UKMT Summer 2022 - The Pipes, The Pipes Are Empty

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT Summer 2022 - The Pipes, The Pipes Are Empty

Jaeluni Asjil: Apr 18, 2018; Sorry I thought you were a landlord when I gave you your old avatar!

Better late than never I guess.
John McDonnell's response to Forde report, open letter to Starmer & Evans.

https://labourhub.org.uk/2022/07/27/a-letter-to-keir-starmer-and-david-evans/

quote:

JULY 27, 2022LABOUR HUB EDITORS
A letter to Keir Starmer and David Evans
By John McDonnell MP

Dear Keir and David,

I have read the recently published Forde Report. I believe that the Report deserves careful consideration as it should play an immensely important role in shaping the principles upon which the future operation of the Labour Party rests. I intend to submit my views to you as I draw my conclusions on the different aspects of the Report.

In the context of the recently published Forde Report, I am writing first of all to raise with you the behaviour of the Labour Party in its treatment of Jewish Voice for Labour and its members.

The Forde Report makes a number of serious and important comments on the culture of the Labour Party, both what it has been, still is and should be.

The report emphasises the importance of recognising that the Party has to be a broad church with different ideological and policy positions legitimately contained within it and that the Party�s culture should be based upon a respect for this diversity.

However, the report goes on to demonstrate just how far the culture within the Party has been and is from this ideal.

To address the need to transform the Party�s culture, which is described as an urgent priority, the Forde team focuses on a process of what it describes as cultural growth and suggests that responsibility for this should rest with those at the highest levels in the Party, i.e. the General Secretary backed by the relevant NEC committee. Forde adds that there is also a role for the political leadership in this.

Setting out its programme for cultural reform, including new codes of conduct, revised disciplinary processes and improvement of operational and recruitment procedures, the Report says the following:

�Cultural Growth, including the skill of deep listening, acceptance of differing traditions within the Party as legitimate and compassion, need to be led and demonstrated by the leadership of the Party.�

I fully agree with this sentiment.

For this reason, I am strongly recommending that, as part of demonstrating the seriousness of the Party�s intent to address the Forde Report�s concerns, both of you should address the treatment of the group, Jewish Voice for Labour, by the Party.

The treatment of this group and many of its members by the Party has been disregarding, disrespectful, at times uncaring, even brutal, and, some have argued, has amounted to discrimination.

The Forde Report cites an example of how the Party has refused to engage with JVL, stating in its section on antisemitism training that:

�We do recognise that there are other voices amongst the Jewish communities and Jewish members of the Party. Hence we are disappointed that there has been a refusal to engage at all with Jewish Voice for Labour�s proposals for antisemitism education and that CLPs are, we are told, not even allowed to enlist their help.�

The treatment of JVL goes beyond this refusal by the Party to engage with the group that legitimately represents a large number of Jewish members of the Party.

The Report has evidenced that the Party�s disciplinary procedures have been used to target specific individuals for factional purposes. Shockingly the Report confirms that this has been used to exclude people from a ballot, in other words, for ballot rigging purposes.

The evidence of the disproportionate number of members of JVL being disciplined, suspended and expelled from the Party must add to the Forde concerns that the Party�s disciplinary process has not been fair and has indeed been open to abuse for factional purposes.

The facts of the disproportionate impact on JVL members are clear.

JVL knows of 54 Jewish members of the Party subjected to LP disciplinary proceedings in relation to allegations of antisemitism. Of these 47 are full JVL members. As far as the data produced by the Party on actioned complaints can be interpreted, it would appear that these Jewish JVL members are significantly (maybe 35 times!) more likely to face such distressing investigations than others, mostly non-Jewish, Labour Party members.

Attacks on current JVL Executive Committee members have been even more disproportionate. All 11 have been faced with disciplinary action, in 9 of these cases explicitly in response to allegations of antisemitism.

It appears increasingly clear that this has happened because JVL � while never denying the reality of antisemitism in the Labour party � has challenged the unacceptable weaponising of it, confirmed by the Forde Report, and the interpretation of antisemitism imposed by the much criticised didactic approach to �antisemitism training� .

I also note here the recent comments by Margaret Hodge MP with regard to the use of allegations by the Campaign Against Antisemitism to criticise Keir Starmer and to attack the Labour Party. Margaret Hodge said �I�m fed up of CAA using antisemitism to attack Labour. Time to call them out for what and who they really are. More concerned with undermining Labour than rooting out antisemitism.�

Bearing in mind Margaret Hodge�s comments, if true, It would be helpful to know how many of the allegations used to investigate and discipline JVL members for antisemitism were triggered by allegations coming from the CAA.

JVL has been in correspondence with the EHRC about the failure of the Party to engage with them and about the disproportionate targeting of their members. For instance their website notes in relation to their submission in March 2022 that:

�We have taken into account the areas of concern that the EHRC notes in its letters as relevant to its ongoing monitoring of the Action Plan, currently being implemented by the Party, namely:

� the Party�s process for appointing its Advisory Board on antisemitism;

� its failure to engage with a range of stakeholders;

� its failure / delay in responding to complaints;

� the disproportionate number of actioned complaints taken against Jewish Party members, and in particular anti-Zionist members;�

The way in which the disciplinary process has been implemented with regard to JVL members has caused immense distress.

There are numerous cases where JVL members have received notice of disciplinary action being taken against them and the process has taken a prolonged period of time; in most cases there has been a complete failure by the staff to acknowledge responses sent in describing the accused�s own experience of antisemitism. Subsequent appeals have taken lengthy periods to be determined if at all.

Michael Howard is an example of the brutality of the process. Mike was a Jew, from a family with a history of fighting fascists, who had fled from the pogroms in Lithuania and Poland. He had first-hand experience of antisemitism early in life when he was bullied at school for being Jewish. Mike was a member of the Party for 40 years, an active trade unionist and served as a local councillor for Labour in Hastings. He was suspended from the Party on the basis of anonymous allegations made against him of antisemitism.

It�s hard to appreciate fully the distressing impact this type of allegation can have on a member of the Jewish community and a lifelong socialist like Mike.

Mike appealed against his suspension but the Party never acknowledged his appeal.

Mike died last November with the stain of antisemitism still hanging over him. It has been heart- breaking for Mike and his family. Despite the Party being informed of his death and his widow, in December 2021, asking that the appeal continue to be considered and that this underserved stain on his otherwise unblemished record as a Jewish Labour, trade union and anti-racist activist be lifted, there has still been no response.

The case of the Party�s treatment of Diana Neslen is a further example of the harsh brutality of the treatment of JVL members.

You will recall that Diana Neslen is an 82 year old Jewish woman, who was investigated under the disciplinary procedures three times in less than three years by the Party. The result was that, with the assistance of the lawyers at Bindmans, legal action was threatened by Diana Neslen against the Party on the grounds of anti-Zionism being a protected belief.

The charges in her final investigation were dropped but she has continued to face what has been experienced and described as bullying and harassment. A complaint has been lodged but there has been no response to date. At the same time a complaint that Diana Neslen lodged about her own experience of antisemitism in her CLP was rejected as being unsuitable for investigation.

In a recent letter to the Labour Party she wrote:

�I made a well evidenced complaint against a local councillor whose behaviour met all the criteria of an antisemitic attack. You rejected my complaint. Your suggestion that I might be disappointed minimises the distress and dismay I feel. �

Bearing in mind what Forde says about the inadequacy and partisan style of the Party�s antisemitism training and the value of work done by JVL and the Pears Institute on education on antisemitism, it is particularly ironic and disturbing that, for example, Professor Jonathan Rosenhead, a JVL officer, has been found �guilty� of antisemitism, suspended and told he will be required to undertake �training�.

The allegations against Professor Rosenhead included a challenge to a talk he gave in 2017 which dealt with 8th Century Jewish history. This means that a Jew in his 80s, who is an officer of a body commended for its antisemitism training, is to be told as part of a retraining exercise what antisemitism is by a Jewish group, who hold a distinctly different view of Jewish history and Zionism.

These are just three, very stark examples of the harm that the current disciplinary process has caused to Jewish members.

The Forde Report accepts that the existing processes do not operate properly and are in need of significant reform.

In the light of this admission that the current processes are not satisfactory and in some instances have been used for factional purposes, it must surely follow that those JVL members, who have been the subject of these processes, must have the disciplinary actions taken against them rescinded or, at the very least have the right to have their expulsion or suspension lifted until their case can be dealt with under the reformed procedure.

The Forde Report has raised a large number of fundamental issues about the operation of the Labour Party at all levels.

I aim to participate in the discussions on how the Report�s overall findings and recommendations are taken account of and submit my views as the discussion of this vitally important Report is conducted and develops over the coming months.

However, I write this letter now because I feel strongly that there has been an injustice meted out to JVL and its members that needs to be urgently addressed.

I look forward to your views on how this will now be addressed by you both, on whose shoulders the Forde team places the responsibility to lead in putting things to right in the Party.

Yours,

John McDonnell MP

Page snipe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp2p-bMH_-0

Jaeluni Asjil fucked around with this message at 10:46 on Jul 28, 2022

# ? Jul 28, 2022 10:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 00:09

Scientastic: Mar 1, 2010; TRULY scientastic.
🔬🍒

Halisnacks posted:

I�m not excited about Starmer�s Labour, but I�m even less excited by the prospect of indefinite Tory rule. I feel the only option is to:

1) Vote for whomever necessary (Labour, LibDem, SNP) to get the Tories out
2) Agitate for positive, socialist change through non-electoral/parliamentary structures

I�ve tried but just can�t get onboard with the idea that another 5-10 years of Tory government is a worthwhile price to pay for the chance (not guarantee) to diminish the Labour Right.

You're forgetting, there is a third way

3) Take to the streets

# ? Jul 28, 2022 10:45

Tesseraction: Apr 5, 2009

Jaeluni Asjil posted:

Better late than never I guess.
John McDonnell's response to Forde report, open letter to Starmer & Evans.

https://labourhub.org.uk/2022/07/27/a-letter-to-keir-starmer-and-david-evans/

I think a week to read the report in full, digest, and then write a well-thought-out letter is fair. Probably he also reached out to JVL which takes time.

# ? Jul 28, 2022 10:48

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Unfortunately, the last time people held their noses and voted for the poo poo labour candidate during a time of tory collapse we got blair which gives you a perfect throughline to where we are now.

So, while I don't really have much idea how the alternative is better, I certainly don't think it's a good idea to repeat the previous mistake.

# ? Jul 28, 2022 10:49

notaspy: Mar 22, 2009

Tesseraction posted:

See this seemed like a cool sexy hashtag to check on only to find that Prince William likes it up the butt and needs a mistress to peg him because Kate's too prudish.

I mean fair play to him but I don't care what gets his rocks off.

It's part of a larger picture.

Wills had Harry ran out of town because Megan found out about William's affairs. Harry was pissed off as Charles's affair was one of the things that destroyed Diana and they had both promised that they wouldn't treat their wives the way their Dad did.

Basically William is a grade A wanker but no-one can say that as he is untouchable... For now.

# ? Jul 28, 2022 10:49

Tesseraction: Apr 5, 2009

notaspy posted:

no-one can say that as he is untouchable...

Certainly not if you've got a strap-on.

# ? Jul 28, 2022 10:50

Tesseraction: Apr 5, 2009

OwlFancier posted:

Unfortunately, the last time people held their noses and voted for the poo poo labour candidate during a time of tory collapse we got blair which gives you a perfect throughline to where we are now.

So, while I don't really have much idea how the alternative is better, I certainly don't think it's a good idea to repeat the previous mistake.

Like I said, in my case my MP is good so it's an easy choice. Were I in a Blarite dickhead's constituency I would probably think very differently.

# ? Jul 28, 2022 10:51

Surprise T Rex: Apr 9, 2008; Dinosaur Gum

Just running some numbers based on the energy stuff that came out before. If you're single with no kids and on the National Living Wage of �9.50 (i.e. the highest of the legal minimums), and you work the UK average number of working hours (1,730):

Gross pay of �16,435 gives you a take-home per year of �15,061.
After a �4,000 energy bill annually you get �11,061.

Divide that by 12 for your monthly income to get �922.
Rent of �600 because that was the cheapest thing I could find in Nottingham that wasn't a student house share: �322 left.
Council Tax of �127 per month for a Band A and now you've got �195.

Literally nothing you've done so far even requires you to spend any money and you've got less than �200 to live on.
Let's assume you can manage to spend only �120 a month on food (�30 weekly, ish) - �75 left over.
You need a phone and the internet for basically everything these days, so let's get you a SIM-only contract of �10 a month on whatever phone you already have and let's forego having home internet at all.

I forgot about a water bill, average for one person is �23 per month.

You've got �42 left over for the month after paying for literally only the bare minimum you require to survive.
This is assuming that you can walk to work, don't have a TV License or anything for entertainment, never need to replace or repair anything that breaks, never over-eat or go for a meal/drink with friends, you aren't already locked into a higher monthly phone contract, don't have kids, never need to get on a bus or in a taxi, and can get free prescriptions (or just ignore when you get ill).

# ? Jul 28, 2022 10:57

Halisnacks: Jul 18, 2009

OwlFancier posted:

Unfortunately, the last time people held their noses and voted for the poo poo labour candidate during a time of tory collapse we got blair which gives you a perfect throughline to where we are now.

So, while I don't really have much idea how the alternative is better, I certainly don't think it's a good idea to repeat the previous mistake.

Unfortunately, the choice seems to be repeat one mistake (a rightward lurching Tory party) or repeat another (a rightward lurching Labour Party).

It�s a poo poo position to be in, but I don�t think it�s histrionic to suggest that more marginalised people will suffer and die if the country chooses the Tory brand of mistake.

# ? Jul 28, 2022 10:58

Surprise T Rex: Apr 9, 2008; Dinosaur Gum

Halisnacks posted:

[...] more marginalised people will suffer and die if the country chooses the Tory brand of mistake.

Well it depends. On what timescale? if not voting Labour causes some kind of shift leftward in their party because there's no turnout for more bland neoliberal poo poo then over a longer time period maybe less people would die? But it's not guaranteed, and who are we to suggest that those who will die sooner are an acceptable sacrifice for this chance at a better outcome long-term?

If the gamble fails and Labour refuse to shift left, then more people will die both short-and-long-term because Tories will Tory for another 5-10 years while Labour drop wet egg policies and means test their own farts.
If we vote Labour and implicitly approve Keir's non-vision for Labour then we just passively approve of more nothingy neoliberalism and the political sphere in this country continues in the direction it's going now.

To me the outcome of voting Labour and the gamble failing are essentially the same, because I have no faith in Keir's Labour addressing the causes of the short-term deaths of marginalised people in any meaningful capacity, so what difference does it make whether the blood is on the hands of the guy in a blue or red tie?

# ? Jul 28, 2022 11:05

domhal: Dec 30, 2008; 0.000% of Communism has been built. Evil child-murdering billionaires still rule the world with a shit-eating grin. All he has managed to do is make himself *sad*. It has, however, made him into a very, very smart boy with something like a university degree in Truth. Instead of building Communism, he now builds a precise model of this grotesque, duplicitous world.

OwlFancier posted:

Tesseraction posted:

this is what yang's ubi proposal meant

Universal Bottom Income

# ? Jul 28, 2022 11:08

TACD: Oct 27, 2000

If Starmer becomes PM he isn't going to undo anything the Tories have done, he's going to shake his head sadly and mumble something about tightening our belts, sacrifices have to be made, tough choices, and spend several years reinforcing the belief that this is the only way things can be

E: I honestly don't understand voting for Labour just because they're not the Tories. If the two main parties were the Tories and UKIP, would you vote for the Tories because they're not as bad? How extreme does the hypothetical have to get before you'd consider the system to be broken?

TACD fucked around with this message at 11:15 on Jul 28, 2022

# ? Jul 28, 2022 11:13

Rustybear: Nov 16, 2006; what the thunder said

Halisnacks posted:

I don�t think it�s histrionic to suggest that more marginalised people will suffer and die if the country chooses the Tory brand of mistake.

you don't have close to enough information to make an accurate read on that

you could have run the same line about labour in 2001 or the lib dems in 2010 and been disastrously wrong on both counts becasue events took a different turn; you just cant make that kind of utilitarian read in advance even if it feels like you can

# ? Jul 28, 2022 11:15

Halisnacks: Jul 18, 2009

Surprise T Rex posted:

Well it depends. On what timescale? if not voting Labour causes some kind of shift leftward in their party because there's no turnout for more bland neoliberal poo poo then over a longer time period maybe less people would die? But it's not guaranteed, and who are we to suggest that those who will die sooner are an acceptable sacrifice for this chance at a better outcome long-term?

Exactly. And you need to apply at least two discounts to the possibility of a better outcome long term: (i) the likelihood that the Labour Party will actually shift left; (ii) if (i), the likelihood that a Labour Party that has shifted left will gain power.

quote:

If the gamble fails and Labour refuse to shift left, then more people will die both short-and-long-term because Tories will Tory for another 5-10 years while Labour drop wet egg policies and means test their own farts.
If we vote Labour and implicitly approve Keir's non-vision for Labour then we just passively approve of more nothingy neoliberalism and the political sphere in this country continues in the direction it's going now.

To me the outcome of voting Labour and the gamble failing are essentially the same, because I have no faith in Keir's Labour addressing the causes of the short-term deaths of marginalised people in any meaningful capacity, so what difference does it make whether the blood is on the hands of the guy in a blue or red tie?

Labour under Keir are a poo poo party and it�s fair and apt to call them Red Tories. Still, Red Tories are (at least for now) better than Blue Tories. It�s like the Dems in the US: they are a lovely neoliberal party, but I�d have crawled over glass to vote for Clinton or Biden over Trump.

# ? Jul 28, 2022 11:15

Tesseraction: Apr 5, 2009

Got sent the warning about bills going up and the power bill is going to �3400. Woof. Gas to �850.

If the government doesn't do anything about this I hope they storm the bastille.

# ? Jul 28, 2022 11:17

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

The issue is that you are likely to get that anyway, just a bit later and with no opposition because the right wing absolutely obliterated the party's capability to win elections or rhetorically oppose the government.

# ? Jul 28, 2022 11:17

Darth Walrus: Feb 13, 2012

Halisnacks posted:

Unfortunately, the choice seems to be repeat one mistake (a rightward lurching Tory party) or repeat another (a rightward lurching Labour Party).

It�s a poo poo position to be in, but I don�t think it�s histrionic to suggest that more marginalised people will suffer and die if the country chooses the Tory brand of mistake.

The present Labour leadership is attempting to flank the Tories from the right with even harsher austerity and authoritarian crackdowns. They're not a chance at something marginally less bad, they're part of what is now a fully bipartisan consensus towards sadistic, kleptocratic, and astonishingly inept misgovernance on behalf of a tiny, incestuous, and deeply radicalised media-political clique.

The choice is not between Labour and the Tories, the choice is between Westminster and other, more democratic expressions of political power. The recent surge in union activism is a much more promising route to go down.

# ? Jul 28, 2022 11:17

Mr Phillby: Apr 8, 2009; ~TRAVIS~

I refuse to engage with the argument that the voters are at fault if labour continues to make it clear they don't want left wing voters to support them. Thats not how politics works, if labour loses it will be their own fault just like last time.

# ? Jul 28, 2022 11:18

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Also that, yeah, the outcome of the elections seems increasingly irrelevant because neither party is offering solutions and are going to have to be forced into enacting them from outside.

# ? Jul 28, 2022 11:18

a pipe smoking dog: Jan 25, 2010; "haha, dogs can't smoke!"

Barry Foster posted:

David Jason is still around, I guess

I remember a few years ago some people were heavily implying David Jason was a nonce and there was a big story about to break but I haven't heard anything on those lines since so it might have been bollocks

# ? Jul 28, 2022 11:19

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

Surprise T Rex posted:

Just running some numbers based on the energy stuff that came out before. If you're single with no kids and on the National Living Wage of £9.50 (i.e. the highest of the legal minimums), and you work the UK average number of working hours (1,730):

Gross pay of £16,435 gives you a take-home per year of £15,061.
After a £4,000 energy bill annually you get £11,061.

Divide that by 12 for your monthly income to get £922.
Rent of £600 because that was the cheapest thing I could find in Nottingham that wasn't a student house share: £322 left.
Council Tax of £127 per month for a Band A and now you've got £195.

Literally nothing you've done so far even requires you to spend any money and you've got less than £200 to live on.
Let's assume you can manage to spend only £120 a month on food (£30 weekly, ish) - £75 left over.
You need a phone and the internet for basically everything these days, so let's get you a SIM-only contract of £10 a month on whatever phone you already have and let's forego having home internet at all.

I forgot about a water bill, average for one person is £23 per month.

You've got £42 left over for the month after paying for literally only the bare minimum you require to survive.
This is assuming that you can walk to work, don't have a TV License or anything for entertainment, never need to replace or repair anything that breaks, never over-eat or go for a meal/drink with friends, you aren't already locked into a higher monthly phone contract, don't have kids, never need to get on a bus or in a taxi, and can get free prescriptions (or just ignore when you get ill).

To be fair, the "average" energy bill is for a household of 4 in a house - the kind of pokey 1-bed you'd be in would be tiny enough you'd "only" be paying like £2000-2500.

Still a miserable existence, though. And makes it clear that if your a single parent with a house and kids you're even harder hit.

And many of the poorest on minimum wage are in houseshares with bills included - contracts that are disappearing or being ripped up as landlords try to shift the cost of bills for them onto their tenants.

# ? Jul 28, 2022 11:19

Halisnacks: Jul 18, 2009

Rustybear posted:

you don't have close to enough information to make an accurate read on that

you could have run the same line about labour in 2001 or the lib dems in 2010 and been disastrously wrong on both counts becasue events took a different turn; you just cant make that kind of utilitarian read in advance even if it feels like you can

Sure, that is always true - but it seems a reasonable enough forecast with the information we have today?

I concede the LibDems 2010 point, but are you suggesting the Tories under IDS would not have invaded Iraq with the US?

# ? Jul 28, 2022 11:20

Surprise T Rex: Apr 9, 2008; Dinosaur Gum

Nothingtoseehere posted:

To be fair, the "average" energy bill is for a household of 4 in a house - the kind of pokey 1-bed you'd be in would be tiny enough you'd "only" be paying like £2000-2500.

This is true, and I guess goes some way toward making me feel a little bit better.... but like you say a lot of people are in houses or have kids etc. Plus I'm sure my fake 5-minute budget left out a lot of expenses that slipped my mind but are similarly unavoidable.

# ? Jul 28, 2022 11:22

MeinPanzer: Dec 20, 2004; anyone who reads Cinema Discusso for anything more than slackjawed trolling will see the shittiness in my posts

Finally got around to sending in my foreign driver's licence to the DVLA to swap it out for a UK one. Applied online for a UK licence on June 6, sent out the application form with my foreign licence June 14, and both arrived at the DVLA June 15.

Haven't received anything and the status of my application was still "awaiting return form," which means it's still processing. I called the DVLA because it's now been over the 4 week timeframe they recommend you wait and they said that because my application wasn't processed within 21 days of the online application (which would've been June 27), it expired.

A) It's not made clear anywhere that there's such a tight window for the application to be processed

B) There was no notification or update online that would give me any indication something was wrong

C) 1.5 weeks isn't enough to process a simple application?

They now have my foreign licence and I have to begin the whole application process again. Not impressed.

# ? Jul 28, 2022 11:23

Doctor_Fruitbat: Jun 2, 2013

As conditions get worse, people insist that it's more important than ever to vote in the lesser evil, which further legitimises the lurch right. Nothing actually improves, it just gets worse at a slightly different rate, which makes conditions worse, so people argue that it's even more important than ever to vote in the lesser evil, which further legitimises the lurch right...

# ? Jul 28, 2022 11:26

Rustybear: Nov 16, 2006; what the thunder said

Halisnacks posted:

Sure, that is always true - but it seems a reasonable enough forecast with the information we have today?

I concede the LibDems 2010 point, but are you suggesting the Tories under IDS would not have invaded Iraq with the US?

the point was not to start haggling over counterfactuals, the point was you're kidding yourself that some 4d calculus about least worst option is ever going to be remotely meaningful

if you want what starmer is selling then vote for it, if you don't then don't.

# ? Jul 28, 2022 11:30

Halisnacks: Jul 18, 2009

1) Vote for the lesser evil. Someone is going to run the government; the less evil, the better.
2) Attempt to improve society in non-electoral ways. Activism, community service, building and supporting non-parliamentary power structures (e.g. trade unions).

This doesn�t seem hard to me. (1) doesn�t feel good for someone on the left. But abstaining, spoiling a ballot, or, in the extreme, voting Tory in pursuit of accelerationism, is tantamount to being complicit in a proto-Fascist party being in power.

Edit:

Rustybear posted:

the point was not to start haggling over counterfactuals, the point was you're kidding yourself that some 4d calculus about least worst option is ever going to be remotely meaningful

I honestly don�t know what you�re trying to imply: that there is no point voting because we can�t forecast the future with complete certainty and accuracy?

Halisnacks fucked around with this message at 11:46 on Jul 28, 2022

# ? Jul 28, 2022 11:35

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

Rustybear posted:

if you want what starmer is selling then vote for it

Has anyone found out what it is?

# ? Jul 28, 2022 11:37

Surprise T Rex: Apr 9, 2008; Dinosaur Gum

Halisnacks posted:

1) Vote for the lesser evil. Someone is going to run the government; the less evil, the better.
2) Attempt to improve society in non-electoral ways. Activism, community service, building and supporting non-parliamentary power structures (e.g. trade unions).

This doesn�t seem hard to me. (1) doesn�t feel good for someone on the left. But abstaining, spoiling a ballot, or, in the extreme, voting Tory in pursuit of accelerationism, is tantamount to being complicit in a proto-Fascist party being in power.

But you can't advocate for 2 while supporting Keir's Labour.
Labour official policy seems to directly oppose number 2, at least on the trade union part. There's no guarantee he won't carry on the Tory legacy of hobbling unions as much as possible to appease our Distinctively British corporate overlords.

# ? Jul 28, 2022 11:40

fuctifino: Jun 11, 2001

Guavanaut posted:

Has anyone found out what it is?

I think it's just misery

# ? Jul 28, 2022 11:40

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Halisnacks posted:

1) Vote for the lesser evil. Someone is going to run the government; the less evil, the better.
2) Attempt to improve society in non-electoral ways. Activism, community service, building and supporting non-parliamentary power structures (e.g. trade unions).

This doesn�t seem hard to me. (1) doesn�t feel good for someone on the left. But abstaining, spoiling a ballot, or, in the extreme, voting Tory in pursuit of accelerationism, is tantamount to being complicit in a proto-Fascist party being in power.

Except if you take the slightly longer view, putting starmer/blair in power is a critical component of getting the fascists into power, because that is the other part of the ratchet. The handle moves back and forth, and has to move both ways for it to work, but the torque is only in one direction. The opportunity to fix the problem is occupied by people who do nothing or actively make it worse, and then the disgust at them is key in putting the real swivel eyed nutters back in charge.

# ? Jul 28, 2022 11:43

Barry Foster: Dec 24, 2007; What is going wrong with that one (face is longer than it should be)

Doctor_Fruitbat posted:

As conditions get worse, people insist that it's more important than ever to vote in the lesser evil, which further legitimises the lurch right. Nothing actually improves, it just gets worse at a slightly different rate, which makes conditions worse, so people argue that it's even more important than ever to vote in the lesser evil, which further legitimises the lurch right...

haha ratchet go tickticktickticktick

# ? Jul 28, 2022 11:45

TACD: Oct 27, 2000

Halisnacks posted:

1) Vote for the lesser evil. Someone is going to run the government; the less evil, the better.
2) Attempt to improve society in non-electoral ways. Activism, community service, building and supporting non-parliamentary power structures (e.g. trade unions).

This doesn�t seem hard to me. (1) doesn�t feel good for someone on the left. But abstaining, spoiling a ballot, or, in the extreme, voting Tory in pursuit of accelerationism, is tantamount to being complicit in a proto-Fascist party being in power.

You don�t think there�s ever a point where (1) just makes you complicit in validating a system of governance wholly divorced from serving the populace?

If you agree it�s hypothetically possible, what would that point look like for you?

# ? Jul 28, 2022 11:46

Rustybear: Nov 16, 2006; what the thunder said

Halisnacks posted:

1) Vote for the lesser evil. Someone is going to run the government; the less evil, the better.
2) Attempt to improve society in non-electoral ways. Activism, community service, building and supporting non-parliamentary power structures (e.g. trade unions).

This doesn�t seem hard to me. (1) doesn�t feel good for someone on the left. But abstaining, spoiling a ballot, or, in the extreme, voting Tory in pursuit of accelerationism, is tantamount to being complicit in a proto-Fascist party being in power.

happy to agree on 2

1 i just find dishonest I'm sorry. if you believe in something you have a duty to support it and not to lend your support to those who don't. this lesser of two evils stuff is just an attempt to have your cake and eat it

if you're willing to endlessly compromise on a particular principle then you're not as committed to that principle as you say you are; which is fine but you should be honest about it.

some things have real meaning to some people and you can't be surprised when they give you short shift accordingly; you're not able to know the lesser of two evils and invoking 'the suffering of marginalised people' as if you're somehow the principled one is crass I'm sorry

# ? Jul 28, 2022 11:51

1965917: Oct 4, 2005

Halisnacks posted:

1) Vote for the lesser evil. Someone is going to run the government; the less evil, the better.
2) Attempt to improve society in non-electoral ways. Activism, community service, building and supporting non-parliamentary power structures (e.g. trade unions).

This doesn�t seem hard to me. (1) doesn�t feel good for someone on the left. But abstaining, spoiling a ballot, or, in the extreme, voting Tory in pursuit of accelerationism, is tantamount to being complicit in a proto-Fascist party being in power.

They tanked two elections because the leader was left leaning, that should tell you all you need to know about these bastards.

Its not the lesser of two evils, its the same evil with a red rosette.

# ? Jul 28, 2022 11:51

Halisnacks: Jul 18, 2009

TACD posted:

You don�t think there�s ever a point where (1) just makes you complicit in validating a system of governance wholly divorced from serving the populace?

If you agree it�s hypothetically possible, what would that point look like for you?

I agree it�s hypothetically possible. I don�t know exactly what that point would look like, but I know it doesn�t look like the point where one of the options still includes returning MPs like McDonnell, Abbott, Ribeiro-Addy, Sultana, Begum, Long-Bailey, etc., to Parliament.

# ? Jul 28, 2022 11:53

Surprise T Rex: Apr 9, 2008; Dinosaur Gum

Individual MPs being good in a poo poo party doesn't mean much though. They fall in line or eventually get the whip removed, are no longer Labour MPs.

# ? Jul 28, 2022 11:54

Failed Imagineer: Sep 22, 2018

Guavanaut posted:

Has anyone found out what it is?

New Labour ad campaign :

# ? Jul 28, 2022 11:55

Darth Walrus: Feb 13, 2012

Yeah, the idea that Starmer's Labour are sufficiently divorced in culture and policy from the Tories to even count as a different evil, let alone a lesser one, seems like something that needs a big [citation needed]. Unless you're really attached to the idea of having our parade of inept authoritarian kleptocrats wearing red rather than blue, I guess.

# ? Jul 28, 2022 11:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 00:09

Tesseraction: Apr 5, 2009

Something else to calm us all on a stressful day https://twitter.com/FT/status/1552597401340448768

# ? Jul 28, 2022 12:02

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT Summer 2022 - The Pipes, The Pipes Are Empty

«‹›353 »