UKMT March 2017 - Blame it on the Bourgie - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT March 2017 - Blame it on the Bourgie

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

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Sigh.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2017 01:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 09:32

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Private Speech posted:

Well I don't read Corbyn's twitter, or much of any twitter for that matter.

Going by what he said in the quote posted earlier he's still pretty much repeating what the government said. Which honestly if I believed it wouldn't be all that bad either. But then that's the danger of listening to Tories.

You weren't clear that Labour supported the amendment?

The amendment which was proposed by Labour and no Labour peer voted against?

It's almost as if Labour didn't grandstand pointlessly against the bill in the commons because the legislative process wasn't actually over yet.

You don't have to be reading his twitter it said in BBC news that it was a Labour amendment.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2017 10:01

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

We wouldn't have this problem if New Labour hadn't stuffed the PLP with morons.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2017 14:48

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Directed by Lembit Opik no doubt.

ronya posted:

money is unhappy:

...

Not too surprising considering the Labour party is now mainly funded through its mass membership as opposed to begging donations from rich people.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2017 18:58

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

I don't think I can side with a guy who thinks we shouldn't tackle child abuse because poverty still exists.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 18:44

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

I'm playing my monthly veto on anime chat. Enough guys.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 19:17

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Einstein was a socialist too.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 12:21

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Fangz posted:

I don't agree with Stephen Hawking on a lot of things, but I think there's a point to be made in that 'allowed himself be seen as a left wing extremist' is at least somewhat valid because that's part of Corbyn's messaging. [b]I mean part of his appeal to the Momentum crowd is that he's so left wing that he's hated by at least 85% of Labour MPs. If you believe, as most people do outside this thread, that Labour is a left wing party, this kinda makes him the definition of a left-wing extremist. If someone was aiming to place himself as too right wing for 85% of the Tories, I don't think it's exactly unjust for the media to call him a right wing extremist.[b]

This is a pretty weak appeal to relativism; the PLP being stuffed with centrists doesn't magically make regular left wing politics "extreme" whereas the Tory PP is full of actual right wingers, not centrists, so being to the right of 85% of them would definitely be pretty extreme.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 14:03

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Pissflaps posted:

Do you have evidence to support this claim?

The latest accounts I could find for labour

http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Accounts/ST0013244

Showed that membership earnings accounted for about 20% of labour's income. Donations were double this at 40%.

A moments thought and you might've remembered that 2015 was a General Election year and the membership didn't surge until more than halfway through the year.

The 'Standard Rate' for membership is �48 (�4/month) so 500k members would mean about �24m, so more than they managed to raise in donations even for a General Election.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 14:48

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Pissflaps posted:

Do you have evidence that labour's income is mostly derived from membership fees, rather than an assumption that half a million members are paying the standard rate?

Do you have any evidence that the average Labour member pays significantly less than the standard rate? I pay double.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 15:14

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

MikeCrotch posted:

Its £3 month minimum, only less if you are a student or trade union member.

https://join.labour.org.uk/

�2 a month if you are:

20-26 years old, or a Union member, or work under 16 hours a week.

Of course one of the reasons to give union members a discount is that most of the registered donations actually come from Trade unions so they're paying some membership by proxy anyway.

The fact is that Labour is currently funded through mass membership of the party with mass membership of trade unions coming a close second.

This is not true of any of the other political parties.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 15:19

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Pissflaps posted:

I've provided the latest accounts I can find showing that membership accounted for 20% of labour Party income, compared to the 50%+ suggested in the post I replied to.

So far you've got the fact that you pay �8 a month.

No. The fact is that Labour is part funded through membership fees, which I expect applies to all major political parties.

So the fact that the Labour party membership has tripled in size since the 2015 GE doesn't count as valid information to you?

Well ok then.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 15:46

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Pissflaps posted:

No. When determining if labour is mostly funded by its membership what counts is how much they're paying and what proportion of labour's overall income that represents.

Also do labour's membership figures include those registered supporters that paid a one off fee for the right to vote in the leadership elections?

No it doesn't include registered supporters or affiliated supporters because they're not members. The NEC report in January gave the figure of 540,000 members.

We know how much the party got in donations in 2016 (~�16m) and we know how many members they had.

Even if you assumed everyone was on the �2/month rate (which is obviously not true) then that's ~�13m, so you only need 23% of the membership to pay the full �4/month rate to exceed the �16m figure. Given that most members are not eligible for that rate (we're all middle class champagne socialists remember) then it's as close to certain as you can get that in 2016 membership fees exceeded donations.

No other political party can come close to claiming anything like this. This is doubly true when you consider that union donations are funded through mass membership of the unions.

Of course it's not true that Labour a majority of Labour income is from membership fees because the amount Labour gets in Short money is in the same magnitude as the membership fees and donations; but it's true that as of 2016 a plurality of its income is from membership.

Lord of the Llamas fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Mar 8, 2017

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 16:13

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Pissflaps posted:

I'll have to take your word for this as you haven't provided a link to the report.

I'm sorry that you don't know how to use an internet search engine.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 16:21

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Pissflaps posted:

You weren't able to find it either, were you.

There's literally two NEC member reports on the January NEC meeting on the first page of search results which both give the membership figures.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 16:29

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Pissflaps posted:

That blog post is the report? I expected something a bit more substantial than

Especially as it gives no breakdown or clarification of what sort of members it's referring to.

There's also this from another NEC member http://www.leftfutures.org/2017/01/peter-willsman-reports-from-labours-january-executive/

quote:

Iain and other senior officers presented a small booklet which analysed in detail the membership data. The membership at the 1 January was 543,645. This is the highest figure on Labour Party records.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 16:30

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Pissflaps posted:

Like i said, when you referred to a 'report' I expected something with a bit more detail than that.

And it still leaves us without evidence about what proportion of labour income is derived from membership fees. We'll probably have to wait a year.

Sounds like we need that booklet containing the detailed analysis rather than people blogging about its existence.

The fact is that only the most absurd estimates of how many members pay a reduced rate would prove your point.

Anyway;

https://twitter.com/DavidJo52951945/status/839188384413286400

Why the hell is Caroline Lucas, of all people, in the front of the dumb meme?

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 16:38

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

NI is used to trick people into thinking higher earners pay a lot more tax than them on any extra money they earn.

Anyone earning around the average wage will be paying a marginal rate of 32% (20% Income and 12% NI, +9% if they have a student loan too) and anyone in the higher rate pays 42% marginally (40% income and 2% NI). Because people only (and barely) understand how income tax works people think that you pay twice as much tax when you earn a lot of money, instead of less than a third more because half the income tax increase is offset by the NI reduction when you hit the higher rate.

It's a ridiculous scam and since the post-2012 student loan settlement makes it essentially impossible for the vast majority of people to pay off their student loans it means that the difference between normal and higher rate income tax payer's marginal rate is incredibly small - 41% vs 51% marginal rates for student loan holders.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 21:08

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Jeza posted:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/08/pret-a-manger-one-in-50-job-applicants-british-brexit

I don't even know what to make of this. Is this real?

If it is true, then the only reason it is true is because companies have fully manipulated the system in order to reach this point. I was once talking to a hiring manager at Costa, several years ago, and they told me that it was their unofficial policy to disregard applications by students and British nationals if there were reasonable candidates from lower income European countries because their data showed that people from Lithuania and so on would stay in the role for many years, saving them training costs and the costs of rehiring new staff. The idea of working in a coffee shop as "student" work was something they were keen to distance themselves from, pushing the idea that a "barista" was a real long-term job, because by lowering their workforce turnover they could massively increase their bottom line.

It was a depressing conversation and I remember it every time I get a coffee in one of those chains.

Students shouldn't be so hard up that they have to work alongside studying and there's nothing wrong with companies wanting to employ people who aren't going to gently caress off at the first chance. But I somehow doubt the savings from staff churn are passed on in the form of higher wages thus making it a reasonable prospect for relatively unskilled people in the long term, which would obviously be the right thing to do.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 21:18

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Jeza posted:

That's not really the "summery" at all. I was simply depressed at how server sector employers engineered a system where they rely on EU labour and are blaming the situation on UK nationals thinking themselves too good to work those jobs, whereas in fact it seems like these companies have specifically set up the situation to favour EU nationals over UK nationals because it's more cost effective for them to hire less itinerant workers.

I find it staggeringly unlikely that in a country that is almost completely composed of British nationals that only 1/50 people applying to work in places like Pret are British. Impossible in fact. Impossible - unless they have pushed a system to all but eliminate British workers from the job, and are hiring through schemes only advertised abroad.

Locations of Prets won't be random. You'll get more of them in areas where there are fewer unskilled local people because poor people don't want to pay whatever the gently caress it is they charge for a sandwich. As far as I could tell from a quick search on Google maps there isn't a single Pret in the whole of Suffolk or Lincolnshire, for example.

Basically they're saying that it's like that in places like London or Edinburgh etc.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 21:44

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

jBrereton posted:

Aye there's no trained talent in lincolnshire or suffolk lmao

That's not what I said you rear end.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 21:46

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Should just record the audio on your phone.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 23:07

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Pissflaps posted:

The media won't do Corbyn's job for him.

Actually Rupert Murdoch is more than happy to specify rhetoric and policy for any political party if they'll let him.

# ¿ Mar 9, 2017 01:01

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

baka kaba posted:

That doesn't sound like something anyone would have said

Well there's the crackpot libertarian wing like Carswell and Hannan, sort of the the anti-Lexit particles. Of course the most funny thing about those guys is the naive belief that any substantive proportion of the population actually agrees with them which somehow makes them almost blind to the ethnic nationalism and xenophobia.

# ¿ Mar 9, 2017 22:53

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Breath Ray posted:

I dont think the 50p top rate is very effective

Why?

# ¿ Mar 10, 2017 10:59

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Writing a sectarian sounding article as NI tensions flare up. Well.

# ¿ Mar 10, 2017 13:03

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Guavanaut posted:

Land and asset seizures for the benefit of the capital class is perfectly compatible with economic liberalism, but yes, I'm sure Gove was thinking about women's lib when he was criticizing Theresa May for thinking too much of the social good like a Papist and that we need to act more like buccaneers.

Buccaneers, you say?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/09/george-galloway-to-write-childrens-books-about-an-ethical-pirate

# ¿ Mar 10, 2017 13:12

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

LemonDrizzle posted:

So BT's been forced to sell off Openreach to improve competition in broadband provision: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39228115

Will be interested to see how this affects the broadband offers I receive, if at all.

Err, if by "sell off" you mean "be the 100% shareholder of a company still within BT Group".

# ¿ Mar 10, 2017 18:54

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Pochoclo posted:

If the plan was to leave the EU and abolish neoliberalism, ok maybe I would believe you. But the plan seems to be to leave the EU to... give all power to a Tory neoliberal government that has already shown it wants to privatise everything and turn the UK into a tax haven??? Am I missing something here?

My main criticism of "Lexit" is that it assumes leaving the EU makes achieving left wing goals easier. The only reason the EU is a neoliberal institution is because the big member states have been neoliberal. The EU framework doesn't have to be neoliberal. If Corbyn was PM and Hamon was President of France and Schulz Chancellor of Germany you could be drat sure the EU would start to look a different pretty soon. But centrist or right wing governments are going to do centrist or right wing things whether or not the EU exists.

# ¿ Mar 10, 2017 22:56

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Paxman posted:

Corbyn was asked specifically how enthusiastic he was about staying in the EU, not whether the EU was perfect. "Seven and a half" out of ten was a dumb answer to that question.

You can say "the EU has faults but I definitely think we should stay in because on balance we're better off in". You don't have to pretend its perfect.

But if there's a vote taking place and you're campaigning for one side to win and you say you want people to vote for your side "seven and a half out of ten" then you're a bad campaigner.

The anger that followed wasn't because people felt the referendum result was all his fault, it was because people felt he'd done a lousy job. Labour's policy was 100 per cent to stay in the EU and then try to reform it, not 75 per cen to do that.

Which is a load of crap because Labour - at ~66% - delivered as strong a remain vote as the SNP (and the Lib Dems only achieved like 75% despite their 2015 vote clearly being a hardcore rump) whereas Cameron and the Tories only managed half that despite being the government telling their people what's good for them.

Which is to say this: 2015 Labour voters constituted the largest number of remain voters so anyone who thinks Labour lost the referendum can gently caress right off.

Lord of the Llamas fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Mar 10, 2017

# ¿ Mar 10, 2017 23:19

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

jBrereton posted:

If that's the case why did so many Labour constituencies vote to Leave?

Because even strong Labour seats still have Tory and UKIP voters who probably constituted the bulk of the leave vote?

Paxman posted:

Those numbers don't contradict anything I said though (I said Corbyn was a lousy campaigner in the referendum, not that Labour voters are anti-EU)

Your assertion is that Corbyn was a lousy campaigner in the referendum and yet the Labour remain vote wasn't much different to the other pro-EU parties whose leaders aren't getting poo poo all over.

So either his "lousy" campaigning didn't matter, or it wasn't lousy.

Or Corbyn would've otherwise delivered a miracle compared to well known terrible politicians like Nicola Sturgeon?

Lord of the Llamas fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Mar 10, 2017

# ¿ Mar 10, 2017 23:29

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Paxman posted:

Labour voters backing remain doesnt somehow prove Corbyn was a good campaigner. We have no way of knowing how much any individual politician's performance affected the vote. Labour voters probably largely backed EU membership even before the campaign began, and if their views did change then we have no way of knowong if that was down to Corbyn or any of the other people they heard from.

But we know Corbyn did a poor job of a campaigning because he went on the telly and said he was 7 out of ten in favour of the position he was supposedly campaigning for.

This is as valid as saying politician X alienated swing voters by saying they were 10/10 for the EU because it showed they obviously didn't take their concerns about the EU seriously.

What a load of crap.

Edit: "If Corbyn had said 10 I would've voted remain" is something nobody has ever said.

Lord of the Llamas fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Mar 11, 2017

# ¿ Mar 11, 2017 00:05

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

It is of course ironic that David Cameron caused Brexit and a hard core Tory government when he is of course a Lib Dem at heart.

As in the group of people who want to play government as long as nothing ever actually changes really at all but we all really pretend we want stuff to change because we totally understand stuff guys.

# ¿ Mar 11, 2017 01:29

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Irony Be My Shield posted:

It is also ironic that he once hosed a dead pig.

Oh for fucks sake.

Irony is when something happens that is the opposite of what you expect would happen as a result of your actions.

David Cameron loving a dead pig is not ironic. David Cameron loving a dead pig is plausible and kind of expected.

David Cameron's mother complaining to their local council about cuts was ironic.

Lord of the Llamas fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Mar 11, 2017

# ¿ Mar 11, 2017 01:32

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Private Speech posted:

This is pretty funny, crosspost from the political 'toon thread.

Bit surprised how much the government is getting hammered for that budget. Sure they did break a manifesto commitment. But, to be frank, which political party hasn't; and it could easily brushed off as "that was before Brexit and the current cabinet".

Maybe media feels secure to criticise the government a bit now, what with how the current polls look for Labour.

Not raising taxes is like, literally, their thing. Also lots of journalists are self-employed.

# ¿ Mar 11, 2017 01:52

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Surrey creates wealth so if you don't understand why that means the government must give them extra money then you clearly don't understand free market capitalism at all. loving commies.

# ¿ Mar 11, 2017 02:00

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Darth Walrus posted:

Again, understanding 'most Labour voters went remain, but most Labour constituencies voted Leave' is not all that hard if you remember that Britain uses an FPTP system, where you only need a plurality, rather than a majority, to win. Or, to put it another way, a 'safe' seat is one where you always get 40% of the vote and your closest competition can only manage 30% at best. In a yes/no referendum, though, the vote can't be split, and so a bunch of Labour MPs had to deal with the uncomfortable realisation that a majority of their constituents don't agree with their policies, and have only failed to boot them out because they can't decide whether they like UKIP, the Conservatives, or the BNP more.

This is also why Labour's traditional safe seats are now in serious trouble - with the collapse of UKIP and the Lib Dems, their opponents are now unified behind a single party, May's Conservatives. We saw this in Stoke and Copeland - the Labour vote share didn't change much in either, but the Stoke vote was split by a massive UKIP effort, and the Copeland one wasn't.

It's really not.

In Copeland and in both Labour held seats adjacent to Copeland they lost vote share in 2015 despite Labour gaining vote share in England over all in 2015. Regional decline of the Labour vote needs to be figured out beyond the Pissflaps analysis.

The vote wasn't "split" in Stoke - most of the UKIP voters would never vote Tory; and most of the Tory voters would never vote UKIP. There's no coalition there.

Edit: 52. The number of weeks this year something bad will happen.

# ¿ Mar 11, 2017 02:15

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Namtab posted:

Because people in that demographic group find the term retardation offensive, given its use as a slur. It's the same reason why we don't use the word spastic, human being, or the n-word

Not to disagree with your broad point but I don't think human being or n-word were ever medical terms though.

# ¿ Mar 12, 2017 20:25

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

TheRat posted:

https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/840981294674771968

I think that's not actually a TV screen but something they blue-screen stuff onto so he probably can't actually see it. Still pretty funny though and politicians really need to know they're gonna get caught out on this stuff.

Edit: If it actually is a screen then that's pretty amazing though.

# ¿ Mar 13, 2017 10:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 09:32

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

LemonDrizzle posted:

Pretty sure it's a TV screen - you can see a reflection of it on the glossy desk they're sitting in front of.

Oh well spotted! Wow he's just a complete idiot then!

# ¿ Mar 13, 2017 11:13

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT March 2017 - Blame it on the Bourgie

«‹›4 »