That is why the Tories want to do the cuts, but they'd never say so - it's not popular with voters, and if you say it out loud people question why you're making a massive extension of state power in other areas such as internet censorship.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF |OT2| - We Blue Ourselves
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
That is why the Tories want to do the cuts, but they'd never say so - it's not popular with voters, and if you say it out loud people question why you're making a massive extension of state power in other areas such as internet censorship.
Huw_Dawson
Member
The Greens are pretty heavily militant left. A lot of them want Corbyn in to try and convert the party over to said beliefs.
It obviously won't work (at least, mostly) but hey, we are talking about militant left-wingers. They're not sane. Politics is a game to them.
Caroline Lucas is not insane. She accepts scientific concensus and has some compassion. On Green policies/ideals, most would say they're good ideals, but we've been persuaded that they're unrealistic. Same thing with the "unelectable" campaign. The only thing most people have heard about Corbyn is that he's "unelectable".
The ~50k difference includes people who "aren't on the electoral role", and many people are complaining about being rejected for that reason, even though they voted in the general election and have been labour party members for years and are clearly on the electoral role.
Nicktendo86
Member
There was no accident, idiots like Burnham thought they were being clever getting Corbyn on as he would mop us his second pref votes. That's what's so spleen rupturing funny, it's backfired so massively.
RobotNinjaHornets
Banned
FlammableD
Banned
"bearded vegetarian socialist Jeremy Corbyn"
HE DOESN'T EVEN EAT MEAT DAMMIT
HE DOESN'T EVEN EAT MEAT DAMMIT
dapperbandit
Banned
"You don't win votes with salad! You don't win votes with salad!"
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Labour isn't the one handling accounts which are not on the electoral roll. That's Electoral Reform Services which is independent of Labour. So, I'm fairly sure that's not true and those people are genuinely missing from the electoral roll. I'd want to see a citation otherwise.
EDIT: Thinking about it, I imagine it's probably students who've returned from university and haven't registered their home location.
Yeah. Some people have been reinstated. It seems many were rejected for that reason. The long time abour member is just one example, I don't think they've challenged it yet.
On the bright side, the UK Labor party doesn't exist.
Huw_Dawson
Member
They're militant left. But I don't mean Militant Tendency!
Greens exist in a strange vacuum where they don't have any policies actually pinned on them for any length of time. What's the average Green voter's actual understanding of the party they vote for? They're the Left protest party who also have some historical relevance to environment politics (which has been undermined by both Labour and the Lib Dems making the environment part of their core pillars) But to describe what I mean:
They're to the hard left of Labour. One policy they proposed at the last election was to not just scrap tuition fees (which I am a fan of) but to repay everybody who had to pay them in the first place. They're also for policies like universal basic income - which, again, I am for in principle. But it's unproven and a major challenge to both implement and maintain in a free economy. The Greens put policies like that front and centre, because that's who they are - a militant left protest force who just has to be credible enough for people to throw votes at them instead of Labour and the Lib Dems when either of those parties do dumb things.
Basically, they're ideological lefties who live perennially in protest - a description well-suiting Jeremy Corbyn.
Obviously this is my own opinion and I'm not a Green - for all I know the party is actually incredibly moderate and just naiive. But it really doesn't surprise me to hear about paid-up Green members trying to pull Labour out left.
EDIT:
I don't think I'm enough on a subject matter expert on the Green Party to go further than the above to try and explain what I am getting at, so to switch to a different topic:
Are Umunna and Hunt actually trying to create some Gang of Four style split in Labour, like John Prescott accused, or are they really just going to be doing what they say on the tin - be a forum for centrist discussion in the Labour Party?
I don't really know much about either Umunna or Hunt to comment. What are their politics like? Is it different enough from normal Labour to make them a credible fulcrum for a split? Who'd go with them? Kendall?
I'm thinking back to what I've heard about the origins of the SDP over the years. I've heard about the characters involved - how Shirley Williams was a Liberal in the wrong party for years, for a start. I'm wondering if an actual new party could arise from a group founded by those two, and if it'd be any more credible than just 'hey guys, remember Blair?'
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
If Hunt splits I will eat my hat. He's at least sensible enough to know that nobody will vote for him if he didn't have the Labour party label on.
Neither of them will get anywhere. One is a Labour leadership candidate who choked, and the other is a guy who couldn't even get on the Labour leadership ballot against Jeremy Corbyn to begin with. The Gang of Four had actual talent and presence.
Neither of them will get anywhere. One is a Labour leadership candidate who choked, and the other is a guy who couldn't even get on the Labour leadership ballot against Jeremy Corbyn to begin with. The Gang of Four had actual talent and presence.
CyclopsRock
Member
Sorry, I didn't mean it makes no difference - if it didn't, who'd care? - I mean that reducing the size of the Department of Defense by 5,000 staff members isn't going to bump up GDP by 0.2% that quarter - but it has virtues beyond that.
As for those two periods, well yeah - they're the aftermath of hugely destructive wars. That our standard of living went up isn't shocking, is it? There's quite a few variables at play.
Everything is ideological. What isn't ideological? Clause 4 was ideological. Nationalising the car industry was ideological. Leaving NATO is ideological. It's such a nothing phrase. Of course they're a means to an end - less government involvement in the private sphere. The means to that end is cutting spending just as much as they're a means to the end of cutting the deficit (which is silly - I'm just saying they're both means to an ends and as ideological or not as each other).
Edit: surely a militant party requires some element of... Militancy?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Well, yes and no. You can see there's a clear difference between "we are cutting to reduce the deficit" and "we are cutting to reduce the role of the state in public life", you've even said yourself earlier that you want the Conservatives to argue more of one and less of the others. The first is setting up cutting as this thing they don't really want to do, but have to, there's no alternative as this is just pragmatism. The second is saying that cutting should happen regardless. So, obviously most things are ideological, but I think the whole point of pointing out this specific thing is ideological is that the Conservatives are trying to sneak it through as though it isn't. Obviously the debate isn't over once you point out something is ideological - ideologies can be good or bad - but you can't actually have a debate at all when the Conservatives are trying to paint it as something it isn't.
Jezbollah
Member
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
On the one hand that is reasonable, on the other they did say at the start they wanted (correctly) as many people to have their input in the process as possible. "Where someone who voted Labour brings along someone who voted Tory or SNP or didnt vote at all" was the sort of thing they encouraged.
They wanted to make the election as democratic as possible and as inclusive as possible which was an interesting and brave move, but they've gone and messed it up.
They wanted to make the election as democratic as possible and as inclusive as possible which was an interesting and brave move, but they've gone and messed it up.
Exactly. The Conservatives are arguing in bad faith. They claim that the cuts are necessary because they know that's easier to sell than the cuts being unnecessary but 'good in the long run'.
The difference between that and renationalising the railways, for instance, is that the arguments for renationalisation are upfront.
CyclopsRock
Member
Eh, but I think a part of that dichotomy is due to our blanket term of "cuts". Unless you want an insurance-based healthcare system, there's not much of an argument to be made for getting rid of dialysis machines so as to remove the state from the lives of private citizens. It's an argument that simply doesn't work when it comes to NHS spending (but, not being a MMT jizzsack, I'm not keen on ever-inflating NHS costs). But cuts to healthcare spending are talked about in much the same way as sacking busy-body civil servants which force departments to trim the fat, as it were. Their effects, both good and bad, are so totally opposite that to talk about "cuts" like that seems unhelpful.
Nicktendo86
Member
I've not seen a thread on it but has anyone read the full statement from Harvey Proctor yesterday? It really was extraordinary, I can't get a link now as at work but I really recommend you read the full statement, the news left loads out.
There are obvious questions to his motives, cynics might say he is trying to prejudice a potential trial. However he raises a lot of very interesting points, for example it is obvious the police and/or his accuser ('Nick') has been leaking information to the media. Whatever happened to due process? Innocent until proven guilty? If he is to be tried in the open via the media without even being charged, why can't he defend himself in the open via the media?
Again it is impossible to know what to believe but the actual accusations, if they are accurate, are almost impossible to believe. Killing two boys? Ted Heath stopped him from castrating a boy and then left the knife with the boy as evidence? It sounds too unbelievable to be true.
I got the impression that the entire Westminster paedophile ring investigation was brought about by the accusations of the one individual, 'Nick'. Is that accurate?
I really don't know what to believe, however the bungling of the police and the ruining of a man's life without even being charged, as of yet, cannot be right.
There are obvious questions to his motives, cynics might say he is trying to prejudice a potential trial. However he raises a lot of very interesting points, for example it is obvious the police and/or his accuser ('Nick') has been leaking information to the media. Whatever happened to due process? Innocent until proven guilty? If he is to be tried in the open via the media without even being charged, why can't he defend himself in the open via the media?
Again it is impossible to know what to believe but the actual accusations, if they are accurate, are almost impossible to believe. Killing two boys? Ted Heath stopped him from castrating a boy and then left the knife with the boy as evidence? It sounds too unbelievable to be true.
I got the impression that the entire Westminster paedophile ring investigation was brought about by the accusations of the one individual, 'Nick'. Is that accurate?
I really don't know what to believe, however the bungling of the police and the ruining of a man's life without even being charged, as of yet, cannot be right.
Nicktendo86
Member
I don't think the guardian ever had it. They are the left wing daily mail.
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
Left-leaning, certainly, but they're nowhere near the Daily Mail in terms of... Content (if you can call it that).
RobotNinjaHornets
Banned
They lost it immediately when it started looking like Corbyn had a chance. The sheer number of "DON'T VOTE CORBYN" articles was ridiculous.
Pretty sure the Guardian are supporting Cooper, so them taking an anti-JC stance isn't unexpected. But this latest hit piece is a bit beyond the pale.
RobotNinjaHornets
Banned
True, but there's not agreeing with him and then there's posting multiple articles every day losing their minds over him
rofl, do you actually believe the nonsense you post?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Read it. It is bizarre.
For all the gory allegations, the bit that most worries me is the claim that he was first interviewed by the police in the presence of a journalist. What?
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Isn't a central point to the paedophile scandal that there were internal police cover ups that prevented the pursuit of justice? The presence of a journalist sounds like the informant trying to prevent that from occurring by having someone who can credibly record him and publish on it if it comes to that. It is weird, but makes sense in a way.
There is something very gross about the witch hunts being pursued in the media. The very public figure whose accusations were outed a few months back by police services (not the met, who weirdly acted properly) could be particularly aggrieved by his treatment (were they alive) even if no allegations are proven . That is not how the process should work.
However, previous cover ups have created a moral quagmire in which the guilty have gone unpunished and protected, leaving only speculation and rumour and fear. Without the corruption there would be more faith in doing the proper process where people who face only allegations did not have their reputations tarnished by allegations.
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...general-politics-appeal-young-people#comments
Labour is now asking people to rat on each other over suspected un-Labour attitudes.
Labour is now asking people to rat on each other over suspected un-Labour attitudes.
anonymous_abc
Member
So unbelievable pathetic...
This whole mess is demonstrating nicely how JC hardly labours biggest problem....
Nicktendo86
Member
Follow so much guardian on Twitter. You won't realise how much guff they send to print.
And noneof it could be called 'Daily Mail' level. For christy sake the Mail printed pictures from that lunatics video who shot the two journalists yesterday. They had a centre spread article describing how Jeremy Corbyn getting into power turns the UK into a failed state.
They employ *Richard Littlejohn*.
As someone who grew up with the Mail being the only newspaper in the house, and reading their daily 'gays are evil' stories, I think you are out of your tree if you think they are equivalent. That paper is fucking evil.
Nicktendo86
Member
I get that, but it isn't proper process. The accusations are some of the very worst that could be levelled at someone and any leaks that you are being interviewed is enough to ruin someone's life and career. The police have been totally inept over the years but he rights of the accused must be repected, they shouldn't be trying to make up for incompetence by not following due process.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah, the Guardian is at worst an inverse Telegraph. The Daily Mail is on another level of messed up entirely.
Nicktendo86
Member
Maybe that's a more apt comparison. I take neither the mail or guardian serious anyway.
The guardian employs Owen Jones and Polly Toynbee for goodness sake.
CyclopsRock
Member
tbf the Guardian just printed an opinion piece about how roast dinners evoke "received memories of oppression and an enslaved work force" so yeah.
Nicktendo86
Member
They had one a little while ago about how we shouldn't have BBQ's as it invokes memories of slavery.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Polly Toynbee is fairly dreadful, but not really worse than say, the Telegraph's Heffer. Owen Jones actually writes some good articles from time to time, so I think that one is unfair. Also, if you ignore comment/opinion piece/editorials, the Guardian probably has the best reportage of any of the main newspapers at the moment, which is... about 90% of what a newspaper actually does. The Telegraph used to be a competitor, but given what we now know from Peter Oborne, much less so. The Independent's reportage has really gone downhill since they released the i as everything is written with the intention of being cut apart later, and the Times has always had dreadful reporting.
Nicktendo86
Member
You've just reminded me Crab I still need to get an Owen Jones "Russell Brand has backed Labour and the Tories should be worried mug" 
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
That was in response to phisheep pointing out that a journalist was present, and not in any way shape or form a defence of leaks about the accused, which is unacceptable and not the correct way of doing things. Sorry for any confusion!
The Guardian has its share of weak correspondents but it is always willing to post op-ed pieces from those it disagrees with, so to complain about some nonsense about barbecue slavery is a bit weak. The actual journalism they perform is as strong as any serious newspaper. To compare them to the Telegraph who are an openly compromised source of journalism is completely wrong. The Telegraph cannot be trusted as a source of news; they are awful (just yesterday they took a speech by Iannucci and turned it completely on its head to make it criticise the bbc, for example). They have do have some nice columnists though.
RobotNinjaHornets
Banned
I'm quite amused by Toynbee warning people against voting Corbyn because it could cause a split like the SDP, in a way that suggests that she had no part in it
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
You've just reminded me Crab I still need to get an Owen Jones "Russell Brand has backed Labour and the Tories should be worried mug"
Honestly? I don't think he was entirely wrong. I mean, yes, he was wrong about 2015, just because there aren't enough 18-24 year olds to seriously effect the outcome, but I do think the Conservatives have cause for concern over the fact young people hate them. Demographics do not favour them at all. 2015 was one of Labour's worst ever defeats... but they beat the Conservatives in the 18-24, 25-34, 35-44, and 45-54 demographics (albeit narrowly in the last few). The Conservative vote is mostly old people and old people die. It's a commonly given truism that people vote Conservative more as they get older. This is one of those commonly repeated political statements everyone knows is fact that is actually wrong.
Zoom back in time, and in the '79 election the old overwhelmingly voted Labour. What actually happens is something called the cohort effect - most people settle upon on an ideology as a result of formative events in their early political awareness and then never change [swing voters are a tiny fraction of the electorate]. When the 55-64 and 65+ demographics first started voting, before and up to 1979, younger people (i.e., the people who are 55+ now) were more rightwing than older people - their formative years were the trade union strikes and IMF crisis. It's not that people get more Conservative as they get older, it's that fewer and fewer new voters are becoming Conservative and the existing ones are getting older!
In about 15 years, if the Conservatives haven't managed to totally reshape their youth image, they will be a dead or dying party. Corbyn is, if anything, ahead of his time, not behind it.
TBF to the Graun you sometimes need to separate out CIF from their real paper output.
A lot of CIF stuff is just clickbait parody.
Thomas the Tank Engine is racist.
Tea is a national disgrace.
None of that nonsense gets printed in the actual paper and i'm sure most of the employed journo's there shake their head at the utter crap that gets posted on CIF.
Wake me up again when they print something as flagrantly disgusting as Jan Moir's article about Stephen Gately or Katie Hopkins' think piece comparing immigrants to cockroaches in The Sun.
Nicktendo86
Member
Note to self: don't take the piss out of the guardian. The Mail and Murdoch press are fair game however.
Migration figures today are... Slightly embarrassing for Cameron to say the least.
Migration figures today are... Slightly embarrassing for Cameron to say the least.
RobotNinjaHornets
Banned
Well at least the mortality figures for people losing benefits after a work capability assessment are low.
...oh no wait hang on
I'm happy to take the piss out of the graun. It posts a lot of left spin nonsense in the same way right wing ones do. It doesn't do it in as hateful way as some of the tabloid press though.
As said as well it does give a massive airing to Champagne Socialists in CIF to often hilarious results.
I mean if you're say something as patently idiotic as 'The Guardian is the left-wing Daily Mail', you should expect people to respond.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked