|
Poll: Who Should Be Leader of HM Most Loyal Opposition? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Jeremy Corbyn |
|
95 | 18.63% |
| Dennis Skinner |
|
53 | 10.39% |
| Angus Robertson |
|
20 | 3.92% |
| Tim Farron |
|
9 | 1.76% |
| Paul Ukips |
|
7 | 1.37% |
| Robot Lenin |
|
105 | 20.59% |
| Tony Blair |
|
28 | 5.49% |
| Pissflaps |
|
193 | 37.84% |
| Total: | 510 votes | ||
|
jabby posted:Ken Loach has written a good article about why blaming the current state of Labour entirely on Corbyn is a ridiculously simplistic view at best. He talks about how neither of the recent candidates were willing to campaign with Momentum or attend their events, and how the PLP as a whole isn't just rebelling against Corbyn but rebelling against his policies. They refuse to talk about them, refuse to campaign on them, and won't even endorse them in interviews. The party is fundamentally paralysed while we have elected representatives who refuse to represent the membership. E L E C T A B I L I T Y I dunno. I feel like Loach, of all people, would be quite familiar with the exhausting and pointless nature of arguing over whether there exists this secret silent socialist plurality just waiting to be tapped at the general election, or whether it's just an outcome of the vagaries of suitably vague polling - reflecting a transient sentiment that evaporates when it becomes clear that anybody who will put forth said nationalizations is also going to to prioritize trade union strikes over service users, or that anybody who puts forth higher taxes will also refuse to cut the foreign aid/EU contribution/houses for terror preachers fund that exists somewhere in the minds of the median voter probably from the former side rather than the latter, because he's ken goddamn loach, but he can't possibly be unfamiliar with the endless, pointless debate bitching that the plp is divergent from the membership has been a thing ever since there has been a plp, even back when the membership were delegates and not members in themselves. that's not new. he's right that this can't be pinned on Corbyn, but his prescription is no fresher than it was in the 1970s. rather, the malaise amongst social democratic parties is so widespread in the developed world that it's suggestive of structural political factors, not personality politics ronya fucked around with this message at 07:22 on Mar 1, 2017 |
#
¿
Mar 1, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 14:16 |
|
|
the bright side of Corbyn's decisionmaking of late is that the Labour right is, not really of its own choice, finding itself backed into a factional theme of enforced cosmopolitanism. they can't be more Brexit than Corbyn so they can only double down on squeezing him out from the liberal urban educated bloc. the Tories will screw up eventually - coalitions that appear to form permanent majorities are unstable, because they're apparently-permanent majorities that therefore make it very rewarding to fight intraparty battles. it's a Good Thing if Labour does not, in the meanwhile, degenerate into a party of paranoid, conspiratorial populism
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
money is unhappy: https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/837275205663928321
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
quote:An atmosphere of cynicism about politics and politicians…suits the agenda of those wishing to rein back the active state, as in the form of the welfare state and Keynesian state, precisely in order to liberate and deregulate…private power.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
in 1992, the incumbency run of GHWB scared off many more established Democrats, who believed (not unreasonably) that runs against a sitting President with well-established bi-partisan credentials (most notably on taxes) were a waste of political and literal capital. That let a relatively unknown southern Democratic governor win the nomination, despite being vulnerable to scandals in a way that would dog his campaigns and indeed his entire presidency - the weak field meant that these were not sufficiently uncovered during the nomination at the same time, however, GHWB was challenged from the right by Pat Buchanan. although Buchanan did not get close to toppling the sitting President from his own party's nomination, GHWB moved his campaign significantly rightward to compensate, gambling away his incumbency advantage at the general election - in particular, placing culture war issues in the campaign spotlight any similarities are of course coincidental. in particular, although Clinton did not win the popular vote, neither did Bush, with the anti-establishment vote drawn off by third party anti-trade, self-financed-billionaire candidate Ross Perot. Perot's mercurial campaigning and carefree inclination towards alleging conspiracies against him had not stopped Perot from obtaining an enormous 19% of the national vote. ronya fucked around with this message at 08:19 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 08:16
|
|
|
there's always been a tension between a minimum wage and a labour-dominated labour movement, in the straightforward sense that it extends protections without requiring any sacrifices toward labour struggle, tacitly endorses the legality of any wage above the minimum, and also provokes uncomfortable inter-industry fights over what the minimum should be this was a bigger sticking point back during the Keynesian era, when the notion of regional or industrial differing rates of inflation was a policy point. there were wages boards that meant something, once, much like Germany today. true, they didn't always set wages at the level you'd like - but neither does a minimum wage, does it? the UK has settled into a political equilibrium of London/not London in this regard but it wasn't obvious that a detente could be maintained in this way
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
the Soviet Union exited the stage with a grace rather akin to Britain in the Middle East. there are lot of ethnic Russians in places that are nationalistically passionate about not being Russia, and there are lots of people ethnically passionate about not being Russian citizens in places that, for most intents and purposes, are Russia the West did not pay all that much attention to Chechnya, but Russia did in TYOOL 2017 we are now, once again, reconciled to the fact that Moscow cannot be meaningfully strongarmed by the threat of international isolation and concerted European exclusion - we are now a very long way from the humiliating experience of the First Chechen War atop that - it was probably a bad idea to let the 1998 default occur as it did - but the Lewinsky scandal was raging and Clinton did not have the political strength to execute a rescue as per the 1995 Mexico bailout. On such things does history turn. ronya fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Mar 18, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
a lot of stuff is too small to warrant credible annihilation but is too big to just give up and once you have bombers for those, well, fitting them to be able to hypothetically carry nukes doesn't seem like a stretch
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
that only deters being nuked to annihilation it doesn't even deter, say, a credible commitment to nuke only one british city
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:It does if it's your first response to any nuclear attack at all. It's only if you fumble around with wishy-washy rubbish like "proportional" responses that the system breaks down. that's a totally unbelievable pledge. and why draw the line there, anyway? You may as well run around screaming that Iceland better give back us back our cod or you'll blow us all to heck. that's about just as believable as promises go it's certainly hilarious to sketch how it'd work though. the force de frappe would switch from promising to nuke the adversary to promising to nuke london
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Bern notice "Bobby did not die for cross-border bodies with executive powers. He did not die for nationalists to be equal British citizens within the Northern Ireland state." - Sand's sister
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
it's still true that the public feels that Labour in government was too profligate. In the sense of being too generous to the undeserving, to emphasise. not in bailing out bankers. that's why they switched to the Tories this is very unfair but very difficult to defend against without implicitly conceding the perennial, Mail-fed faith in endemic welfare fraud. if you say: there wasn't endemic welfare fraud, you sound clueless. if you say: we'll do more to fight welfare fraud, you concede past carelessness and now also the party left hate your guts. I don't know how this ends. maybe these programmes only survive by chucking the right to privacy of welfare claimants out of the window, so that those who live in terror that someone, somewhere might be living high off the public dime can go satiate their paranoia. which is something that is rather easier to contemplate whilst in opposition, I'll admit.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 09:21
|
|
|
some blogger commentary on terrorist motivations
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
Simon Wren-Lewis:quote:Let me start at the end of the UE piece. at the heart of lot of pointless intra-left heat without light is, I think, this conviction that the voter cannot possibly be this contemptuous, cruel, callous, and other words starting with the letter c. I wonder how long that illusion lasts? (as an aside, this is an odd use of the word 'progressive', which is traditionally associated with Taylorism and objective/scientific management toward universal ends, quantitatively gauged - neoliberalism's ideological predecessor, so to speak)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 11:08
|
|
|
oh we'd have fought afghanistan anyway it had UN approval and everything my guess is that britain would've just stuck its fingers somewhere in the horn of africa thereafter instead, since Somalia caught on fire shortly afterward and that had full UNSC support for intervention too - albeit by the AU, due to a largely distracted west
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 13:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 14:16 |
|
|
What are the top ten education systems in the world, anyway, and what's the tenth? e: got the source quote quote:https://www.ft.com/content/1f4832ee-7327-11e5-bdb1-e6e4767162cc I'm not sure how well that holds up, as a claim - the FT article cites no sources. ronya fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 16:40
|
|