|
Poll: Who Should Be Leader of HM Most Loyal Opposition? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Jeremy Corbyn |
|
95 | 18.63% |
| Dennis Skinner |
|
53 | 10.39% |
| Angus Robertson |
|
20 | 3.92% |
| Tim Farron |
|
9 | 1.76% |
| Paul Ukips |
|
7 | 1.37% |
| Robot Lenin |
|
105 | 20.59% |
| Tony Blair |
|
28 | 5.49% |
| Pissflaps |
|
193 | 37.84% |
| Total: | 510 votes | ||
|
Oh, so it's the "Well he's a fascist who might get the world nuked, but at least he's not part of the establishment!" thing? Joy.
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:45 |
|
|
spectralent posted:Oh, so it's the "Well he's a fascist who might get the world nuked, but at least he's not part of the establishment!" thing? No it was more the "Well the Democrats haven't done poo poo for me and my life has gotten demonstrably worse under them. Hey, Trump says he'll bring us jobs and security while the Democrats are saying WE'LL GIVE YOU MORE OF WHAT YOU'VE BEEN GETTING very loudly. Guess I'll vote for him". Horrible thing is, if the Democrats had actually campaigned properly or even offered the people something other than "Well, we're not as bad as Trump!" then they probably would have won handily. That said, Democratic hubris as well as the American penchant for electoral fraud and voter purging (both parties do it) cost them their firewall in the rust belt and the election.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:No it was more the "Well the Democrats haven't done poo poo for me and my life has gotten demonstrably worse under them. Hey, Trump says he'll bring us jobs and security while the Democrats are saying WE'LL GIVE YOU MORE OF WHAT YOU'VE BEEN GETTING very loudly. Guess I'll vote for him". Horrible thing is, if the Democrats had actually campaigned properly or even offered the people something other than "Well, we're not as bad as Trump!" This really is the most important part to me. There was massive denial that Trump would get anywhere near to the presidency. The reality we live in now was literally laughed at by anyone with above 100 IQ's. The problem was that then the groups that currently claim to represent the left in America decided that this meant they didn't have to do anything, and in fact this was a great time to improve Obama's 'Change' message by turning it into 'Keep everything coasting along!'. And most people want some form of progress. Whether forward, backward, upward, forward, or twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
TinTower posted:That's three times as many as the proportion of Labour MPs who voted against it. It's easy to have big percentages with 9 mps
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 07:58
|
|
|
cosmically_cosmic posted:This really is the most important part to me. There was massive denial that Trump would get anywhere near to the presidency. The reality we live in now was literally laughed at by anyone with above 100 IQ's. The problem was that then the groups that currently claim to represent the left in America decided that this meant they didn't have to do anything, and in fact this was a great time to improve Obama's 'Change' message by turning it into 'Keep everything coasting along!'. See also: Brexit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
jabby posted:However much you disagree with Labour's stance on the referendum result, nothing they can possibly do in opposition comes close to what the Lib Dems did while in power. Less than half the population go to uni at any point in their lives. Everyone is going to suffer a hard brexit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 08:10
|
|
|
Cerv posted:Less than half the population go to uni at any point in their lives. Everyone is going to suffer a hard brexit. One could also argue that given how the tories went full fash after their surprising majority win, the lib dems may have had more of an influence than we actually saw.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 08:15
|
|
|
in 1992, the incumbency run of GHWB scared off many more established Democrats, who believed (not unreasonably) that runs against a sitting President with well-established bi-partisan credentials (most notably on taxes) were a waste of political and literal capital. That let a relatively unknown southern Democratic governor win the nomination, despite being vulnerable to scandals in a way that would dog his campaigns and indeed his entire presidency - the weak field meant that these were not sufficiently uncovered during the nomination at the same time, however, GHWB was challenged from the right by Pat Buchanan. although Buchanan did not get close to toppling the sitting President from his own party's nomination, GHWB moved his campaign significantly rightward to compensate, gambling away his incumbency advantage at the general election - in particular, placing culture war issues in the campaign spotlight any similarities are of course coincidental. in particular, although Clinton did not win the popular vote, neither did Bush, with the anti-establishment vote drawn off by third party anti-trade, self-financed-billionaire candidate Ross Perot. Perot's mercurial campaigning and carefree inclination towards alleging conspiracies against him had not stopped Perot from obtaining an enormous 19% of the national vote. ronya fucked around with this message at 08:19 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 08:16
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:No it was more the "Well the Democrats haven't done poo poo for me and my life has gotten demonstrably worse under them. Hey, Trump says he'll bring us jobs and security while the Democrats are saying WE'LL GIVE YOU MORE OF WHAT YOU'VE BEEN GETTING very loudly. Guess I'll vote for him". Horrible thing is, if the Democrats had actually campaigned properly or even offered the people something other than "Well, we're not as bad as Trump!" then they probably would have won handily. That said, Democratic hubris as well as the American penchant for electoral fraud and voter purging (both parties do it) cost them their firewall in the rust belt and the election. Surely centre left Democrats will look across the pond, see what a roaring success Corbynism has proved to be here, and wish to emulate it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
ronya posted:in 1992, the incumbency run of GHWB scared off many more established Democrats, who believed (not unreasonably) that runs against a sitting President with well-established bi-partisan credentials (most notably on taxes) were a waste of political and literal capital. That let a relatively unknown southern Democratic governor win the nomination, despite being vulnerable to scandals in a way that would dog his campaigns and indeed his entire presidency - the weak field meant that these were not sufficiently uncovered during the nomination I wouldn't say Clinton was any more scandal-prone than any other random politician. The Republicans dug into him like he was a Mafia don and all they managed to get was Whitewater, which was probably a bit shady but they couldn't pin anything on the Clintons despite the entire might of the DoJ being deployed against it for two years, and the Paula Jones/Lewinsky case, which was something but really not anything that hasn't happened with basically anyone who's been in the White House. It says something about just how successful the "Attack them where we're weakest" strategy was that people still see Clinton as uniquely dishonest and libidinous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 08:30
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:the Paula Jones/Lewinsky case, which was something but really not anything that hasn't happened with basically anyone who's been in the White House.... LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 08:36 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 08:33
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:No it was more the "Well the Democrats haven't done poo poo for me and my life has gotten demonstrably worse under them. Hey, Trump says he'll bring us jobs and security while the Democrats are saying WE'LL GIVE YOU MORE OF WHAT YOU'VE BEEN GETTING very loudly. Guess I'll vote for him". Horrible thing is, if the Democrats had actually campaigned properly or even offered the people something other than "Well, we're not as bad as Trump!" then they probably would have won handily. That said, Democratic hubris as well as the American penchant for electoral fraud and voter purging (both parties do it) cost them their firewall in the rust belt and the election. the funny thing is they're now all going to die under his healthcare plan while he doesn't bring the jobs back
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 08:34
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:No it was more the "Well the Democrats haven't done poo poo for me and my life has gotten demonstrably worse under them. Hey, Trump says he'll bring us jobs and security while the Democrats are saying WE'LL GIVE YOU MORE OF WHAT YOU'VE BEEN GETTING very loudly. Guess I'll vote for him". Horrible thing is, if the Democrats had actually campaigned properly or even offered the people something other than "Well, we're not as bad as Trump!" then they probably would have won handily. That said, Democratic hubris as well as the American penchant for electoral fraud and voter purging (both parties do it) cost them their firewall in the rust belt and the election. Basically every video jimmy dore posts
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Uh... what? Which other recent president has been caught doing anything similar? I guess JFK was notoriously a bit of a rake and LBJ was... LBJ, but Obama, Dubya, and HW were all pretty straight-laced, Reagan was probably too senile and old to function anyway, and I've never heard anything about Carter or Ford doing anything untoward. Okay, maybe not every single person in the White House, but I'm willing to bet getting close to a majority of Presidents have shagged around. And while Reagan and HW didn't personally do the loving, the same definitely can't be said of the people they employed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 09:14
|
|
|
The tabloids are going after people living on taxpayer handouts again The Mail has something similar going on except there were two women at his party so they're obviously on the cover
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 09:17
|
|
|
But how many has notable actual heir to the throne Charlie done?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 09:47
|
|
|
The figures have emerged but we don't have the high scores yet
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 09:49
|
|
|
They're all a bunch of loving scroungers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 09:49
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 09:53
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Idiot nationalism aside, I do think that becoming more self-sufficient in food is overall a good thing, whether that's at the national, regional, commune, or household level. When I hear North Korea I think agricultural success. Fine that's tongue-in-cheek, but still, I can't think of any large country that's agriculturally self-dependent. China, Germany, France, Spain or the US do come somewhat closer, but that's more a function of the size of their agricultural sectors than anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 10:06
|
|
|
There was an attempt in WW2 to make households partly self sufficient in foodstuffs with the Victory Gardens. Didn't really work though. It is scary just how vulnerable most first world countries are in terms of food, though. It's a bulket in the head of the idea of any really meaningful social reform, because the first time any left wing government says the word "nationalisation" then it's BAM trade emargo by uncle sam and we're all eating grass or clay for loving dinner.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 10:12
|
|
|
I always  about Lib Dems who think they were punished electorally for breaking a campaign promise on tuition fees, and not for propping up the Tories for 5 years and helping enact crushing austerity and cuts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 10:13
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I always And comparing the Labour stance on Article 50 to tuition fees. Because apparently the Lib Dems lost a referendum on fees and the Tories had an absolute majority then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 10:20
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Yeah, to be honest they're acting like a top-up on the government's majority. lmao
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 10:40
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/841943945370300416 https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/841944414087966721 Oh. That's nice. We don't know how bad it'd be (or aren't willing to find out), but it definitely won't be as bad as those nasty remoaners are saying, honest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 10:42
|
|
|
Baron Corbyn posted:true but opinion polling have them at a net favorability of around -15, which isn't as bad as Corbyn but still somehow worse than Trump, which is insane. Favorability polls have done well at predicting the results of elections where voter intention has failed (see Ed Miliband) but it's early days yet. It's because you are comparing congressional favourability with presidential favourability. Congress as a whole has been less favourable than cockroaches for ages. (Gallup congressional approval averages something like 20% approve/80% disapprove?) A president gets some points just for being president. Worse favourability values prior to the election didn't stop Trump. Fangz fucked around with this message at 10:50 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 10:43
|
|
|
quote:Q: Has the government made an assessment of the economic impact of leaving with no deal? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 10:48
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/841948738960662531
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 10:51
|
|
|
I know that there are a lot of individually poo poo US reps / senators but it feels like "congress bad" has become some kind of self reinforcing reaction. Like it's an easy, uncontroversial thing for someone who's politically unengaged to say. I get similarly frustrated when people here say "they're all as bad as each other" about our MPs, ignoring the wonderful spectrum of badness that we have.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 10:50
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:The tabloids are going after people living on taxpayer handouts again Are Rupert Murdoch & Paul Dacre big fans of Charles? Seen a few stories about skipping over him, hard not to think of this as a counter to that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 10:53
|
|
|
The Queen is the monarch after all, royal duties are rather her job. I dunno what William's job is these days but insofar as you can consider having royals reasonable at all, it seems reasonable that his workload is less than the person with their face on all the stamps.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 10:55
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Are Rupert Murdoch & Paul Dacre big fans of Charles? Seen a few stories about skipping over him, hard not to think of this as a counter to that. I assumed it was the 'William is a Remoaner' thing, maybe though Dominic Raab just asked questions that basically come down to "are you getting a sense everything's going to be fine, win-win, win-win?" ugh Gove is in here
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 10:57
|
|
|
Party Boat posted:I know that there are a lot of individually poo poo US reps / senators but it feels like "congress bad" has become some kind of self reinforcing reaction. Like it's an easy, uncontroversial thing for someone who's politically unengaged to say. I get similarly frustrated when people here say "they're all as bad as each other" about our MPs, ignoring the wonderful spectrum of badness that we have. i think the general "congress bad" is probably because of how nisanely gerrymandered it is
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 10:58
|
|
|
Home Office staff forbidden to criticise Donald Trump online It's pretty silly, plus it goes a lot further in saying they'll enforce the standard blanket "no saying online that you work at the HO, what you do there or opinions regarding any policies". Which apparently two out of three personnel break. Soo, does anyone here work at the Home Office and has something to share?  Don't actually do so if you like your job I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 10:59
|
|
|
No it's the product of media reporting where everything that should be written as Republicans suck is instead written as Congress sucks or politicians suck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 11:00
|
|
|
Fangz posted:It's because you are comparing congressional favourability with presidential favourability. Congress as a whole has been less favourable than cockroaches for ages. (Gallup congressional approval averages something like 20% approve/80% disapprove?) A president gets some points just for being president. Also, everyone rates their own congressperson higher than congress as a whole. So it's always the other people's congressperson's fault.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 11:07
|
|
|
"Oh it's quite plain how it will work out, I'm just not quantifying it yet" lol "I spent most of my working life before politics in business, you often know a good deal without having the specific numbers"
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 11:15
|
|
|
"Trust me, I don't need no *snort* numbers and *pfft* logic, I have a feeling it's all gonna be great, you'll see." Also, you know, all these brexiteers are touting trade deals TRADE DEALS EVERYWHERE, but when you're the little guy on the block, trade deals loving suck for the average citizen. I mean look at the kind of trade deals that most of Latin America gets: "get hosed, we sell you everything, you export only what we want for cheapass prices, also our corporations will be god-kings as far as your courts are concerned, oh and give us all your natural resources for free". Pochoclo fucked around with this message at 11:35 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 11:27
|
|
|
cosmically_cosmic posted:This really is the most important part to me. There was massive denial that Trump would get anywhere near to the presidency. The reality we live in now was literally laughed at by anyone with above 100 IQ's. I remember posting in the USPol thread shortly before the election something along the lines of 'we're totally hosed, really hope you won't be too!' and having like half a dozen of their thread regulars jumping down my throat saying there was no chance Trump would be elected and I was a fool for thinking so. Oops.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 11:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:45 |
|
|
rigorous feels-based economic planning and analysis rooted in a firm foundation of baseless optimism. how can we possibly lose? e: https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/841960986374479873 i wonder if he's, e.g., spoken to the irish government about this
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 11:37
|
|