect he's done quite long term damage to the left in this country. I'd have said at least partly because he's failed to have a coherent program, among other things (rubbish pr, MPs refusing to work with him from the word go, complete muddle on Brexit) but apparently not? Interested to know what it is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Frankly I think this shows parliamentary democracy for the sham it is, and suggest we instead build a great many bunkers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:Frankly I think this shows parliamentary democracy for the sham it is, and suggest we instead build a great many bunkers. Would it be feasible for these bunkers to hold every momentum member?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Could you enlighten us to what ideas are there that make Corbynism a thing? Saying Corbyn has damaged the left is a bit extreme considering prior to his leadership the left consisted entirely of him, John McDonnell, and the Green party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Would it be feasible for these bunkers to hold every momentum member? Ideally, the bunkers will be able to hold every single person in the United Kingdom.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:Frankly I think this shows parliamentary democracy for the sham it is, and suggest we instead build a great many bunkers. Although they're not the big kind that you can grow things in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
I think we already have enough bunkers it's just most of them aren't well advertised. E: ^^^ curses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Paxman posted:You can't just draw a line between the 2015 result and 2017 result and say hey look, it goes downhill even before Corbyn became leader later in 2015. The only actual data we have (in that grqph at least) is a result in May 2015 and one in February 2017. There's nothing there which tells us when support starts to plummet. I didn't claim the linear interpolation between the points meant anything and nobody was having a conversation about that. Drawing lines between data points is normal and I'm sorry I obviously confused you. I'd like to point out that I adhered to the practice of marking the discrete data points with squares to make it clear that it wasn't continuous data. But it does show two things: 1. Yes, Labour support declined whilst in power. This is not obvious because the "conventional wisdom" that parties always lose support when in power isn't even true. e.g. The Tories in 1979-1992 specifically don't show any such trend. The SNP have been in government in Scotland since 2007 and do not show this trend. Many councils across this country do not show this trend. As I've already pointed out in an earlier post there are Labour MPs that gained vote share in 2010 which also doesn't adhere to this blind assertion. People really need to stop parroting this bollocks. 2. Copeland continued to decline in Labour support in 2015 at roughly the same rate it had when Labour was in power in complete opposition to the national result. It makes no sense to claim 1997-2010 was "national windsock" swings, to ignore 2015, and claim 2017 is national mood again. Make a hypothesis that accounts for all of the data and don't just handwave.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
Corbynism: a political movement defined by being really hated by the PLP.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Corbynism: a political movement defined by being really hated by the PLP. Anti-'Corbynism': crossing fingers and whining about Corbyn when that doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/PollingDigest/status/835137431707996160
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Corbynism: a political movement defined by being really hated by the PLP. Corbynism: it's someone else's fault. Always.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
I like the mirroring of the UKIP vote by the Tory vote.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
Oh look the pre-1997 data doesn't show that the election results were some kind of natural social physics of negative correlation between the government and opposition.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:58 |
|
|
I think last night broke the Corbyn Defence Force.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 01:01
|
|