|
Pilchenstein posted:Brexit is already costing us some of our greatest minds can't believe they'd decommission the MauG-25 Foxbat like that, thought it still had a few years left
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2020 01:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 06:55 |
|
|
quote:One MP said she “would definitely go” and a “conservative estimate” of the number of MPs that would follow was between 30 and 50.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2020 14:28
|
|
|
i feel their scale is definitely underselling the job eiffel tower included, on the right  ed: birb tax 
CGI Stardust fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Feb 10, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2020 19:29
|
|
|
Apologies if this has been mentioned, but Der Starmer's leaflets have gone out. The slogan: "Integrity; Authority; Unity" sigh ed: also the front of the envelope had "Contains: integrity; authority; unity"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 18:32
|
|
|
sebzilla posted:My favourite thing in 2020 Labour is all the Starmer supporters saying things like "we need to purge the left-wing" having spent the past five years making GBS threads themselves loudly about mandatory reselection etc. tldr; imo they can be seen as a natural expression of a system desperately trying to maintain itself against increasing instability, also, birb  Large organisations tend to stability, and develop methods to maintain this - rules and regulations to restrict the effect of outside disturbance, and removing outside disturbances where possible. I'd argue that the Labour Party was, from at least Blair until Corbyn, adapted to and stable within the Westminster environment and British electoral system - top-down leadership, connections with media, politics as reflections of media. The left-leaning portions of the membership are a source of instability, continually asking for things outside the Westminster consensus, trying to get a greater say, wanting to move the party to a bottom-up formation, replacing centrist MPs with leftish ones who agree with the membership (or, if nothing more, want to give the membership a say); none of this plays nicely with Westminster or the media. The soft-left/centre membership recognise correctly that instability makes the party look bad and less electable, and that the mandatory reselection effort was part of this trend. Labour's obvious reaction as an organisation is to remove or restrain the source of instability - give a greater voice to centre and right figures, "councillors should have a greater say" (since councillors are generally going to be more centre/right-wing), restrict the effect of the membership on policy, etc. up to and including ejecting left-wing members. Starmer frames himself as the stability candidate, so I'd expect him to take steps in that direction. Don't think he'd go as far as outright ejecting the left, but definitely restrict it. Goodbye Corbynism, goodbye left influence in Labour. (this is the more likely, I think? depends how the phone-banking is going, how many of the soft-left or politically-traumatised can be brought around) The RLB route is the more hopeful one imo. More interaction with the left membership means more instability, and she could drive it up to a crisis point where the organisational structure of Labour has to change or collapse - different structure, different MPs more in tune with the membership. Short-term this could be ugly, but if the will is there it might work and give us a leftish Labour party without all the internal contradictions. I'm not sure it'll be possible to reform Labour without hitting that crisis point - it'll keep trying to return to its previous equilibrium, we'll end up with constant instability but no structural changes, and I doubt there will be another chance. (sidenote: thinking about it like this, Corbyn is a curious figure - both inducing instability and trying to prevent it by "bringing everyone together" even when the two sides are irreconcilable, stopping the Wom Tatson removal etc; in retrospect not surprising it didn't work) in conclusion, Labour is a land of contrasts, and furthermore, birb 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2020 15:13
|
|
|
Jose posted:If ever there is a time to get it over and done with its now If Starmer gets in then everything's probably hosed and we're better off spending energy outside Labour, but god knows where. Maybe building community bunkers.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2020 15:43
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:So BoJo-a-GoGo, the mad Prime Minister is at it again.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2020 11:37
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Lord help me but I agree with basically all of this post. There's some very hallucinatory hindsight being bandied around to justify what happened between 2017 and 2019, and failing to address the mistakes the left of the party made is just buying us a ticket back to 1983 because we're going to end up chasing our tails over stuff like open selection rather than actually keeping at least one hand on the controls. (this butts up against another set of problems; how representative are the big unions, for example, of the contemporary class formations that make up Labour's current and future voter base, and how do their interests intersect, where are the tensions? thinking of stuff like the responses to climate change and so on) What are the options for the membership to fix things? Seems like the power of exit as voters / members - not useful if there isn't a vote coming up, also very binary with no option but to lose all influence if the leadership doesn't do what's requested - or the long, slow march through the institutions when time is kind of a pressing concern. What else do we have? (for reference: this isn't me being defeatist this time, i'd genuinely like to know)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2020 02:11
|
|
|
it's pronounced "Spudley", naturally
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2020 11:49
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:DO we know why Momentum is supporting Rayner over one of those two? other than that, you'd need to ask the Momentum NEC. The Momentum membership only got a yes / no vote on supporting each of RLB and Rayner, and, uh, <20% turnout, RLB got 70% yes, Rayner 53% yes, membership a bit miffed about the process precisely because of the lack of choice ed: 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2020 12:29
|
|
|
gh0stpinballa posted:https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1231845547763544064?s=19  please don't go to twitter for leadership chat, and absolutely do not read anything Paul Atreides Mason ever writes
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2020 14:53
|
|
|
i'm all 3 of the mysterious levitating "pancakes", apparently lifted by Angry Corbyn's force of will and not by any trace of movement from the chefs
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2020 23:30
|
|
|
this but also every one of the skulls on the base is a different ghoulish Blair head
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2020 14:09
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:Also this one
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2020 19:02
|
|
|
Voted: RLB, Butler/Burgon/Khan/Rayner, also Momentum NEC of Townsend and Drennan now to wait for the inevitable Starmer drift rightwards while freshly-melted former Corbyn supporters desperately try and justify the new policies as left-wing (and/or Sensible) and also, retrospectively, why their choice of Starmer was correct
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2020 14:12
|
|
|
hahaha ahahahahaha on the bright side, if Labour pasokifies itself, maybe there'll be an opening for a social democratic formation of some kind
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
 ed: with column headers (source) CGI Stardust fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Feb 26, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2020 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 06:55 |
|
|
the hyperpoop
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2020 20:08
|
|