|
Pissflaps posted:I remember how the Tories were able to turn supporting the Iraq war into electoral success. I remember nobody giving a poo poo which way the Tories voted on Iraq. Sure if they opposed it they might have been able to spin some good publicity in hindsight, but it's not like supporting it put them in a worse position than Labour, which rightly took the blame for actually being the ones in government.
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 20:30 |
|
|
Pissflaps posted:48% already agree its a good thing. You've been shown a poll showing a clear majority of the public now prefer either hard or soft Brexit over attempting to remain in the EU. You totally dismissed it, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Fangz posted:You have not lost the argument until you choose to concede. This is really the defence of total morons who think putting their fingers in their ears and shouting 'la la la not listening' means they cannot lose an argument.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:An interpretation of that poll that concludes 'people want Brexit' is idiotic. The poll asked what people would like to see happen now, and only 23% said they wanted Britain to try and stay in the EU. You're arguing that Britain should try and stay in the EU. Your opinion and suggestion for what the Labour party should advocate was literally one of the options and it got less than a quarter of the vote. The idea that everyone who said they want to see soft Brexit in that poll just 'wants the best of a lovely situation' is an absolutely ludicrous answer when not having Brexit at all was one of the options. If they wanted that, they would have picked that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
mehall posted:YouGov have specifically asked Labour voters what they want on Brexit, and the results are as spread as we've all been saying for months: So it turns out soft Brexit is the position which alienates the least Labour voters. Or to put it another way, Pissflaps is wrong about literally everything.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 12:37
|
|
|
First Tory to speak after Sajid Javid complains that a Labour council built 6000 homes 'unnecessarily' on green belt land, and why wasn't the government able to stop them? Quite a spectacular return to form.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
Sajid Javid also promising to protect green belt land but look 'more seriously at density' so that available land is used 'more efficiently'. I've nothing against high density housing, but it's a total gently caress you to the poor to cram them into tiny flats when there's plenty of land available but rich people like looking at useless fields too much.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:e: fields are in fact not useless and are good. Fields are great when they're growing crops or full of cows/sheep/etc. Most green belt land isn't like that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Yeah gently caress safe places for kids to bike around and for adults to enjoy not just hearing car noise all the time. I'm not disputing those great middle-class pastimes, just that they're maybe not as important as people having houses to live in. Let's not pretend that Tory fetishisation of the green belt is based on environmental concerns and not on the fact that they want a nice view and don't give a poo poo about poor people or the housing market. There simply isn't enough brownfield land to build on, and talking about dramatically increasing the housing density of the poor while bitching that a Labour council dared to build a few thousand homes in some empty fields is not a reasonable policy because you don't want to hear car noises on your country estate.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:OK so which is it, cramming the poor together is offensive, or cramming the poor together is actually good, and cool, if it prevents there being BOURGEOIS green spaces? High density housing is fine when it's done well, which this government will not be doing. And even when it's done well living in an apartment block in the city centre isn't ideal for everyone from large families to disabled grannies. Some people want to live in a house in a suburban area, and it shouldn't be the preserve of the rich. Oh dear me posted:Of course they don't, because it's been very effectively taken from them, and that is a monstrous crime, not something we should continue to do. Nevertheless poor rural people still exist and poor urban people who enjoy the countryside when they can still exist, and implying it's exclusively the interest of Tarquins is as poo poo as when they do that to museums and libraries and other public goods. I'm not saying the countryside is exclusively of interest to the rich, I'm saying that prioritising how nice the green belts look over actual housing for the homeless is poo poo. Hierarchy of need being what it is the only reason people get to complain about their rambling being ruined is because they already have somewhere to live. Besides, don't conflate the green belt with every bit of countryside in the land. That's exactly the kind of slippery slope argument the Tories want people to use. Expanding cities into the green belt would mean more housing and less people commuting in from miles away. As people have pointed out, there's still plenty of countryside elsewhere for people who want to go see it. Tories want to protect the green belt because they're rich and they get to enjoy it regardless of the cost to others, not because it's the last remaining bit of countryside in Britain.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:I have no personal attachment to the green belt, but I have two objections to this. One is that countryside that's further away is harder for poor people to enjoy. And the other is that habitat loss is a leading cause of our environmental impoverishment. You're absolutely right that having the countryside further away makes it harder for poor people who already live in the city to enjoy. It's just that having houses, especially houses closer to the city, is more important for a greater number of people. As for giving property developers more power, I would be far happier if councils built social housing on the green belt. I have no love for developers. But we can't solve our housing crisis without massive housebuilding and there simply aren't enough brownfield sites for that to be realistic.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
kingturnip posted:I see that Marine A's lawyers are going down the 'he was mentally incompetent' route for the appeal. Clearly he didn't understand the consequences of his actions despite clearly stating them on video at the time.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
What frenzy? And really, the manchester evening news finding out first?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:Farmland is terrible, as I said before. But you're just being an arse with the last thing. Why is it so impossible that some people should love the natural world and mourn its loss? Again, the countryside doesn't begin and end with green belt land. There are people who genuinely love the environment, but most people who complain about the countryside being ruined are NIMBYs who couldn't give a poo poo about biodiversity as long as it doesn't affect their house prices. Actively protesting or blocking housebuilding while people are sleeping on the streets and families are spending years in tiny hotel rooms is just wrong. We have plenty of countryside, people take priority over preserving a few little slices of it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:I'd rather carry on living in my freezing mouldy caravan, or camping out in my sister's shed than have the beautiful or biodiverse parts of Cornwall built over, because then I couldn't even visit them. That's great, but how many other people would you rather see on the streets than see houses built on that bit of countryside? It's not really about what you would prefer for yourself. Guavanaut posted:There's also the problem of new development tacked onto small rural villages being the shittiest cheapest and least conscientious development possible, to the point where the developers um and uh and tug at their collars when asked about basic issues like traffic and flooding and watersheds. Of course, and this is why housebuilding should be done in large part by local authorities rather than lovely developers. But still, let's not pretend that the main objection people have to new houses in their village is that the new houses are substandard and may flood. People have a 'gently caress you, got mine' attitude, will object to everything from a new house to a wind farm, and their views should absolutely be disregarded. Just because you own a house doesn't mean you own the whole loving village and surrounding area. jabby fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Feb 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:That's a false dichotomy because we could easily house everyone without wrecking areas of outstanding natural beauty and scientific interest. We seem to be arguing at cross purposes here. My initial point is that protectionism of green belt land has reached ridiculous levels to the point where councils are being castigated for building a few thousand houses there. Rules should be relaxed about building on green belts, and councils should be supported in doing so rather than criticised. Because for the most part the objections of people living there are garbage and should be disregarded. You seem to think this means paving over every inch of the countryside with wilful abandon. Of course you can keep areas of outstanding beauty and scientific interest. That doesn't describe most green belt land. As you say you can house everybody without taking away much of the countryside that exists. You just can't do it easily or well if you insist on maintaining huge swathes of empty land around every major city and forcing people to either live in high rises or commute in from dozens of miles away. That's not particularly good for the environment either, and enforcing green belt rules with an iron fist just means houses go up in some other far less suitable bit of countryside. If they go up at all.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
Looke posted:am i right in thinking all the amendments have been knocked down so far? Yup. Kind of annoying that there are a bunch of Labour MP's (Frank Field, Kelvin Hopkins, Graham Stringer, Gisela Stuart, John Mann and a few others) who are voting against every amendment too, including Labour front bench amendments. So far it hasn't been the deciding factor, but with each vote relying on a relatively small number of rebellious Tories it would be infuriating if Labour rebels prevented an amendment from going through. Real questions of the night: Will Clive Lewis resign? Will Diane Abbott vote for Article 50?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What is their justification for that, exactly? They are largely Labour's 'pro-Brexit' contingent and must have bought into the Tory mantra that this bill must not be amended in any way. Plus I recognise a few names, like Frank Field, as being notorious jackasses who oppose Corbyn in everything. Weirdly the Graun is saying the bill has moved to the final part of committee stage so there won't be a vote on the amendment concerning EU nationals? Considering that was one of the ones most likely to pass that's drat strange. EDIT: Forget it, they're just doing things in a weird order.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
For all the talk it looks like very few Tories had the guts to rebel.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Can somebody provide me with a comprehensive list of all those amendments Labour won as a result of their Article 50 bill strategy? Oh gently caress off. You've been told a million times that Labour has absolutely zero leverage to force Tory MP's to vote for their amendments, and your pathetic counter that they could have done so via 'public pressure' is wilfully ignorant.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:When you throw away your leverage you don't get concessions. Corbyn is a moron. "You had BETTER vote for our amendements or we'll..." Do what exactly? Vote against Article 50? The Tories have a majority you complete muppet. Labour had no leverage whatsoever.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Labour's about to three line whip an unamended Brexit bill, with your full approval, and you have the temerity to describe somebody else as a muppet. It was a complete the sentence exercise, and I'm not detecting an answer anywhere here. You're literally Teresa May at PMQs responding to a question with 'No, YOU suck!' EDIT: Also Diane Abbott votes for Article 50 as she said she would on Question Time, confirming that everyone who questioned her illness was just being a dick.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Is there any evidence, at all, that voting for Article 50 has cost Corbyn or Labour a significant amount of support?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:lol at expecting the British public to understand this level of parliamentary procedure. People, if they care to look, look to see who voted for what & no further than that. A Corbyn lead Labour Party will have a hell of a time explaining that. Most people aren't going to blame the opposition for something the government would have pushed through anyway. The way people in this thread are reacting it's like the decision to Brexit was just taken tonight. It wasn't. All the major parties voted for a referendum, and implicitly to abide by the result. Your angst is way overdue.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Hmm there's something that all these people who think labour were right to support the Tories on Brexit have in common if only I could put my finger on it. Dismay at seeing the only leftwing party leader in a generation being abandoned and cursed out by erstwhile supporters over what amounts to a meaningless vote? I mean this is as perfect a demonstration as you're going to get of why the left never makes any headway. People genuinely seem to be looking for an excuse to go back to apathy not because Corbyn turned out to secretly kick puppies, but because he didn't get his rhetorical position to their liking.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Oh gently caress off. It's not a rhetorical position (and even if it is, it's a poo poo one that will piss off pro-Remain supporters while not going far enough to win over Leave voters). And it's hardly the only lovely thing he's done in 18 months, just the straw that broke the camels back. He's been poison as leader in polling, and has failed to deliver the only expectations I've had as far as reform of internal Labour Party democracy and dragging the national dialogue in the country to the left and to a slightly more compassionate place. I'm not abandoning him, I'm expressing frustration at his flaws. Which is what you do with any loving politician for godsake. Just because he's the first left Labour leader since Foot doesn't mean you give him a free pass on everything loving stupid he says or does, we're not a cult for fucksake. As far as today's vote goes, it is a rhetorical position. Whether Labour voted yes, no or abstain, whipped or free, affects nothing apart from how they are perceived by the country. By all means express frustration with Corbyn, my issue is more with people saying they're no longer going to support him/vote for him over this decision. Corbyn is currently the only left-wing option, and the Labour right is willing to do absolutely anything, including exploiting disaffection with him to run a candidate that lies their rear end off about being left wing (see: Owen Smith) in order to take the leadership.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Quite. Brexit is very unpopular with a lot of Corbyn's support. This will hurt his support in the party. All thibs poo poo about it just being rhetoric, it misses the point. We voted for him to make rhetorical arguments in favour of the NHS, public transport being taken back to public ownership, anti-union laws being replaced with pro-worker legislation, mass building of social housing to end the housing market bubble and the fetishisation of home ownership. Not pretending to differ between Tory Brexit and a mythical Brexit which isn't a slow suicide of the British economy. How would you expect Corbyn to square the circle of voting for a referendum and then voting against it's outcome? Both with the public and with democratic principles?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:He can vote how he likes but should have given the same courtesy to his MPs, much like the Syrian vote. To be honest considering the views of most of the PLP, do you really think the numbers would be that different with a free vote? EDIT: I mean it would've kept Clive Lewis in the shadow cabinet, but at a fairly significant political cost. Personally I expect him to be back within a few months. jabby fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Feb 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Well, we'll never know now, will we? Might have given a few more Tories a reason to think rebelling would have a point Rebelling on what? The final vote? Because that would've made no difference with the majority of Labour in favour too. Or on the amendments? Because the votes on those are pretty much unconnected to the final vote, and I fail to see how a shift in Labour's position on the final vote would make Tories more likely to vote for amendments.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Leaning towards Lewis. I do wish I had more experience with his conduct as an MP though. Lewis seems to share a lot of socialist principles, I'm just not sure I trust him not to hand the party back to Progress and the labour right in exchange for a good looking shadow cabinet and a boost in the media. If he actually challenges Corbyn he'd be alienating the very few left wing MPs labour have, and I don't have faith that he would stick to principles when he could be hailed as the person who made Labour 'electable' again by locking the membership and the left out of power forever. Personally I'll be voting for Corbyn until a successor comes along he feels he can step down for. I'm not going to vote for a challenger just because they say the correct left wing things (see: Owen Smith).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 10:41
|
|
|
Fangz posted:As a lazy hypothetical, is there actually a point at which Corbyn would be perceived to have crossed some kind of red line for people? Politics is all about choosing the best option out of what's on offer, and if you're really advanced campaigning to make them better. Talking about 'red lines' belies the fact that it only makes sense to abandon Corbyn if an option that suits you better presents itself. A better question would be if Corbyn has lost your support over Article 50 then who do you support instead? Personally I support socialism and Corbyn remains the only socialist on offer. And it would be difficult to draw me away from him in a future leadership election due to my deep mistrust of the PLP.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
gently caress's sake Owen Smith is pathetic on Question Time. If you are asked whether you'd be concerned about an elderly relative going into hospital with the current state of the NHS, the correct answer is yes. Not to say you're sure they'd get good care.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Isn't the role of the opposition to oppose the policies that people voted for when they voted for the government in power? 'The Official Opposition' is just a title given to the largest party in Westminster that isn't in government. Labour can take whatever position they want on any issue they want, just like any other political party.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
So a few less than credible sources (Telegraph, Daily Express etc.) are reporting that Clive Lewis, potentially assisted by Owen Jones, has been sounding out MPs for a potential leadership challenge. It's probably bollocks, but it's as interesting a topic for discussion as any. How would people here feel about it? Personally I have no animosity towards Clive Lewis, but if he made a challenge I'd be backing Corbyn for several reasons. Firstly, it's way too early for another leadership election. Every time internal divisions get brought to the fore it sets back any potential for recovery with the public. Also, re-running a leadership election because you didn't get the result you wanted is just like trying to re-run a referendum. It's disrespectful of the people who voted the first time around. Corbyn was elected by the membership twice and he should have the right to contest an election on his policy platform. Secondly, if he does run it seems like it will be on a platform of making Labour an anti-Brexit party. Even though I voted remain, I think such an approach is a complete political dead-end. Notwithstanding the lack of will within the PLP to defy the referendum result, by the time the next election rolls around Brexit will have already happened and a policy-book full of great things about the EU will be of historical interest only. At that point Labour will be expected to offer an optimistic alternative vision of post-Brexit Britain, which will be a hell of a lot easier if they start to develop it now rather than spending the next few years prophesying doom. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, who is going to be Clive Lewis' support if he does run? He's not going to get any from McDonnell, Abbott, or the rest of traditionally 'left Labour' because they'll be backing Corbyn. He could pick up people from the so-called soft left, but even Owen Smith describes himself as 'soft left' and he's centrist as hell. My worry is that he'll end up being backed by the Labour right who see him as just the right man to get rid of Corbyn and then be forced out himself a few months or years down the line, handing control of the party back to them. Can we see Lewis standing up to a vote of no confidence and mass resignations of his front bench like Corbyn did, if they decided to pull the same poo poo?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:What are you guys gonna do if it turns out that Britain has become just well and truly anti-immigrant anyway? Like if no party that isn't hostile to immigration can win? 'if'? Britain has been like that for ages, have you been living on the moon?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
Prince John posted:Not liking their overall vendetta, but it's a fair cop by the Daily Mail - I know someone who used to work for Ingenious Media and the whole thing is every bit as artificial as it sounds. Yeah, tax evasion is not a good thing regardless of who does it. Lineker may have very correct opinions and the daily mail may only care because he disagrees with them, but he still shouldn't be defended for doing it when other public figures would clearly be criticised.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:it's a day ending in 'y' so there's another wonderful poll It's worth considering that these changes are from June last year. It demonstrates pretty well that while Labour have done badly in the last 8 months, UKIP has done much worse and the Tories seem to have taken the majority of their poll boost from them. Whichever way you slice it owning Brexit and basically becoming UKIP has worked out very nicely for them.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Niric posted:
Jess Phillips seems like the sort of person who is out to promote Jess Phillips rather than kind of policy platform. From repeatedly bragging about how she told someone to 'gently caress off', to repeatedly threatening to quit if Corbyn remained leader and never actually quitting, most of what she does seems designed to make sure she gets far more media attention than a backbencher deserves. She's basically set herself up as someone the media can rely on to slag off Corbyn/fellow MPs/Labour on demand, so she is officially Their Friend. I've yet to see her use that attention for anything particularly productive. e: Also I see that The Times published a leaked focus group where Angela Rayner was described as 'a bit charity-shop looking'. Which is apparently a Serious Political Opinion that needs to be taken Seriously, rather than personal abuse that would be condemned if it happened on Twitter. At what point can you tell a focus group participant to gently caress off rather than validating their poo poo opinion by publishing it in a national newspaper? jabby fucked around with this message at 12:41 on Feb 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 12:13
|
|
|
One_Wing posted:I mean to be fair she's literally using it today to rip into David Davis for his appalling behaviour towards Diane Abbot, and this isn't the only time I've seen her launch a broadside at the actual baddies. I also do find her relatively direct style of writing and willingness to call bullshit on things quite endearing and effective. Ultimately the problem is that if she didn't spend so much time slagging off the party and it's leadership, the media would ignore her and her tweets about sexism would go totally unreported. She only has a profile and a platform because she's a complete sell-out who does a better job of damaging Labour than most Tory MPs. If she had stuck behind her convictions and quit when she said she was going to, after Corbyn was re-elected, I might have a bit of respect for her. Instead she's happy to be an anchor dragging the party down provided she gets to keep her high paying job. LemonDrizzle posted:If you're the person conducting the focus group, no such point exists - the exercise will be completely useless if you start booting people out when they say things you would rather not hear. You might not kick them out of the focus group, but there should be some sort of filter preventing stuff like pure appearance-based criticism from making it to the party higher-ups and eventually the newspapers. Why even write down things like 'charity-shop looking'? I mean if the person in question called her a fat bitch instead would we see that printed in the Times as an official focus group opinion? At a certain point the opinion expressed reflects badly on the person holding it and has nothing to do with the MP in question. jabby fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Feb 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I think it would be a mistake to ignore what people say just because we don't like the exact way they say it. What's the more acceptable way to say you don't like a female politician's appearance?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 20:30 |
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:People do judge each other on appearance, though - one of Ed Miliband's big problems was that people saw him as a goofy-looking nerd who wouldn't be a credible prime minister. If you're scoping people out for a political leadership position and for whatever reason, everyone you ask says that there's something about one person's appearance or self-presentation that makes it hard to take them seriously, that's important and useful information even if it's unfair and unreasonable that the person in question is being judged in that way. And what do you propose political parties do about this information? Are you suggesting people should be barred from running for high office purely on the basis of appearance? Does that change if you replace 'looks like a nerd' with 'is black' or 'is a woman'? Because those attributes would definitely be unpopular with focus groups in certain parts of the country, and would have been highly unpopular in the past.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 21:20
|
|