Scrutable

GeenDienst wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 16, 2019 4:03 pm

But they are not going to win in 2024.

Remember we're at 1983. Only it's worse, because there is no Tribune Group to hold it together while the worst passes. The Bennites have won, completely, they control everything, and now they are being helped to rewrite history by one-dimensional fuckwits like Kinnock and Flint

History doesn't go in circles, mate. Johnson is no Thatcher for starters.

They'll be well placed to win if Starmer or similar is leader and he purges. You can't put up a circular argument that they won't win because they won't elect X, so don't elect X till there's a chance they can win.

https://twitter.com/TheUriGeller/status ... 69473?s=19

Met with #borisjohnson's team, gave @BorisJohnson a spoon which belonged to Golda Meir. I energised this spoon with #PositiveEnergy as part of my strategy with the #mindpower of the #UK public to ensure that #JeremyCorbyn did NOT end up as #primeminister!

Hang on, Uri Geller stopped Brexit didn't he? I assume Brexit is still stopped?

lpm wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 16, 2019 6:34 pm

They'll be well placed to win if Starmer or similar is leader and he purges. You can't put up a circular argument that they won't win because they won't elect X, so don't elect X till there's a chance they can win.

Can. Have.

How is Starmer going to purge anything? Momentum control the constituencies and the NEC. Corbyn clinging on like a winnit to a gusset is only going to make more non-Bennite members despair and leave, and the Bunker Buddies don't really care if Labour keep losing, because one day the country will be in such a disaster so socalism innit.

Nobody can change the party for the better right now, and for the foreseeable ever. Anybody that tries will probably be deselected, and it would be a shame if whatever talent is left was pissed up against that wall.

It won't be Starmer or Thornberry anyway, because it's ALL THEIR FAULT AND THEY SHOULD GET ON THEIR KNEES AND BEG FORGIVENESS FROM THE NEXT NORTHERN RACIST THEY ENCOUNTER.

lpm wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 16, 2019 6:34 pm

GeenDienst wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 16, 2019 4:03 pm

But they are not going to win in 2024.

Remember we're at 1983. Only it's worse, because there is no Tribune Group to hold it together while the worst passes. The Bennites have won, completely, they control everything, and now they are being helped to rewrite history by one-dimensional fuckwits like Kinnock and Flint

History doesn't go in circles, mate. Johnson is no Thatcher for starters.

They'll be well placed to win if Starmer or similar is leader and he purges. You can't put up a circular argument that they won't win because they won't elect X, so don't elect X till there's a chance they can win.

Exactly

And while in an ideal world Labour win in 2024, in this world they don't. I'd settle for substantial erosion of the Tory majority; a 1992 scenario - or even 1987. A Labour leader achieving that would be in a good position to go for victory in 2029.

And I might see another Labour government before I kick the bucket.

No chance of them winning another election until they adsorb the lessons of this one.

Herainestold wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:42 pm

No chance of them winning another election until they adsorb the lessons of this one.

They need to absorb them really, unless you only want them to stick around on the surface.

Get your best leader in now, one who has a chance of leading Labour in a new direction and taking the party faithful with them.

Grumble wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 17, 2019 7:22 am

Herainestold wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:42 pm

No chance of them winning another election until they adsorb the lessons of this one.

They need to absorb them really, unless you only want them to stick around on the surface.

Get your best leader in now, one who has a chance of leading Labour in a new direction and taking the party faithful with them.

Exactly

JQH wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 15, 2019 3:11 pm

P.J. Denyer wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:32 pm

JQH wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 14, 2019 2:56 pm

Keep your anger here in mind next time you feel inclined to blame "boomers" for this sh.t storm.

If you can find an example of me saying "I hate f.cking boomers" you may have a point.

Not those exact words but here you make the bizarre claim that boomers want to destroy everything they don't need (including the NHS!) - a sentiment which I doubt meets with your approval.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=99&p=4992#p4992

No, I referred to specifically to an "element within" the group which is not, by definition, blaming everyone within the group. That is the difference, it isn't a particularly subtle difference either. You want to blame this fustercluck on a strong element among the English, fine I'll agree with you but it isn't all the English any more than I was referring to all boomers when I spoke about an element among them.

Hmmmm. Fag paper's worth of difference there. This is one for the mud pool. Someone get the mankinis and video camera.

And as I pointed out, previously, clearly on bl..dy deaf ears, I think we can forgive people's rages immediately after a vote when they're angry.

PS: if anyone wants me to split out the "not all English" "not all boomers" argument, I will

I don't mind - I'm going to leave it now anyway.

Stephanie wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:45 pm

And as I pointed out, previously, clearly on bl..dy deaf ears, I think we can forgive people's rages immediately after a vote when they're angry.

PS: if anyone wants me to split out the "not all English" "not all boomers" argument, I will

Don't bother on my account

I voted Labour despite Jeremy Corbyn.

Who's fault it most obviously was.

What really stings though is those I know who want the next Leader to be an anti-Blairite and a supporter of Corbyn.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

discovolante wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:56 pm

1) Boris Johnson
2) David Cameron
2) Theresa May
4) Jeremy Corbyn

Agree with this wholeheartedly.

Despite all that I welcome Johnson's plans for a bridge between Northern Ireland and Scotland.

It's good to know that the Kingdom of England and Wales - as it will soon be known - will be able to pass through the EU border of Scotland to get to Ireland (united of course).

Because this idea is clearly fantasy.

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/int ... 1218191932

"As is usuaL after failure, every man drew the conclusion that the movement would have succeeded if his advice had been followed, and most despaired of the stupidity of their fellows. A few extreme radicals remained faithful to the revolutionary cause and hoped for a more violent revolution in the future. Next time, they believed, the masses must be drawn in; the cause of national union must be adorned with the attractions of Socialism."

Thus A. J. P. Taylor on Germany in 1848, in The Course of German History, Chapter 4.

In this area at least it seems that there is no new thing under the sun.

Corbyn could certainly have done without being best friends with several of the UK's armed enemies, but that was true in 2017 too. What really f.cked him over was the insistence of the London-based anti-democracy movement consisting of Starmer, Thornberry, Cooper etc.. that he throw away the earlier promise to respect the referendum result. I knew you'd lost the north and the midlands when that astonishing bit of hubris loomed into view.

I'm delighted by this result on multiple levels. Hard left kicked firmly in the balls. Continuity Remain kicked firmly in the balls. Neither of them learning from it, so likely to be self-marginalising for another decade whilst we unpick all the constitutional and institutional meddling Blair and Brown put in place. Superb.

Reading the steadily spreading meme about how this would all have been fine with a nice middle-class remainer in charge fills me with joy.
There's nothing quite as uplifting as listening in on your opponents and realising that they're completely incompetent.

Labour's only hope would be to bring back the more centrist leavers in its ranks to leadership roles. Frank Field. Hoey. People like that. They could retake the north for you. I am absolutely confident that all the decision makers involved will never do that because they're much too stupid and much too arrogant.

Blah blah no understanding blah blah. Total shite. But you crack on.

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 22, 2019 2:06 am

...whilst we unpick all the constitutional and institutional meddling Blair and Brown put in place.

I would be interested to hear what you think these are, particularly the constitutional ones, sheldrake.

ETA assuming you are talking about the changes resulting from the meddling, rather than the meddling itself.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 22, 2019 7:27 am

Blah blah no understanding blah blah. Total shite. But you crack on.

What an intelligent response. Quality debate from you as always. People like you are the reason I'm right. Keep shooting yourself in the foot, I love it.

greyspoke wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 22, 2019 10:10 am

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 22, 2019 2:06 am

...whilst we unpick all the constitutional and institutional meddling Blair and Brown put in place.

I would be interested to hear what you think these are, particularly the constitutional ones, sheldrake.

ETA assuming you are talking about the changes resulting from the meddling, rather than the meddling itself.

Supreme court can be dismantled. Stuffing of the lords with Blairites can be unpicked. HRA undone. BBC and CH4 on a leash or even privatised.
A dose of salts through all the liberal nexuses of unelected power.

The best part, for me, is that it's impossible for Labour to rally around and form an effective opposition to this in the foreseeable future unless and until the Guardian-reading establishment admit they were wrong about Brexit and stop sneering at the working class. On a deep level, they're the kind of people who'd rather be sat at the back of the class throwing paper aeroplanes and making snide comments ineffectually than admit they were wrong and do some serious work, so the UK liberal establishment is effectively self-marginalising now. I'm delighted.

Orabona wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 21, 2019 9:57 pm

"As is usuaL after failure, every man drew the conclusion that the movement would have succeeded if his advice had been followed, and most despaired of the stupidity of their fellows. A few extreme radicals remained faithful to the revolutionary cause and hoped for a more violent revolution in the future. Next time, they believed, the masses must be drawn in; the cause of national union must be adorned with the attractions of Socialism."

Thus A. J. P. Taylor on Germany in 1848, in The Course of German History, Chapter 4.

In this area at least it seems that there is no new thing under the sun.

It seems no-one welcomed you after your first post, but nevertheless, welcome.

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 22, 2019 12:19 pm

greyspoke wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 22, 2019 10:10 am

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 22, 2019 2:06 am

...whilst we unpick all the constitutional and institutional meddling Blair and Brown put in place.

I would be interested to hear what you think these are, particularly the constitutional ones, sheldrake.

ETA assuming you are talking about the changes resulting from the meddling, rather than the meddling itself.

Supreme court can be dismantled. Stuffing of the lords with Blairites can be unpicked. HRA undone. BBC and CH4 on a leash or even privatised.
A dose of salts through all the liberal nexuses of unelected power.

...

I understand where you are coming from Shelly, but you have a habit of making duff points. Stuffing the Lords has been going on forever, it is part of the ebb and flow of politics. Which is why the Lords needs reforming. Creation of the Supreme Court was part of that, the top court was moved from being a sub-committee of the HofL to being a regular institution of the state created by statute*. Both BBC and Ch 4 (and S4C) were created before Blair. The BBC is already subject to an external regulator (Ofcom) like other broadcasters - are you suggesting it should be on a different leash (content-wise) from the others?

*Which didn't really make more than a symbolic difference, but in a modern constitutional democracy it was a bit of an anachronism. The "Judicial Committee of the House of Lords" was a Supreme Court by other means. Of course, we will still need a top court. Moving it from the HofL to the Supreme Court did not really change its powers. What it did was put the thing on a proper constitutional footing so that its powers were more amenable to change, which is apparently what Boris proposes. Maybe there will be a name change, but it will still be the same thing. The creation of the Supreme Court has made this easier. Commentators have suggested that creating the Supreme Court made the judges more activist, but I am sceptical of that, I think they would pretty much have come to the same decisions in the recent constitutional cases were they still the "House of Lords". The law underlying decisions that recently made the headlines has been decades in the making.