Support NeoGAF

[Saiyar]

BBC

Chilcot report is getting published July 6th.

 

[tomtom94]

Cheers for Corbyn at the PLP meeting, apparently. The end times must be near.

 

[Nicktendo86]

It basically has, and that breaks my heart ;_;

It's a great thread Quiche, sure it will live on

 

[PJV3]

Cheers for Corbyn at the PLP meeting, apparently. The end times must be near.

Nah, critics are still passing George Eaton their Corbyn insults from the meeting. Khan got the bigger round of applause.

 

[Beefy]

BBC

Chilcot report is getting published July 6th.

I wonder how much he has been paid?

 

[Nicktendo86]

BBC

Chilcot report is getting published July 6th.

Pretty sure that is one sign of the apocalypse

 

[Jezbollah]

The responses for the Chilcot enquiry are going to be depressingly predictable I'm afraid

 

[Beefy]

The responses for the Chilcot enquiry are going to be depressingly predictable I'm afraid

"Blair did no wrong" "There was evidence of WMD's" etc.

 

[Coriolanus]

To be fair, who would trust a man with a last name like Blix?

 

[Saiyar]

The responses for the Chilcot enquiry are going to be depressingly predictable I'm afraid

Apparently it is absolutely savage towards Blair. I wonder if Gordon Brown intended this as one last "fuck you" to Tony.

 

[PJV3]

Is Chilcot going to change anything?
We know Blair was a dodgy bastard and the military and intelligence service contributed to the mess.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

Cameron's 'Brexit could cause WW3' comments (I'm obviously paraphrasing there) today are an embarrassment. A few months ago he was saying he would be willing to walk away if he didn't get a few meagre changes from the EU, but is now saying if we did Europe would descend into war? Who does he think he is kidding?

Would post this in the Brexit thread btw but that seems to have died, maybe it will pick up now we are entering the shot campaign.

The entire media (print/tv/social) is resembling the ministry of truth.

 

[Plasma]

Cameron's 'Brexit could cause WW3' comments (I'm obviously paraphrasing there) today are an embarrassment. A few months ago he was saying he would be willing to walk away if he didn't get a few meagre changes from the EU, but is now saying if we did Europe would descend into war? Who does he think he is kidding?

Would post this in the Brexit thread btw but that seems to have died, maybe it will pick up now we are entering the shot campaign.

He's also said Corbyn is a threat to national security so I wouldn't take him too seriously.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

I'll nip over there and liven it up a bit sometime in the next week. I still want you to vote "remain", Quiche!

Great! I don't think you'll persuade me, but if anyone on here can it's probably you.

eu referendum is just going to be a month more of who can say the most outrageously over the top thing possible every fucking day

i'm very pro eu but no-one should seriously think having a similar relationship to the continent as norway would be catastrophic.

he's always been like this imo

i really think the surprise majority in 2015 made him out to be far more incisive and shrewd than he actually is.

just as a political figure he's simply not of the quality of blair or thatcher

The pre-GE debates confirmed this for me. First of all he tried the "Trump method" (before it was called that) of trying to avoid as many of them as possible, and when he did turn up he seemed to want to say as little as possible. He seemed to basically have realised 'I might do alright if I just say and do nothing, but I'm in a precarious position'. I can't really imagine Blair or Thatcher ever doing that.

 

[Moosichu]

I can't believe how the government is fucking up education so much. Why?????

 

[JonathanEx]

I note Trump said Sadiq Khan could be an exception to his ban on Muslims.

Now this is all funny and all, but actually, seeing as the Tory part was all ready to call him an extremist and a friend of terrorists etc, does this mean Trump has a more favourable view of muslims than our own government?

TWIST!

 

[Mr. Sam]

I can't believe how the government is fucking up education so much.

I've not been following it studiously but they did a full u-turn on their ridiculous academies plan, didn't they?

 

[CyclopsRock]

I note Trump said Sadiq Khan could be an exception to his ban on Muslims.

Now this is all funny and all, but actually, seeing as the Tory part was all ready to call him an extremist and a friend of terrorists etc, does this mean Trump has a more favourable view of muslims than our own government?

TWIST!

Thing is, I think as a kickback to the obvious baiting and over-zealousness of Zac's article (and other aspects of his campaign), we're all kinda sweeping under the rug the genuinely questionable associations he's had. There's not nothing there.

 

[Mr. Sam]

Thing is, I think as a kickback to the obvious baiting and over-zealousness of Zac's article (and other aspects of his campaign), we're all kinda sweeping under the rug the genuinely questionable associations he's had. There's not nothing there.

E.G.?

 

[Moosichu]

I've not been following it studiously but they did a full u-turn on their ridiculous academies plan, didn't they?

Schools have still had to face really sharp budget cuts. Exams are far more grinding well. Since I left my old school 3 years ago, students have access to far less resources than I did. The Arts have been absolutely gutted as well which is not good at all. The government is taking the approach of putting the high achievers in school first, when so much research has shown that the most gains are made by focusing on everyone equally.

 

[JonathanEx]

Cameron, expert in being caught on mic, calling out countries for being corrupt ahead of his anti-corruption summit: https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/730034849239556096

 

[tomtom94]

Cameron, expert in being caught on mic, calling out countries for being corrupt ahead of his anti-corruption summit: https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/730034849239556096

Well he didn't call them bigoted, so that's something I guess

 

[War Peaceman]

Well they are definitely corrupt, can't dispute that one.

 

[Jezbollah]

Did any of you guys seeing IDS trying to appeal to a demographic that sounded a lot like core Labour voters in his most recent Leave speech?

I don't think he'll get any message through somehow

 

[CyclopsRock]

E.G.?

Here's what a chum of mine put on FB (sorry to do that, but it's a decent summary):

I'm proud of London for electing a Muslim and being the first western city to do so. But there are issues with Sadiq Khan which cannot be aired in left wing circles without immediate being dismissed but which are important. The issues around him sharing a platform with people with unsavory views (something Corbyn has an affinity for) have either been portrayed as evidence of his support for extremist views by the right wing or disregarded by the left entirely.

When Obama's local church's preacher, Jeremiah Wright, was found to have said some pretty divisive and hateful things, the furore was great and it resulted in Obama having to resign his membership of the church. The imam at Sadiq Khan's own mosque has been a figurehead in local campaigns against a minority sect in Islam, the Ahmadis, that Hena and I are members of. But any attempts at discussing this are deflected as "racist" or "islamophobic". Were Sadiq Khan a christian who attended a church where a pastor campaigned against a minority christian sect in a similar fashion, doubtless the left would be outraged and campaign against him, equipped as we are with hundreds of years of experience of campaigning against the power of established church.Yet the left's religious illiteracy around Islam means these issues get a free pass. The tendency to simplify everything as either liberal and accepting or racist and bigoted means groups like Ahmadis get lost in the middle. To adapt an old phrase, the first casualty of political campaigning is any fucking subtlety whatsoever.

The issue with Khan and Ahmadis is one I have a personal interest in, but there are several other areas that could not be discussed by the left because, as usual, discussion around these subjects is shut down immediately. His history as a human rights lawyer doesn't mean what everyone seems to think it means. Human Rights Lawyer does not equal superhero. Anyone can have a human rights lawyer. Convicted terrorists, mass murderers and dictators have human rights lawyers (Khan himself has said he has represented some "pretty unsavoury characters".).

Whilst London celebrate Khan's win, Ahmadis will wonder if this is a mayor that can represent them after attending Juma'h prayers led by an imam who campaigns against them. Jews will be wondering if he represents them after he shares a platform with anti-semites. These issues are easily dismissed by those with no stake in them.

He's not a huge fan of Corbyn really, but he's a lifelong Labour voter.

 

[twobear]

i was going to say i was shocked that cyclopsrock was trying to push a narrative about how unsavoury the labour guy is in the wake of a tory election campaign based around the concept that 'he's brown therefore terrorist' but thinking about it i don't think i'm shocked at all

 

[Mr. Sam]

Here's what a chum of mine put on FB (sorry to do that, but it's a decent summary):

I can't really comment on the imam thing without getting a source. However, I will say your friend has quite spectacularly misunderstood the "human rights lawyer" argument. The argument was that Khan "associated with extremists" because he was a human rights lawyer, i.e. you wouldn't point at a criminal lawyer and say he must be in the mafia because of the sheer amount of criminals with whom he'd associated. Your friend, on the other hand, is pretty much parroting Zac Goldsmith's line and not really adding as much nuance to the debate as he might think.

 

[CyclopsRock]

i was going to say i was shocked that cyclopsrock was trying to push a narrative about how unsavoury the labour guy is in the wake of a tory election campaign based around the concept that 'he's brown therefore terrorist' but thinking about it i don't think i'm shocked at all

"about how unsavoury"? My exact words were that he had "genuinely questionable associations". Which he does.

I can't really comment on the imam thing without getting a source. However, I will say your friend has quite spectacularly misunderstood the "human rights lawyer" argument. The argument was that Khan "associated with extremists" because he was a human rights lawyer, i.e. you wouldn't point at a criminal lawyer and say he must be in the mafia because of the sheer amount of criminals with whom he'd associated. Your friend, on the other hand, is pretty much parroting Zac Goldsmith's line and not really adding as much nuance to the debate as he might think.

He wasn't really making a point re: the Human Rights Lawyer thing - just saying that being a human rights lawyer doesn't mean you're "good". That doesn't address the issue that you raised but the 'human rights lawyer' aspect of the discussion on his character isn't simply "this" or "that".

And he's an Ahmadi and he doesn't feel comfortable with Khan for the reasons stated. Is your response "He's wrong to feel like that"?

 

[twobear]

"about how unsavoury"? My exact words were that he had "genuinely questionable associations". Which he does.

hmm interesting, so you don't deny trying to distract attention from the profoundly xenophobic Tory campaign, you're just quibbling over the wording of your attempt

 

[CyclopsRock]

hmm interesting, so you don't deny trying to distract attention from the profoundly xenophobic Tory campaign, you're just quibbling over the wording of your attempt

I tried to distract from Zacs campaign by saying "the obvious baiting and over-zealousness of Zac's article (and other aspects of his campaign)"? Alright, man.

My point was literally that Zacs shitty, baiting campaign is having the effect of making people *less* inclined to discuss the actual dodgy relationships Sadiq has (lest people think they're cheerleading for Zac), and all you're trying to say is that I'm cheerleading for Zac, someone with whom I've never even expressed a preference.

 

[PJV3]

He wasn't really making a point re: the Human Rights Lawyer thing - just saying that being a human rights lawyer doesn't mean you're "good". That doesn't address the issue that you raised but the 'human rights lawyer' aspect of the discussion on his character isn't simply "this" or "that".

And he's an Ahmadi and he doesn't feel comfortable with Khan for the reasons stated. Is your response "He's wrong to feel like that"?

I thought being Ahmadi was widely held by mainstream Islam to be a bad thing, they're considered heretics. I'm not defending Khan as I found the whole Jewish-islam thing being a major issue in London depressing.

 

[twobear]

at this point shouldn't the thread have turned into a seven page argument about 'the tory party's ongoing problem with islamophobia'?

 

[fizzelopeguss]

I tried to distract from Zacs campaign by saying "the obvious baiting and over-zealousness of Zac's article (and other aspects of his campaign)"? Alright, man.

My point was literally that Zacs shitty, baiting campaign is having the effect of making people *less* inclined to discuss the actual dodgy relationships Sadiq has (lest people think they're cheerleading for Zac), and all you're trying to say is that I'm cheerleading for Zac, someone with whom I've never even expressed a preference.

...Pick up that can.

 

[Coriolanus]

Hm.

This is peculiar.

Yknow some months back, when some here argued that the kind of left that Corbs represented would find no support with the masses, which is why it would be better if he shut the fuck up about it, for the business of winning elections was far more important than the issues that the lefty left wanted to discuss? And all the accompanying arguments?

It's pretty much like that with the points your friend raises, Cyke.

 

[Jezbollah]

Oh dear. Queen Liz doesn't like the Chinese much does she?

 

[CyclopsRock]

Hm.

This is peculiar.

Yknow some months back, when some here argued that the kind of left that Corbs represented would find no support with the masses, which is why it would be better if he shut the fuck up about it, for the business of winning elections was far more important than the issues that the lefty left wanted to discuss? And all the accompanying arguments?

It's pretty much like that with the points your friend raises, Cyke.

As in, thats a small issue that's not important generally and it's more important that he wins? Sure. I don't actually know, but I wouldn't be surprised if my chum actually voted for Khan in spite of that because I know he'd rather have a Labour mayor than a Tory one. I think his point, though, (and by virtue of my copy and pasting it, my point) is that this doesn't nullify the accusations. He can simultaneously have questionable associations *and* still be the best candidate for the job on spite of this.

I guess the guy's final line is a decent summary (I'm on my phone so I can't see it, but it was approximately "it's easy to ignore it when it doesn't affect you.") This, imo, is a bit distinct from, say, Jezza going to a CND rally to stump for a position his own party doesn't even hold, because nuclear disarmament isn't some minority issue; it's simply one which most people are familiar with but is very low down their list of political priorities.

 

[It's Reyn Time!]

It sounds like your 'mate on facebook' is a racist sack of shit to be honest. That entire rant comes down to 'he went to a mosque where someone with an opinion also went and didn't immediately beg for forgiveness'.

Add in a spot of 'we just get shut down if we try to talk about it!' and it bears all the hallmarks of a Donald Trump supporter. Perhaps the reason that racist dog whistling is getting shut down is because it's obvious bollocks.

 

[Lirlond]

His mate has genuine concern over sectarianism. Khan has known associations with sectarian Imams, a similar example would be a catholic afraid because the newly elected mayor has ties to a protestant Priest who has been known to condone violence against catholics.

 

[RobotNinjaHornets]

*patiently awaits the outrage at Boris Johnson calling David Cameron demented*

 

[kmag]

Say what you want about Brown (and I frequently do) but when he's on point he's the most capable public speaker in UK politics (yes, even better than Blair or Cameron)

His EU speech today was a clear class above anything to this point in the campaign.

 

[Phantast2k]

Oh dear. Queen Liz doesn't like the Chinese much does she?

Well they're very rude:
https://youtu.be/Tl5DgzcWD_Q

 

[jelly]

Well they're very rude:
https://youtu.be/Tl5DgzcWD_Q

That's quite funny, living up to the stereotype.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Say what you want about Brown (and I frequently do) but when he's on point he's the most capable public speaker in UK politics (yes, even better than Blair or Cameron)

His EU speech today was a clear class above anything to this point in the campaign.

I liked his speech during the Scottish indyref. Shame the No camp only wheeled him out at the 11th hour.

 

[Roberto Larcos]

Say what you want about Brown (and I frequently do) but when he's on point he's the most capable public speaker in UK politics (yes, even better than Blair or Cameron)

His EU speech today was a clear class above anything to this point in the campaign.

Anyone have a link?

 

[It's Reyn Time!]

His mate has genuine concern over sectarianism. Khan has known associations with sectarian Imams, a similar example would be a catholic afraid because the newly elected mayor has ties to a protestant Priest who has been known to condone violence against catholics.

Presumably his mate has similar concerns about people our Prime Minister attends church with, and their beliefs, has put a similar level of research into their backgrounds and is very concerned about what having an evangelical Christian in power means for everyone? Because that's the level of 'ties' and 'association' they're talking about.

It's absolute bollocks meant to obfuscate a very clearly racist agenda, and I am not even a little bit surprised it's gained traction with certain white, middle class people.

 

[Coriolanus]

As in, thats a small issue that's not important generally and it's more important that he wins? Sure. I don't actually know, but I wouldn't be surprised if my chum actually voted for Khan in spite of that because I know he'd rather have a Labour mayor than a Tory one. I think his point, though, (and by virtue of my copy and pasting it, my point) is that this doesn't nullify the accusations. He can simultaneously have questionable associations *and* still be the best candidate for the job on spite of this.

I guess the guy's final line is a decent summary (I'm on my phone so I can't see it, but it was approximately "it's easy to ignore it when it doesn't affect you.") This, imo, is a bit distinct from, say, Jezza going to a CND rally to stump for a position his own party doesn't even hold, because nuclear disarmament isn't some minority issue; it's simply one which most people are familiar with but is very low down their list of political priorities.

And my argument is that, because the issue is (most likely) so small and of no relevance or knowledge whatsoever to the general voting public, it'll be ignored at no real detriment to the party.

Until a guy from his part of the metaphorical woods gets elected in some manner and is then in a position to start pushing those points in some manner, all the while having to deal with the dissenters/backstabbers that will keep telling him it's best to shut up about it, or do you want the tories to stay in power for a century?

And yeah, the summary is quite valid.

 

[anonymous_abc]

Anyone have a link?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36263256

 

[Nicktendo86]

Say what you want about Brown (and I frequently do) but when he's on point he's the most capable public speaker in UK politics (yes, even better than Blair or Cameron)

His EU speech today was a clear class above anything to this point in the campaign.

His pacing around the stage is rather off-putting though. Otherwise yeah I agree.

 

[Saiyar]

Industry is back in recession. Given the poor April numbers a leave vote would probably put us in a full blown recession. I expect this to be a major talking point for the remain campaign.

 

[Beefy]

Industry is back in recession. Given the poor April numbers a leave vote would probably put us in a full blown recession. I expect this to be a major talking point for the remain campaign.

Nah it will be scare tactics.