Rarity posted:

Can confirm that I am also Angepain, Miftan, Tesseraction and ronya.

JeremoudCorbynejad posted:

Lol @ BBC just going with a staged photo from the Tory party as their thumbnail image. Image doesn't even appear in the article

Steve2911 posted:

At least on first glance it looks like he's giving the finger.

Pesmerga posted:

It’s an affectation. They’re pitching to the whole jaded, ‘just lol if you actually care about anything’ demographic, who like the idea of someone who just doesn’t put effort in, dresses scruffily with unkempt hair. The whole ‘wot a legend’ thing. It’s why he’s carefully cultivated a buffoon image. Occasionally though, you see it slip and the calculating and very easily riled Etonian shines through.

Vitamin P posted:

Funny thing is, in that little row the only thing the tosspot said that actually hosed me off was a smug little 'yeah but we're gonna win' and he was totally right, since it was created my nans constituency had always been tory and the press were saying labour were gonna get btfo'd all over, the little oval office actually made me start doorknocking for labour. And then we got a 10,000 swing and against all odds took the constituency with a fresh new 5k majority.

VideoGames posted:

LOL I absolutely care about all this and I am furious and we are going to win because it matters!

This is my anti 2019internet stance

bessantj posted:

That is a genuine, heartwarming story.

Is canvassing probably the most effective way to gain votes?

JeremoudCorbynejad posted:

Lol @ BBC just going with a staged photo from the Tory party as their thumbnail image. Image doesn't even appear in the article

squirrelzipper posted:

Hi. Canadian lurker poljunkie checking in. What’s the point at which Labour would have to think about changing leadership? Or is just a matter of enduring until the Torres immolate?

goddamnedtwisto posted:

Probably, yes. People are always more receptive to a friendly face than to a distant media, and just giving people a chance to let off steam about what annoys them can be amazingly effective. Labour always tie it up with GOTV drives too, because for every person you can flip from voting for another party there are probably 10 people who just don't vote at all.

Put it this way, I'm pretty much a stereotypical goon and even with that handicap I can normally get three of four people out of a hundred to at least *think* about voting Labour that hadn't previously (and hand out twice as many voter registration forms). When you can mobilise a membership as large as Labour have you have at least a chance of contacting every single voter in a constituency, those numbers add up really loving quickly.

OwlFancier posted:

It has very little relation to actual election results. Stop looking at polls, they're astrology for political weirdos.

bessantj posted:

I've never done it but it does seem like Labour's best bet. Once their canvassing army is mobilised and can actually add some nuance to the media crap it'll probably go quite well for them. I'm in a very safe Labour seat though so I don't really see a lot of it round here.

Necrothatcher posted:

If you haven't ever done any door-to-door canvassing and campaign I'd definitely recommend it - it's way less scarier than I thought it would be. You'd be surprised how many people are open to being persuaded and a lot of people are just happy to have someone listening to their problems.

El Burbo posted:

quote:

UK Brexit offer raises mad cow and GMO fears

The U.K.’s post-Brexit proposals for Northern Ireland would breach the single market, creating loopholes that could lead to the illegal import of genetically modified food and sick animals that pose a risk to food safety, say EU diplomats and officials.

In proposals submitted in recent days, London has told Brussels that a suggested “all-Ireland” food safety zone should allow Northern Ireland, like the rest of the U.K., to diverge from certain EU rules, for example regarding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and animal welfare. But EU diplomats say London’s plans appear to be a clear sign that the British government is preparing to offer concessions to U.S. President Donald Trump under a future U.K.-U.S. trade deal.

This has sparked fears in Brussels of unfair competition and potentially dangerous imports of food and livestock into the EU market, such as cattle infected with mad cow disease, according to two senior EU diplomats and three other diplomats briefed on the British plans — something that the EU regards as unacceptable.

The plans were circulated in Brussels in advance of a Brexit proposal that Prime Minister Boris Johnson is expected to send to Brussels and outline during his speech to the Tory Party conference in Manchester on Wednesday.

In what Johnson will refer to in his speech as a “fair and reasonable compromise,” officials will present fresh legal texts for a new deal to replace key parts of the Withdrawal Agreement negotiated by Theresa May’s government. No. 10 officials say this would be a final offer to Brussels and are threatening not to negotiate further unless Brussels engages seriously with the offer.

Ditching the backstop

The U.K. has so far laid down key preliminary versions of its proposals in four confidential “non papers,” which London presented to the European Commission during the past two weeks. These are meant to sketch out alternative arrangements to replace the Irish backstop — the section in the Withdrawal Agreement negotiated by Theresa May’s government to avoid the need for a hard border.

Irish Deputy Prime Minister Simon Coveney rejected the British non-papers on Tuesday as a “non-starter,” and added: “Time the EU had a serious proposal from the UK government if a Brexit deal is to be achievable in October.”

EU diplomats, officials and politicians expressed serious concerns about the British plan — specified in two of the four non-papers — to only selectively follow EU food safety and animal welfare rules.

“The British offer is an impertinence. It is not seen as an offer, but as a provocation,” said Franziska Brantner, a German Green MP and member of the Bundestag’s European Affairs committee.

Brussels has two key concerns with the U.K. proposal on food and animal welfare rules, also known under the technical term SPS (sanitary and phyto-sanitary standards).

Firstly, diplomats and officials warn that the scheme represents “a step backwards” from previous U.K. proposals, which were orally presented earlier last month, and which left Brussels under the impression that the British idea of an “all-Ireland” SPS zone would mean that Northern Ireland remains aligned to all EU food safety rules.

That was seen in Brussels as an important and positive concession, because the EU has very strict SPS checks at its external border that function as a “gatekeeper” for imports of food and animals. Keeping the same rules in Northern Ireland is a way to avoid food safety checks at the Irish border, which would cause a significant disturbance to the all-Ireland economy.

However, the non-papers diverge from that plan. The U.K. wants to “pick and choose” which SPS rules Northern Ireland should follow and which ones it doesn’t, one EU official said. “They are proposing an ‘SPS zone’ but want to exclude the relevant GMO rules, animal welfare, as well as labelling [of ingredients of additives].”

That’s unacceptable for the EU, not only because of the disruptions it would cause to trade. Crucially, it would allow British and Northern Irish farmers to produce food with lower animal welfare standards — for example by putting more hens in a laying battery — and thereby gain “an unfair competitive advantage” over their EU counterparts, a senior EU diplomat said.

“There is a very legitimate concern that fair competition will be jeopardized,” said German MP Brantner.

Sam Lowe, a trade expert with the Centre for European Reform, said that the proposed derogation on GMOs and animal welfare standards could be “a pre-concession to the U.S. to show that we’re ready to play ball” on a future U.K.-U.S. trade deal.

“It’s something that the U.K. could potentially do early, to say, ‘Look, Trump, we’ve sped up the authorization of these GMO products’,” Lowe said.

American politicians like Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue have in the past urged Britain to diverge from the EU’s regulatory system post-Brexit and adopt U.S. food safety and animal welfare standards. Johnson himself said in July that he wants to “liberate the UK’s extraordinary bioscience sector from anti-genetic modification rules.”

Mad cow warning

The second strand of EU concerns relates to risks to the EU’s “gatekeeping” food security checks, which could spell far-reaching consequences for the bloc’s own market.

Because of the divergence on certain SPS rules, there would have to be food safety checks alongside customs inspections at the Irish border. The U.K. non-papers raise solutions such as “trusted traders” and “customs clearance sites,” EU diplomats said.

The U.K. papers further suggest that SPS checks for food coming from mainland Britain could be previously done there, in cooperation with EU authorities, before even crossing the Irish sea.

But EU diplomats said that system also entailed risks because food would be checked several days before it is shipped to Northern Ireland and crosses the Irish border, and custom authorities would have to simply trust exporters that the food at the border is exactly the same that was checked days before. Brussels insists that it is safest to keep customs and SPS checks at the same place.

All in all, there is virtually no guarantee that exporters will respect the rules, and smugglers could simply evade pre-checks and secretly transport a sick animal across the border.

That’s a horror scenario for the EU because a disease outbreak in the Republic of Ireland could jeopardize consumer confidence more widely and have a knock on effect for trade.

“There is a lot of agriculture, there is a lot of transport in this area. The reason why we have concerns is because of mad cow disease and what happened in the U.K. and Ireland,” said one EU official.

The EU’s Trade Commissioner-designate Phil Hogan told the European Parliament at his confirmation hearing on Monday that it was important that “no product comes into the European Union, except under the auspices of EU SPS system itself and regulations.”

The U.K. non-papers suggest that the way to address smuggling concerns is with strict criminal prosecution of offenses, but that has not reassured officials in Brussels.

The EU was not willing to accept a scenario “where offenders get punished months or years down the line, but the damage is done and potentially hundreds or thousands of our citizens have gotten sick,” one senior diplomat said.

Moreover, the EU is concerned that the potential uncontrolled import of sick animals could lead to far-reaching consequences for its own booming agri-food export business, because third countries like Japan could legally close their markets to EU exports based on food safety concerns.

A spokesperson for the U.K. government said that London still had to “present formal papers when we are ready,” but did not indicate that these solutions will differ much from what has been outlined in the non-papers.

“We have already shared four technical non-papers and all the main elements of our proposed solutions have already been discussed with the Commission,” the spokesperson said. “As you’d expect, we are not going to comment on the details of an ongoing negotiation.”

Junior G-man posted:

Here's detail on the Irish border proposal

El Burbo posted:

mediadave posted:

C'mon guys, discussion (in the debate and discussion forum) isn't concern trolling.

mediadave posted:

It's fair to talk about the dunking Ed Milliband got - but it's also fair to point out that at his worst points he was much more porpular than Corbyn is now, and indeed more popular than Boris Johnson.

2017 was a great campaign - but 2017 won't be good enough now, Labour needs to (should be) in a position to win or at least be the largest party.

mediadave posted:

It's fair to talk about the dunking Ed Milliband got - but it's also fair to point out that at his worst points he was much more porpular than Corbyn is now, and indeed more popular than Boris Johnson.

2017 was a great campaign - but 2017 won't be good enough now, Labour needs to (should be) in a position to win or at least be the largest party.

mediadave posted:

It's fair to talk about the dunking Ed Milliband got - but it's also fair to point out that at his worst points he was much more porpular than Corbyn is now, and indeed more popular than Boris Johnson.

2017 was a great campaign - but 2017 won't be good enough now, Labour needs to (should be) in a position to win or at least be the largest party.

Necrothatcher posted:

e: Leeds North West and Sheffield Hallam are the only two.

Desiderata posted:

As has been pointed out before: anyone from the left other than Jeremy Corbyn would also be tarred and attacked by the press in exactly the same way. The person doesn't matter. The result would be the same.

radmonger posted:

Any pair of boots you wear for several years of lots of walking in hard pavements _will_ become worn through. Some boots are better or worse at taking the punishment, but once holes show up, you have to replace them as soon as you can afford to. Because even worse new boots are still new boots.

JeremoudCorbynejad posted:

Imagine a worn boot, stamping on your face forever. It's Corbyn.

radmonger posted:

Because even worse new boots are still new boots.

Necrothatcher posted:

This analogy loving suuuuucks.

Necrothatcher posted:

There are very few (possibly none?)* Labour/Lib Dem marginals, so if the LDs increase their share of the vote it disproportionately harms the Tories.