crispix posted:

Speaking from my own experience of life to date it seems like there are many more people who take the attitude that they cannot possibly be wrong, ever, and if you have a problem with that you can enjoy picking up your teeth from your local asdurs car park

WhatEvil posted:

I hope you learn from this and the next time you're getting torn to loving shreds on something and being told that you're flat out wrong by reasonable people, you will consider that those people could be right.

Just want to address something else from this post though, re: Competence. I know you're talking about the GLU but I want to make a more general point.

Who would you rather have leading the country, somebody who is "highly competent" but malicious, or somebody who is "incompetent" but has good principles and actually cares about the people they're supposed to be protecting? Between somebody is actually trying to do the right thing but gets it wrong once in a while, and somebody who is trying to do the wrong thing and is really good at it, which is going to give the better outcomes for people?

"Competent" is just a word that gets thrown around by Tories. There is no loving meaning to it anymore. It's a word used to try to paint somebody as good or bad - there is no actual meaning to it anymore. It's like "Electable". Who decides if somebody is electable? The Tories try to push that they're "competent on the economy" or whatever but any time they're in power they look like anything but, and you're pushed into the whole "Competence vs Malice" thing, and yes, you're not supposed to ascribe anything which you can ascribe to incompetence, to malice, but I think that's bullshit. It's a good enough rule most of the time for personal or professional relationships but for governments, governments who keep doing and voting for things that *can without hyperbole be described as evil*, over and over and over again, you can no longer call it incompetence.

Besides, how much "competence" is required, actually, to be a politician? Most of the actual doing of stuff is done by the civil service, no?

Is Johnson "competent"? How about Javid? Gove? Williamson? Patel? May? Cameron? Any Tory at all? I don't see that you could argue that any of those cunts are. All of them have tried to push out policy and had to U-turn, again and again. It's cemented into the British public id that the Tories are "competent on the economy" so you will never, ever win a battle in the public mind by pushing "competence". In reality most Tories are both malicious *and* incompetent.

If you want change in the UK stop framing things in terms of "competence" and start framing them in terms of principles - we did that and it almost worked. It almost worked in 2017 *even with the entire loving might of capital and the media against us*. Unfortunately for the likes of Starmer to push on principles you actually have to *have* principles which you aren't willing to sell out to rich donors and the right-wing presses. And that's why he's pushing "competence" so much. Don't buy into it, it's a meaningless dead end.

Bobby Deluxe posted:

I remember many many years ago getting into an argument with a creationist on a gaming forum, and when we got to the heart of the disagreement, we were both astonished by the other's perspective.

It was about science, and how we would feel if the science on something changed, and it transpired that the creationist would, in his own words, rather be consistent than be correct.

He was equally astonished that we could just change our understanding of things - to him, truth was a process of absolutes that were immutable once uncovered.

I feel like most of us are online because we're naturally inquisitive and want info that will change our minds. We encounter less of the obstinate 'already know everything' types because outside of facebook where they're on there to keep in touch with family.

Also good on you therattle for putting the work in. Admitting your perspective has changed is tough.

OwlFancier posted:

I don't know if your brain is full of water but they also gave him poo poo for "not bowing low enough" while editing the BBC footage of johnson putting the wreath on upside down.

If you think that the expensiveness of the coat matters you're an idiot.

Spangly A posted:

if somebody said barack obama was incompetent purely and specifically because wearing a tan suit and eating mustard was just handing fox news a free hit, what might your thoughts on that be?

therattle posted:

Not bowing low enough is bullshit. What he was wearing isn't. Unfortunately, image matters in politics. I think he misjudged. It isn't about how expensive it was, it is how it looked. Nobody would have cared if it was a £79 black overcoat from M&S, because nobody would have bothered to check, because it would not have drawn attention to itself. If you are going to pay respects, dress respectfully.

therattle posted:

Depends on context. Was it at a funeral?

therattle posted:

Nobody would have cared if it was a £79 black overcoat from M&S, because nobody would have bothered to check, because it would not have drawn attention to itself.

therattle posted:

Depends on context. Was it at a funeral?

therattle posted:

I don't mean to open up an old argument but I have now gone and read most of the leaked Labour report into AS. I had read bits of it, and read about it, but not put in the time to read most of it. (I had work and childcare).

Firstly, my comment about comments in the report being taken out of context was stupid. Perhaps there were comments that were taken out of context but there are so many direct WhatsApp transcripts that it's not relevant.

Those WhatsApp transcripts are really appalling. I hope that many of those involved are expelled from the party. I find it hard to understand how one can hate a faction within the party so much that one would rather have the Tories in power. How anyone in Labour who by definition professes to have even moderately leftwing principles would prefer Conservatives to Corbyn is almost inconceivable. The most charitable interpretation to a lot of the chats is that it was likely that Labour under Corbyn would lose, and if the margin was sufficiently large, then he would have to go. I am not sure if some of those transcripts can even be read in that way. It's really depressing.

The failure of the GLU to deal with complaints is baffling. I sometimes discuss with my wife (usually about the current govt) if it's incompetence or malice, and I usually plump for incompetence. That said, incompetence in the face of increasing public awareness of AS as an issue in the party starts to look sinister. Mathews knew about the publicity and did very little about it. However, it seems that he did very little with other complaints too, so it may be that he was simply absolutely incompetent and/or lazy. I am assuming that the numbers quoted in the report are accurate, although I am aware that even numbers can be interpreted/derived differently (but with more difficulty than other things, perhaps).

The report is about factionalism but is also clearly factional itself, so I am taking it with a pinch of salt. However, even when read with some scepticism it's indisputable that the GLU was at best horribly incompetent and at worst actively malicious. I am beginning to change my view on how Labour treated allegations of AS, and Corbyn's role. It hasn't massively changed my perception of him - well-meaning but ultimately not a very good politician or particularly competent. I never thought that he was personally AS so this doesn't affect that view. I believe that the qualities that got him elected as leader and garnered him a lot of support were ultimately the same qualities that prevented him for expanding beyond that support base and winning elections.

Feel free to say I told you so - it's wholly warranted.

therattle posted:

Not bowing low enough is bullshit. What he was wearing isn't. Unfortunately, image matters in politics. I think he misjudged. It isn't about how expensive it was, it is how it looked. Nobody would have cared if it was a £79 black overcoat from M&S, because nobody would have bothered to check, because it would not have drawn attention to itself. If you are going to pay respects, dress respectfully.

OwlFancier posted:

The angry dead will not be appeased unless you wear a saville row coat, otherwise you are not doing the proper respect and ghosts of dead tommies will haunt u

Because that is how respect works, it isn't the thought or memory of the dead it is how much money you can spaff and make a big display of it.

how many poppy men do you own therattle, have you covered your whole house in poppies to respect the troops?

Mr Phillby posted:

You've quite missed the point which that was Corbyn was criticized for being scruffy and unkempt therefore not showing enough respect, however are Boris the british bulldog showed up drunk did the whole thing wrong and we got footage of him doing it the right way from the year before on the news instead. The 'right' people are shown as respectful no matter what they do and the 'wrong' people are disrespectful no matter how well they dress and behave.

Spangly A posted:

no. remember when corbyn wore a tie and that meant he was stalin?

you're still ascribing good faith to actors in this scenario who are pathologically incapable of it. It isn't relevant to labour's electoral chances what he wears, because the media and various politicians will attack him for it anyway, and it is the attack by a trusted source that makes people think he's being disrespectful. Not one single person that cared about that, but has nothing to say about Boris drunk/wrong video, would feel differently about corbyn in any possible outfit. The only change would be their internal justification.

You're basically advocating sartorial superstition and calling it "competence". If the act and outcome are unrelated, competence can't be a factor. I do not find it possible to accept that they are related things, because there are massive twitter threads full of (particularly guardian) journalists arguing both sides of a point to prove labour are evil. I can only conclude the actual argument is irrelevant.

All of which is totally outside the question of whether a lifelong backbencher had any competence in running the byzantine beurocracy of a large political party in civil war, to which the answer is "clearly not" by any possible reading of the enquiry.

Ague Proof posted:

JeremoudCorbynejad posted:

Nobody would have cared if nobody was a cunty disingenuous hack out to Get Corbyn

Guavanaut posted:

This conspiracy theory titled article is very good. I'm sure I remember some vague reasons why the author isn't, but the end reasoning is extremely Correct.

The TRUTH about Article 61 of Magna Carta

Specifically this bit:

therattle posted:

but I have now gone and read

vodkat posted:

Would love to tape magna carta bores into chairs while I deliver a none stop 72 hour lecture on the intricacies of seisin in the land. There is nothing more intricate, boring and plain maddening than medieval land law and this fact should be used to scare anyone that tries to justify anything based on the magana carta or ancient English rights into submission.

Gonzo McFee posted:

Just tell him to gently caress off, he'll crawl back in a weeks time to tell you you were right to get you engage with him again.

therattle posted:

Sure sure. Read my post again.

Spangly A posted:

if someone wants to troll ukmt by playacting a pretty gracious about face after further research, then godspeed

therattle posted:

I was thinking about Armistice Day and Corbyn, for obvious reasons, when he wore an M&S raincoat to the wreath-laying ceremony.

Josef bugman posted:

But why? People can't surely think that today being the same as yesterday and the same as tomorrow is a good thing, and we only really have control over ourselves.

Spangly A posted:

if someone wants to troll ukmt by playacting a pretty gracious about face after further research, then godspeed

therattle posted:

I was thinking about Armistice Day and Corbyn, for obvious reasons, when he wore an M&S raincoat to the wreath-laying ceremony. So why did he do that? His supporters wouldn't have thought less of him for wearing proper garb to pay one's respects (which, to be honest, is what the working men he was paying respects to would have expected too). I would be very surprised if that won him a single vote, because it's a gesture that plays to the converted. But I bet it lost him votes, because when faced with a hostile media, he gave them fresh meat. That is either stubbornness and a kind of vanity masquerading as principle, or political foolishness. Incompetent politicking, on something that would not actually have compromised his principles or integrity one iota.

therattle posted:

Not bowing low enough is bullshit. What he was wearing isn't. Unfortunately, image matters in politics. I think he misjudged. It isn't about how expensive it was, it is how it looked. Nobody would have cared if it was a £79 black overcoat from M&S, because nobody would have bothered to check, because it would not have drawn attention to itself. If you are going to pay respects, dress respectfully.

suck my woke dick posted:

Let me put it this way: I would pointedly show up in jogging pants and a hoodie, just to enrage the people who think of elected officials as ornaments whose main job is to look professional.

kecske posted:

https://youtu.be/wZsYvkTw4Rg