The UK Politics Thread [Wot did Jez do now...]

[Henry]

We haven't moved away from that. People die because of social problems, and health problems - and Tory policy increases those.

There's a pretty well defined poverty line with 10 million people beneath it, a figure that has risen in recent years. I doubt you can ever eliminate it completely, but several other countries have done better.

[QE Harold Flair]

In your opinion. If that's the case they will be voted out, won't they?

It's surprising all these EU migrants come here to live in poverty.

[Henry]

No, their being voted out doesn't follow. People (rightly or wrongly) vote based on all kinds of other things.

[Lewis]

Jacob Rees-Mogg was good on Newsnight.

[QE Harold Flair]

Henners interviewing Farage:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngmoUfjh0cc

[Yevrah]

Fuck Peter Hitchens. The fact that some poverty is worse than other poverty is not demonstrative of anything.

It does envoke that Thatcher quote though, and there's no doubt that the term poverty is thrown around like confetti as far as the UK is concerned.

FWIW, I'm glad the Lords kicked this out/postponed it though.

[Yevrah]

There's a pretty well defined poverty line with 10 million people beneath it.

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about - when it's defined on those levels it ceases to mean anything. Like fuck do 1 in 6 people in this country live in actual poverty.

[Yevrah]

I agree - if tax credits were eased out then it would be less of an issue. The fact that it isn't and will put people's lives at risk is the deal breaker.

For fuck's sake, what is wrong with the left?

The Tories are bad bad people for doing this in the way they've proposed, but putting people's lives at risk? Fucking hell.

Getting people off the drug of tax credits is the right idea, but the solution has been ill thought out. What should have happened, if there needed to be an overlap, was that those better off (myself being one of them at this moment in time) should have covered that overlap - the Tories are wankers for not proposing this and deserve all the fair criticism they get as a result. But "putting people's lives at risk"? Have a day off.

[Toby]

Don't people pretty regularly "freeze to death" in Britain? I'm sure there's a news report every year saying the figure has risen as well.

[Boydy]

There's no need to cut tax credits if the Tories were actually creating the higg wage, low welfare economy they say they're trying to because if people were on high enough wages, they wouldn't be getting tax credits anyway.

[Jimmy Floyd]

It's a credit to British democracy that a shit government plan is getting cunted without the official opposition having any influence on proceedings at any stage.

[Henry]

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about - when it's defined on those levels it ceases to mean anything. Like fuck do 1 in 6 people in this country live in actual poverty.

Argument from incredulity isn't really valid though.

[Kikó]

For fuck's sake, what is wrong with the left?

The Tories are bad bad people for doing this in the way they've proposed, but putting people's lives at risk? Fucking hell.

Getting people off the drug of tax credits is the right idea, but the solution has been ill thought out. What should have happened, if there needed to be an overlap, was that those better off (myself being one of them at this moment in time) should have covered that overlap - the Tories are wankers for not proposing this and deserve all the fair criticism they get as a result. But "putting people's lives at risk"? Have a day off.

Hold up - have you ever suffered poverty? Just because it's inconceivable to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen (it's inconceivable to me as well thankfully.)

I agree with the idea as well, if you're going to get rid of tax credits, you do it so they overlap to correctly incentivise people to work.

[Henry]

UK GDP growth slows more than expected to 0.5% (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/27/uk-gdp-growth-slows-george-osborne)

More great new for those promoting expansionary austerity!

[Lewis]

Don't people pretty regularly "freeze to death" in Britain? I'm sure there's a news report every year saying the figure has risen as well.

Unless you're ninety you shouldn't be freezing to death.

[QE Harold Flair]

Don't people pretty regularly "freeze to death" in Britain? I'm sure there's a news report every year saying the figure has risen as well.

Yes, the elderly do sometimes. But that's not the fault of the government. Pensioners have been treated very well by this government and yet I'm sure some will freeze to death.

I'm not entirely sure the tax credits would help them much, just to put it in the correct context.

[QE Harold Flair]

Hold up - have you ever suffered poverty? Just because it's inconceivable to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen (it's inconceivable to me as well thankfully.)

I agree with the idea as well, if you're going to get rid of tax credits, you do it so they overlap to correctly incentivise people to work.

If 'poverty' means not always being able to eat what one wants, yes. I don't see many emaciated children walking around, do you? Aren't we the most obese nation in Europe? Doesn't seem many are going hungry to me.

[QE Harold Flair]

UK GDP growth slows more than expected to 0.5% (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/27/uk-gdp-growth-slows-george-osborne)

More great new for those promoting expansionary austerity!

The alternative to austerity elsewhere has done much worse though, hasn't it? Let's just ignore that.

[phonics]

Only China and Japan have had their data added for this Quarter but outside of that this is a great resource for this stuff.

https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=350

[Henry]

The alternative to austerity elsewhere has done much worse though, hasn't it? Let's just ignore that.

No, let's insist that it isn't true, such as in the United States, where a policy of moderate stimulus was pursued, and where the economy is doing much better.

[phonics]

Not really comparable due to its ability to act as its own market and its large industrial sector. You want to compare France, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Spain etc.

[Lewis]

That and its ENERGY REVOLUTION.

[Henry]

Not really comparable due to its ability to act as its own market and its large industrial sector. You want to compare France, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Spain etc.

You can rarely compare any two countries directly. Most of those have undertaken austerity as well anyway, and don't have their own currency (and thus control over monetary policy).

[QE Harold Flair]

No, let's insist that it isn't true, such as in the United States, where a policy of moderate stimulus was pursued, and where the economy is doing much better.

That well known European country, the United States, well known for having an economy entirely synonymous with our own.

Greece went anti-austerity.... until they realised that when in power you actually have some responsibility.

[Henry]

That well known European country, the United States, well known for having an economy entirely synonymous with our own.

Greece went anti-austerity.... until they realised that when in power you actually have some responsibility.

Greece did not go anti-austerity. They have had ruinous austerity year on year for almost a decade. That you think otherwise is utterly ridiculous and speaks to a complete disconnect with reality.

[QE Harold Flair]

So Syriza didn't come in on the anti-austerity ticket and then be forced to change their mind because of reality?

[Henry]

They changed their mind - that is, they didn't actually implement anti-austerity policies.

(The reason being that they weren't in control of their currency and had no other option without leaving the Euro.)

[phonics]

http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article6714566.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/JS74494464.jpg

I'm getting into Politics.

[QE Harold Flair]

They changed their mind - that is, they didn't actually implement anti-austerity policies.

(The reason being that they weren't in control of their currency and had no other option without leaving the Euro.)



The pseudo-left covers up for Syriza’s betrayal

:happycry:


Wednesday’s vote in the Greek parliament, in which Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras rammed through over 900 pages of European Union (EU) austerity measures dictated by Berlin, completes a devastating betrayal of the Greek people by Tsipras’s Syriza (“Coalition of the Radical Left”) party.
Virtually overnight, Syriza has embraced austerity as if it were the most natural policy in the world, trampling its electoral pledges to end the EU Memorandum and the 61 percent “no” vote against EU austerity in the July 5 referendum. Its agenda of social cuts, reactionary legal “reforms” and privatizations totaling tens of billions of euros will devastate Greece. The consequences will be horrific for millions of Greek workers already facing hunger, joblessness and lack of medical care.

:happycry:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/07/24/pers-j24.html

[phonics]

Who would post on something called The World Socialist Website.

[Henry]

:happycry:



:happycry:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/07/24/pers-j24.html

Right, so that states the very opposite of what you claimed a few posts ago. Why are you highlighting it?

[QE Harold Flair]

No, it states exactly what I said - Syriza came to power on an anti-austerity ticket and then caved in to austerity almost immediately.

[SvN]

I feel like every thread I visit, Harold is arguing with someone.

[QE Harold Flair]

It's true, because they won't desist from lieing about things, just seemingly to disagree with me.

[Henry]

No, it states exactly what I said - Syriza came to power on an anti-austerity ticket and then caved in to austerity almost immediately.

What you said is that Greece "went anti-austerity". This was in the context of a discussion of countries who had actually implemented anti-austerity policies, so what you meant is that they had implemented such policies.

You'll now deny this of course. So fuck you very much, I'm out.

[QE Harold Flair]

It has gone anti-austerity, as is pointed out. It's been forced to, by reality. Something I also said.

[Lewis]

http://peoplesppe.com/

Lads.

[phonics]

Our local Uni looks like something out of The Prison Experiment but seems to be good.

http://www.tdgemploi.ch/images/detailed/121/2014-03-28_165024.jpg

[QE Harold Flair]

Foreigners may be charged for A&E treatment under new proposals

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/foreigners-may-be-charged-for-aande-treatment-under-new-proposals/ar-BBmEbJZ?li=AAaeUIW


Terrific news. Let's hope this sticks. Although they should be charging EU foreigners, too.

[Reg]

What a mighty shit catchphrase "emotive claptrap" is.

[QE Harold Flair]

It does its job.

[Lee]

We already charge non-EU foreigners, just not in advance of treatment. We have reciprocal arrangements with EU (and some Commonwealth) countries which means British citizens get health benefits if they require care abroad.

[QE Harold Flair]

That's great, but we have nearly double the amount of EU immigrants come here as we do leave. Net loss, and by some distance.

[Lee]

Indeed. Loads of us go on holiday to southern Europe and end up in states requiring hospital treatment though.

This isn't really going to make a financial difference given we charge these people anyway. It is clever politics though. It all adds to the false notion that there is a financial crisis in the NHS and penny pinching is necessary.

[QE Harold Flair]

It will make a difference in that people won't come here solely for free treatment, and any cuts in waiting times/costs to the NHS ought to be encouraged. I'm not sure why you claim it to be a myth that the NHS costs too much.

[Lee]

We pay less for our health service than almost any other developed nation. What we get in return for what we put in is massive value for money. Anyway I didn't say it doesn't cost too much (although it doesn't) I said there was no NHS financial crisis as reported by Mr Hunt and the newspapers.

[QE Harold Flair]

Are there any papers which don't acknowledge that the NHS costs too much money as it is?

Anyway, moving on - what is it with Labour MP's and their terrorist sympathies, mixed with a side order of anti-Jew narrative?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS9XP5sy4V0

[Jimmy Floyd]

The Prime Minister - you know, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - has just said in the Commons that he gives Jeremy Corbyn 'full Marx' for leading Labour to the left.

[Byron]

Stunning Bantz there.

[Disco]

He's basically nicking stuff from Private Eye now.

[phonics]

Cameron also dismissed a warning from Corbyn that the proposed cuts to tax credits would hit a private in the army with two children and a partner would lose more than £2,000 a year. The prime minister replied that the Labour leader was in no position to talk about soldiers because they would be out of a job under his plans for the armed forces.

That's a solid defence of your policy, Dave. Well done.

[QE Harold Flair]

This crap about using individual cases is never going to work. Of course some people are going to lose out in every policy.

[phonics]

How many individual cases would be enough to make them not individual cases, Harold?

[QE Harold Flair]

I think, on balance, they have the right idea. Some will lose out, some won't. You can't please everyone.

[phonics]

Who will they please?

[Henry]

How many individual cases would be enough to make them not individual cases, Harold?

[QE Harold Flair]

2, technically. But I could make the case that those not affected or affected in a positive way because of the living wage is much, much higher. Does that mean I win?

[phonics]

I've been confused by this living wage stuff, by the by. Are they raising the Minimum Wage to the Living Wage or rasing the recommended Living Wage? We don't have minimum wage laws here so it's all a bit confusing.

[Henry]

2, technically. But I could make the case that those not affected or affected in a positive way because of the living wage is much, much higher. Does that mean I win?

No, it means that you can't dismiss arguments that refer to "individual cases", since those are simply representative of a much larger number of cases.

Nor is it okay to hurt the working poor because they're a minority.

[Boydy]

I've been confused by this living wage stuff, by the by. Are they raising the Minimum Wage to the Living Wage or rasing the recommended Living Wage? We don't have minimum wage laws here so it's all a bit confusing.

Thy're raising the minimum wage but not to the actual 'living wage' as calculated by some low-pay charity organisations. But they're calling it the living wage anyway even though it's not.

The Living Wage Foundation now recommends the living wage as £8.25 per hour and £9.40 per hour in London. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34692382

The government's 'living wage' will be £7.20 when it comes in and only apply to over 25s.

[phonics]

Will London still have a different Living Wage from elsewhere? Will it be adjusted across the country?

[niko_cee]

I have no idea about tax credits really, but is it unfair to characterise them as the government topping up (inadequate? [private sector??]) wages. If that is the case, allowing companies to not pay their staff enough and making up the difference doesn't seem an overly leftist ideal, in any sense other than the vote buying one (the key ideal of all modern political parties).

[QE Harold Flair]

No, it means that you can't dismiss arguments that refer to "individual cases", since those are simply representative of a much larger number of cases.

Nor is it okay to hurt the working poor because they're a minority.

Great, so if I show those individuals who will benefit, do I win?

[Boydy]

Will London still have a different Living Wage from elsewhere? Will it be adjusted across the country?

I don't think so. London's current living wage (the one calculated by the Living Wage Foundation) is £9.15. The Tories' one isn't planned to reach £9 until 2020.

[Henry]

Great, so if I show those individuals who will benefit, do I win?

Read my last post rather than ignoring it.

[Boydy]

I have no idea about tax credits really, but is it unfair to characterise them as the government topping up (inadequate? [private sector??]) wages. If that is the case, allowing companies to not pay their staff enough and making up the difference doesn't seem an overly leftist ideal, in any sense other than the vote buying one (the key ideal of all modern political parties).

Not an unfair characterisation. It's pretty much what they are. It's not a leftist ideal but it's better than people getting shit wages and being told to like it or lump it.

[phonics]

I don't think so. London's current living wage (the one calculated by the Living Wage Foundation) is £9.15. The Tories' one isn't planned to reach £9 until 2020.

With inflation, wouldn't minimum wage be 9 quid by 2020 anyway? I'm sure I remember calling Ed Miliband a cock for suggesting the same thing.

[Boydy]

Probably, yeah. It's just an outright lie by the Tories, really. It's only a raise in the minimum wage and younger people don't even get it because fuck them, they don't vote Tory.

[QE Harold Flair]

With inflation, wouldn't minimum wage be 9 quid by 2020 anyway? I'm sure I remember calling Ed Miliband a cock for suggesting the same thing.

The minimum wage didn't go up for years. You should be applauding what the Tories have implemented there. It's much higher than the minimum Labour wanted to bring in.

[phonics]

As mentioned above, I called the Labour idea crap. It's called 'independent thought' where I can agree with something on one level and disagree with it on another. Maybe you'll learn it some day.

[QE Harold Flair]

I go against the grain on most issues. I scarcely think I can be accused of non-independent thought. Still, we can both agree then that the Tories are ahead of all the other parties on the minimum wage, can't we?

It will make little difference, anyway. If everyone gets paid more then the prices of goods and services will simply go up.

[niko_cee]

Not an unfair characterisation. It's pretty much what they are. It's not a leftist ideal but it's better than people getting shit wages and being told to like it or lump it.

Is that what would happen (was happening?) though?

And if the answer is no, because there is always someone who will work for a pittance, then that probably throws up other questions.

[phonics]

It will make little difference, anyway. If everyone gets paid more then the prices of goods and services will simply go up.

Yes, it's about keeping the wages higher than the price of goods going up. It's the basic premise of inflation/deflation :cab:

You really do struggle when it comes to economics, don't you?

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes, it's about keeping the wages higher than the price of goods going up. It's the basic premise of inflation/deflation :cab:

You really do struggle when it comes to economics, don't you?

No, you struggle with reality. If the wages go too high then the big companies will find a way around it and the smaller companies will struggle. It will make no difference to people in the end as the price of goods and services will go up accordingly and people will be laid off. It's all very nice saying we should pay more than inflation but you can't make that the case when people will happily work for less. And we all know who those people are, largely.

Oh, and economists are also shit.

[Boydy]

Is that what would happen (was happening?) though?

And if the answer is no, because there is always someone who will work for a pittance, then that probably throws up other questions.

If there's always someone who'll work for a pittance, isn't the answer to your question 'yes'?

[Boydy]

I go against the grain on most issues. I scarcely think I can be accused of non-independent thought. Still, we can both agree then that the Tories are ahead of all the other parties on the minimum wage, can't we?

It will make little difference, anyway. If everyone gets paid more then the prices of goods and services will simply go up.

Hang on, weren't you the one going on about how if jobs picking fruit or whatever that foreigners come over to do for a pittance paid proper wages then British people would work them and we wouldn't need immigrants and everything would be fine and dandy?

[QE Harold Flair]

Hang on, weren't you the one going on about how if jobs picking fruit or whatever that foreigners come over to do for a pittance paid proper wages then British people would work them and we wouldn't need immigrants and everything would be fine and dandy?

I don't believe I said everything would be fine and dandy? But yes, it would help. It doesn't change anything I said. Those fruit pickers I referred to are getting less than minimum wage.

[Boydy]

I don't believe I said everything would be fine and dandy? But yes, it would help. It doesn't change anything I said. Those fruit pickers I referred to are getting less than minimum wage.

Even if they are (I'd imagine most aren't), there are laws to force the employers to pay minimum wage. You were, at the time of that discussion, advocating those jobs pay more so British people would do them but now you're saying higher wages would mean higher prices (which you were told at the time but I think your defence was "it's not all about economics"). Seems like you want higher wages when it's part of an anti-immigrant stance but don't agree with when it comes from a leftist perspective like of those who have been advocating it in here. Not very consistent.

[Henry]

At this point I'd like to point everyone to the existence of the "Ignore" feature on their profile pages. Alas I cannot use it being a moderator, but targeted correctly it may make the board a more enjoyable place. :)

[QE Harold Flair]

Even if they are (I'd imagine most aren't), there are laws to force the employers to pay minimum wage. You were, at the time of that discussion, advocating those jobs pay more so British people would do them but now you're saying higher wages would mean higher prices (which you were told at the time but I think your defence was "it's not all about economics"). Seems like you want higher wages when it's part of an anti-immigrant stance but don't agree with when it comes from a leftist perspective like of those who have been advocating it in here. Not very consistent.

Yes, they should pay minimum wage, at least. There is a medium you must get to, and simply paying every £10 an hour plus or whatever the class warriors demand these days will only serve to see more people out of jobs. It's a matter of striking the right balance which is what the Tories are trying to do. The left always love a good whinge at them but they never have any answers of their own, besides borrowing and borrowing. Let the next generation deal with the shit.

[niko_cee]

If there's always someone who'll work for a pittance, isn't the answer to your question 'yes'?

Well, yeah. Caveat with wrong word.

[QE Harold Flair]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg_NMTrgZrk

:evictory:

[Boydy]

Well, yeah. Caveat with wrong word.
The honest answer is, I don't know.

If you can get employers to pay more then I don't mind tax credits being taken away but to just cut them and then hope that employers are going to pay doesn't seem like the best way to go about it. It's like their expansionary fiscal contraction idea. It just seems to be "we'll cut this and then hope this other stuff fills in for it but if it doesn't we don't really care because all we want is to cut anyway".


Yes, they should pay minimum wage, at least. There is a medium you must get to, and simply paying every £10 an hour plus or whatever the class warriors demand these days will only serve to see more people out of jobs. It's a matter of striking the right balance which is what the Tories are trying to do. The left always love a good whinge at them but they never have any answers of their own, besides borrowing and borrowing. Let the next generation deal with the shit.

The next generation is already dealing with it since they're not getting any wages rises if they can even find jobs to begin with and they're going to be stuck renting for years if not forever.

[Henry]

The idea of public debt as being borrowing from the next generation is bullshit anyway. It's a claim of one part of society (pension funds etc.) on another (taxpayers).

[Lewis]

The easier solution would be to cut taxes to match/exceed the money people are losing. Inevitably some people might still lose out, but it solves the welfare issue.

[QE Harold Flair]

The next generation is already dealing with it since they're not getting any wages rises if they can even find jobs to begin with and they're going to be stuck renting for years if not forever.

They will be getting rises, though..... quite significantly so in some cases. More jobs would be available if we didn't insist on shipping in immigrants.

[Boydy]

They will be getting rises, though..... quite significantly so in some cases. More jobs would be available if we didn't insist on shipping in immigrants.

The Tories' 'National Living Wage' doesn't apply to under-25s.

[QE Harold Flair]

The Tories' 'National Living Wage' doesn't apply to under-25s.

That's true but they are giving a rise to apprentices as well. It's broadly the right way to go. Not everyone can get what they want. Most people these days don't leave home until their mid/late twenties, so maybe that was taken into consideration.

[Boydy]

I'm not sure if it's most people don't leave home until their mid-late twenties but even for those who are still at home, it's probably because they can't afford to move out rather than not wanting to. So it's not really taking that into consideration so much as exacerbating the problem.

The underlying issue to it all is the cost of housing. If it hadn't climbed so much, wages wouldn't even need to go up much. Bring it back down by building more houses and wages won't matter quite so much. But that won't happen because all the twats who have benefited from rising house pages would shit themselves and throw the government (whoever it happens to be) out.

[QE Harold Flair]

We all know that house prices are ridiculous and most of us will probably not own our home. I'm not sure what could actually be done about it, though. I agree with your sentiments on this.

[Boydy]

Build more, surely?

[Lewis]

Under twenty-fives should pay less taxes if they get stiffed on benefits and the minimum wage.

[QE Harold Flair]

Build more, surely?

I thought that's what they were planning to do?

[Boydy]

I'm not sure the levels they're planning are even enough to keep up with demand though, never mind actually increasing supply enough that prices will go down.

[QE Harold Flair]

Well, if the population goes up by 500,000 every year it's not going to be easy to build your way out of that.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Under twenty-fives should pay less taxes if they get stiffed on benefits and the minimum wage.

I've always wondered why they get stiffed on this. What is the rationale behind it? Either you're an adult or you're not.

[Boydy]

It's the experience argument, isn't it? At least it was for the lower levels of the minimum wage for under 21s. They need training etc whereas older people don't apparently. As if their employers were investing loads of money in training them in how to use a till in a supermarket.

[Toby]

I've always wondered why they get stiffed on this. What is the rationale behind it? Either you're an adult or you're not.

On the minimum wage it's that it gives them a better chance of finding work if employers can pay them less.

I'm less sure what the rationale of the benefits argument is.

[Lewis]

662247430956687360

That's interesting. Given that we're a pretty conservative country, and taking it to mean what came to pass rather than wanky theory ('Ooh, the state just withers away...'), my guess is that people 1) think fascism automatically means Nazism; 2) possibly don't know much about communist states.

[Henry]

Lewis the fascist.

[Byron]

I'd wager it's the first point where people assume Facism = Hitler.

[QE Harold Flair]

662247430956687360

That's interesting. Given that we're a pretty conservative country, and taking it to mean what came to pass rather than wanky theory ('Ooh, the state just withers away...'), my guess is that people 1) think fascism automatically means Nazism; 2) possibly don't know much about communist states.

It just goes to show that the Conservatives are not really Conservative by most definitions. Another endorsement of Peter Hitchens, I feel.

[Lewis]

Lewis the fascist.

Well yeah, given the choice between it and communism. Until it went ape shit during the war the vast majority of Germans were much 'safer' (as in less prone to being killed for no reason) than their Soviet equivalents.


It just goes to show that the Conservatives are not really Conservative by most definitions. Another endorsement of Peter Hitchens, I feel.

I said 'conservative'. Not 'Conservative'.

[QE Harold Flair]

I said 'conservative'. Not 'Conservative'.

That doesn't alter my point at all. The Conservatives used to cater to 'conservatives'. Hence the name.

[Henry]

Well yeah, given the choice between it and communism. Until it went ape shit during the war the vast majority of Germans were much 'safer' (as in less prone to being killed for no reason) than their Soviet equivalents.

Presumably most people don't make the automatic equation between communism and Stalinism which you do then.

[Lewis]

That doesn't alter my point at all. The Conservatives used to cater to 'conservatives'. Hence the name.

In which case your point has nothing to do with mine.


Presumably most people don't make the automatic equation between communism and Stalinism which you do then.

There wasn't another established communist state running alongside Nazi Germany, so it's the only fair comparison (especially since it compares 1939 poll results). Then again even the non-Stalinist regimes managed to do millions in, so they were hardly an improvement.

[Henry]

There wasn't another established communist state running alongside Nazi Germany, so it's the only fair comparison (especially since it compares 1939 poll results). Then again even the non-Stalinist regimes managed to do millions in, so they were hardly an improvement.

Obviously people don't agree with what you think is a fair comparison. They're free to make up their own minds.
And no, the ones who killed millions were more or less all Stalinist.

[Lewis]

The likes of China (biggest killer) and Cambodia (worst killer) were not Stalinists beyond also having paranoid shithouses in charge. Let's not get into how far they did and didn't adhere to wot Karl Marx said. In terms of what actually existed (which was presumably the basis for asking the question in 1939 given the context) the non-specific communist regimes were all worse.

[Henry]

No, those were both Stalinist.

The Sino-Soviet split happened when the Russians started denouncing Stalin and moved to the "peaceful coexistence" stuff, while the Chinese called themselves "anti-revisionists" and kept all the Stalin iconography, like so:

http://kasamaproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/hg_mao_stalin_g1.jpg

The Cambodians and others were just further developments from that.

I'm not big on Marx either, but not everyone identifies the base idea with the perversions of it, and that's reflected in the poll, whether you like it or not.
You've always been weak on fascism too.

[QE Harold Flair]

It had nothing to do with communism because I like communism!

[Henry]

I don't like communism, and it did have something to do with communism, so wrong on both points.

[Boydy]

Stalin's crimes probably weren't as bad as those of the British Empire anyway.

[QE Harold Flair]

Stalin's crimes probably weren't as bad as those of the British Empire anyway.

:roflol:

[Lewis]

No, those were both Stalinist.

The Sino-Soviet split happened when the Russians started denouncing Stalin and moved to the "peaceful coexistence" stuff, while the Chinese called themselves "anti-revisionists" and kept all the Stalin iconography, like so:

http://kasamaproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/hg_mao_stalin_g1.jpg

The Cambodians and others were just further developments from that.

I'm not big on Marx either, but not everyone identifies the base idea with the perversions of it, and that's reflected in the poll, whether you like it or not.
You've always been weak on fascism too.

That was cynical national interest stuff. Maoism and Stalinism differed on the peasantry/industrial workers crap, if only because China didn't have any of the latter, and Chinese policies were more ideologically-driven than what transpired in the Soviet Union (I would say Chinese policies were more concerned with creating a certain culture as well). It's a pretty meaningless difference really, but then if you're claiming that 'communism' in 1939 didn't mean what actually existed (Stalinism) then you have to accept those differences. Cambodia though was nothing like Stalinism. They completely rejected industrialisation (and therefore urbanisation) and thought they could jump to communism without any transitional phases.

I don't see how I'm 'weak on fascism'. It's a bag of shit. I just recognise that communism (or whatever you want to call what went on behind the Iron Curtain) was equally as bad, and actually far more murderous in 'peacetime' conditions.

[Spoonsky]

I think it could be said for a lot of people that fascism is theoretically bad, whereas communism has just proven to be practically bad. And, given the question, I think a lot of people will choose the one they see as having any potential (communism) over the one they find irredeemable no matter what.

What I often wonder is what would've happened if the Czechoslovaks' "Communism with a human face" hadn't been crushed by the Russians. That always struck me as by far the most appealing version of communism as practiced in the world, but would it have just gone the way of 1989 within a few years anyway?

[Jimmy Floyd]

No form of socialism or communism will ever succeed anywhere. It's against the laws of physics.

[Henry]

No form of socialism or communism will ever succeed anywhere. It's against the laws of physics.

Scandanavia disagrees.

[Henry]

That was cynical national interest stuff. Maoism and Stalinism differed on the peasantry/industrial workers crap, if only because China didn't have any of the latter, and Chinese policies were more ideologically-driven than what transpired in the Soviet Union (I would say Chinese policies were more concerned with creating a certain culture as well). It's a pretty meaningless difference really, but then if you're claiming that 'communism' in 1939 didn't mean what actually existed (Stalinism) then you have to accept those differences.

It wasn't "the same", but it was a development that came directly from Stalinism. The Khmer Rouge was another step along the line. All of this stuff ultimately is a development of Leninism, where a small group is entitled to appoint itself as a vangaurd on behalf of "the revolution", regardless of the feelings of the rest of the people. That was a radical departure from most Marxist/communist ideas of the early 20th century, and was harshly criticised as such. The only reason we're discussing it here is that it won in Russia and then spread elsewhere.
Clearly people are still aware to some extent aware that it was a perversion.


I don't see how I'm 'weak on fascism'. It's a bag of shit. I just recognise that communism (or whatever you want to call what went on behind the Iron Curtain) was equally as bad, and actually far more murderous in 'peacetime' conditions.

You've said in the past that those who were part of the anti-Nazi resistance were stupid and deserved what they got, among other things.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Scandanavia disagrees.

Scandinavia doesn't have socialism, it has social democracy. The difference is that the individual is acknowledged by the latter but dismissed by the former.

[phonics]

Debating what is shitter, communism or fascism, is rubbish. Heres a picture of a giant David Cameron and Friend at the Lewes Bonfire night.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTHJ5MJW4AIBuVD.jpg:large

[Henry]

Scandinavia doesn't have socialism, it has social democracy. The difference is that the individual is acknowledged by the latter but dismissed by the former.

Social democracy is a "form" of socialism, be it mixed with capitalism. Your attempt to elevate right-wing doctrine to the same level of "the laws of physics" is absurd.

[niko_cee]

Intentionally so, one would imagine.

[Jimmy Floyd]

If you look at the social structures of animals in the wild, most are naturally right wing, or at least small-c conservative. You don't get leopards clubbing together and saying actually, let's redistribute that impala for the good of leopards as a whole.

I'm pretty sure I saw a dog in a purple coat this morning too, which suggests they are naturally Ukip-leaning. It's arrogant to think we've got very far beyond basic survival mechanics.

[Henry]

It's a stupid comparison, but the idea that animals aren't social or don't share is bullshit. One of our closest relatives is the bonobo. We could do with learning a thing or two from them.

[phonics]

Henry....

[Boydy]

FFS, Henry.

[Toby]

It's a bit of a cop out from Floyd, as he's said that sort of thing before and clearly believes it to a greater extent than he's now making out.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I do believe it (the 'facts of life are conservative' at least), I just like drawing Henners into deadpan posts on absurd topics.

[John]

Henry's best po-faced posts tend to come unsolicited.


Tonight I shall go to the public house for some refreshments. I intend to become very refreshed indeed, and then hope to express myself sexually. :)

That, from a Lofty thread on Halloween, is my favourite. So, so creepy.

[Henry]

Ah, what use would a Friday morning be if I wasn't getting baited on TTH...

[Toby]

It's not really baiting, I think you were snared a while ago.

[Davgooner]

Any response from these two?


FFS, Henry.


Henry....

[Boydy]

Henry's best po-faced posts tend to come unsolicited.



That, from a Lofty thread on Halloween, is my favourite. So, so creepy.

That's a proper jemble post.

[Lewis]

It wasn't "the same", but it was a development that came directly from Stalinism. The Khmer Rouge was another step along the line. All of this stuff ultimately is a development of Leninism, where a small group is entitled to appoint itself as a vangaurd on behalf of "the revolution", regardless of the feelings of the rest of the people. That was a radical departure from most Marxist/communist ideas of the early 20th century, and was harshly criticised as such. The only reason we're discussing it here is that it won in Russia and then spread elsewhere.
Clearly people are still aware to some extent aware that it was a perversion.

They were pretty important (to them at least) developments and differences, and a vanguard was clearly necessary to getting any form of communism to get off the ground instead of waiting for the workers' rapture, so its 'perversion' made it possible. But whatever you want to call it, it was crap and gets an easier ride than fascism, which is surely reflected in the poll unless people are more clued-up on Marxist history than I give them credit for.


You've said in the past that those who were part of the anti-Nazi resistance were stupid and deserved what they got, among other things.

I think it was more that leafleting in the middle of wartime Hamburg was a bit stupid, not that opposing Nazism was.

[Henry]

They were pretty important (to them at least) developments and differences, and a vanguard was clearly necessary to getting any form of communism to get off the ground instead of waiting for the workers' rapture, so its 'perversion' made it possible.

Workers control was already a reality in much of Russia in 1917 - before the Bolsheviks took over and subordinated everything to themselves instead.


But whatever you want to call it, it was crap and gets an easier ride than fascism, which is surely reflected in the poll unless people are more clued-up on Marxist history than I give them credit for.

They don't have to be "clued up" to recognise that the ideal was the antithesis of the perversion of Stalinism. Whereas someone who is "clued up" such as yourself, shouldn't insist that they conflate the two.


I think it was more that leafleting in the middle of wartime Hamburg was a bit stupid, not that opposing Nazism was

You said that they deserved it what they got, and that it'd been better for them to keep shtum. And you're now claiming that there was clear blue water between fascism and "communism" that made the latter worse. I disagree.

[QE Harold Flair]

One of our closest relatives is the bonobo. We could do with learning a thing or two from them.

That thing you were trying to pull looked fairly close. Scoobs, wasn't it?

[Lee]

Bonobos do nothing but fuck so I'm with Henry.

[QE Harold Flair]

They steal jobs, too.

[Lewis]

Workers control was already a reality in much of Russia in 1917 - before the Bolsheviks took over and subordinated everything to themselves instead.

That reality was an ineffectual circle-jerk, hence the soviets supporting the Bolsheviks as the best way of actually getting something done, and the need for a civil war to make it stick.


They don't have to be "clued up" to recognise that the ideal was the antithesis of the perversion of Stalinism. Whereas someone who is "clued up" such as yourself, shouldn't insist that they conflate the two.

People clearly conflate the two (just as they conflate fascism and Nazism). You see Soviet iconography at pinko parades all the time for that very reason.


You said that they deserved it what they got, and that it'd been better for them to keep shtum. And you're now claiming that there was clear blue water between fascism and "communism" that made the latter worse. I disagree.

Well it would have been wouldn't it? You can't oppose much when you're dead, as 'communist' regimes realised all too well when they were racking up unprecedented death tolls.

[Henry]

That reality was an ineffectual circle-jerk, hence the soviets supporting the Bolsheviks as the best way of actually getting something done, and the need for a civil war to make it stick.

The Soviets (the ones that did, anyway) supported the Bolsheviks because they adopted the slogan "all power to the Soviets" - that is, they promised to deepen the system that had been created following the February Revolution, not to destroy it to "get something done" and start a civil war as they ended up doing. The vanguard party had not been necessary in setting up the workers control, only in destroying it.


People clearly conflate the two (just as they conflate fascism and Nazism). You see Soviet iconography at pinko parades all the time for that very reason.

Some people do, but this is a poll of the general public, not of people on pinko parades. I know it hinders your ability to knock lefties because Maoism but it is what it is.


Well it would have been wouldn't it?

It would not. Actions that put ones-self in danger but which assist in a small way in turning people against Nazism are admirable.

[QE Harold Flair]

Some aspects of Nazism are laudible.

[Lewis]

The Soviets (the ones that did, anyway) supported the Bolsheviks because they adopted the slogan "all power to the Soviets" - that is, they promised to deepen the system that had been created following the February Revolution, not to destroy it to "get something done" and start a civil war as they ended up doing. The vanguard party had not been necessary in setting up the workers control, only in destroying it.

The workers control was going nowhere and the soviets were sick of the provisional government, so you're making their support sound quite naive. Plus the soviet system was wrecked pretty incrementally, with the accumulation of war powers and what have you, so it's not like they rolled up and binned it all (other than the Constituent Assembly, which most people seem to accept was bent) like Oliver Cromwell.


Some people do, but this is a poll of the general public, not of people on pinko parades. I know it hinders your ability to knock lefties because Maoism but it is what it is.

You had a hammer and sickle avatar when I joined TD, and you aren't stupid or a Stalinist, so obviously you were using that as a general left-wing statement. I think it's unlikely that the people polled know more about the nuances of communism than you.


It would not. Actions that put ones-self in danger but which assist in a small way in turning people against Nazism are admirable.

Next time it's going off in Northern Ireland, go down the Shankill and tell them they're all twats. Or is that - whilst possibly admirable - not a great idea?

[Yevrah]

Some aspects of Nazism are laudible.

Go on....

[Reg]

I have a feeling that you're three and out rule might turn into a one and out rule, Yev.

[Yevrah]

I suspect so too.

[QE Harold Flair]

I'm not speaking of their destruction of races or anything, don't worry. But some of their social and welfare prgrams were superb. Sending people on vacations, helath programs etc. Strong family values - not the fatherless, feckless ones we tend to get these days. Low crime rates, animals welfare. The list goes on, really. They were also the foirst to ban smoking in public places.

[phonics]

Did Harold just suggest the government should pay for us to go on vacations? What are fatherless family values? So many questions, so little time.

[QE Harold Flair]

Most sane people agree that a child is better growing up with a mother and a father.

[Boydy]

'National socialism' has such a nice ring to it as well. That probably sounds like I'm taking the piss but I'm actually not.

What sort of stuff did they do on animal welfare, Harold? Again, I'm being serious. I don't know and I'm not trying to have a go or lay any traps.

[QE Harold Flair]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany

[QE Harold Flair]

Douglas Murray at his most lucid:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX914A6dbbs

[ItalAussie]

Most sane people agree that a child is better growing up with a mother and a father.There's certainly good statistical evidence that two parents provide better outcomes than one. Makes sense, given that parental attention is a hugely important factor in child development.

But interestingly, studies on the topic indicate that children of same-sex partners have similar outcomes (even better in some cases, although there's evidence that this disparity may be down to the fact that people in same-sex relationships need to go through a lot of effort to have a child, and need to be very sure of their financial situation, etc.). Gender is certainly a non-factor compared to having two caring, attentive parents. Not that it's either/or, but it's helpful to focus on the right causes.

[Kikó]

I've heard left leaning same sex Muslim partners have made the best parents.

[QE Harold Flair]

There's certainly good statistical evidence that two parents provide better outcomes than one. Makes sense, given that parental attention is a hugely important factor in child development.

But interestingly, studies on the topic indicate that children of same-sex partners have similar outcomes (even better in some cases, although there's evidence that this disparity may be down to the fact that people in same-sex relationships need to go through a lot of effort to have a child, and need to be very sure of their financial situation, etc.). Gender is certainly a non-factor compared to having two caring, attentive parents. Not that it's either/or, but it's helpful to focus on the right causes.

Well seeing as a very small percentage of gay couples raise children it's still the case that the mother/father is the norm and the ideal.

That also sounds like propaganda to me - I wonder how they determine what a 'better parent' is?

Oh and look:


In a historic study of children raised by homosexual parents, sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin has overturned the conventional academic wisdom that such children suffer no disadvantages when compared to children raised by their married mother and father. Just published in the journal Social Science Research,[1] the most careful, rigorous, and methodologically sound study ever conducted on this issue found numerous and significant differences between these groups--with the outcomes for children of homosexuals rated "suboptimal" (Regnerus' word) in almost every category.


There are eight outcome variables where differences between the children of homosexual parents and married parents were not only present, and favorable to the married parents, but where these findings were statistically significant for both children of lesbian mothers and "gay" fathers and both with and without controls. While all the findings in the study are important, these are the strongest possible ones--virtually irrefutable. Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):


Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
Have lower educational attainment
Report less safety and security in their family of origin
Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
Are more likely to suffer from depression
Have been arrested more often
If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female

The high mathematical standard of "statistical significance" was more difficult to reach for the children of "gay fathers" in this study because there were fewer of them. The following, however, are some additional areas in which the children of lesbian mothers (who represented 71% of all the children with homosexual parents in this study) differed from the IBF children, in ways that were statistically significant in both a direct comparison and with controls. Children of lesbian mothers:


Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
Use marijuana more frequently
Smoke more frequently
Watch TV for long periods more frequently
Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense


http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research

I've highlighted my favourite statistic.

[niko_cee]

The Family Research Council sound like a bastion of fair and balanced reporting, going off their website anyway.


FRC does not consider homosexuality, bi-sexuality, and transgenderism as acceptable alternative lifestyles or sexual "preferences"; they are unhealthy and destructive to individual persons, families, and society.

:harold:

[Reg]

Harold really does not give a fuck with his sources. He doesn't even try to hide it.

[Kikó]

It's because Harold decides to hold the opposite or most controversial view and then back it up on the fly if called out on it.

[phonics]

"I'm not homophobic but I think homosexuals are child molesters."

[Toby]

The Family Research Council sound like a bastion of fair and balanced reporting, going off their website anyway.



:harold:

You could tell from one of the negative consequences being woman supposedly having more sexual partners that is was coming from a pretty judgemental source.

[Boydy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Regnerus#Same-sex_relationships_controversy

The study by that academic doesn't seem to have actually been on same-sex relationships and was only on instances where one of the parents of a heterosexual partnership turned out to be gay.

[Luca]

Harry: conflating science with "science" since 2005.

[John]

Interesting that both of Harold's sources there are incredibly and overtly religious.

[Lewis]

I thought 'low crime rates' was the better endorsement.

[niko_cee]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Regnerus#Same-sex_relationships_controversy

The study by that academic doesn't seem to have actually been on same-sex relationships and was only on instances where one of the parents of a heterosexual partnership turned out to be gay.

From reading the excerpts I did wonder whether that was the case.

[ItalAussie]

Some actual studies, rather than the Regnerus study, which is considered an embarassment even within the anti-gay community (specifically for comparing broken homes with a non-heterosexual parent to stable homes with two heterosexual parents).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3000058/ (the big US-census-data study)
https://www.nllfs.org/ (the longest-running study, going since the '80s)
https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/same-sex-parented-families-australia/childrens-wellbeing-same-sex-parented-families (summary of research literature, with links)
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/same-sex-marriage-children-well-being-research-roundup (research roundup for journalists)

This is one of those things where it's trivial to find a dozen studies or more, which is why I included a pair of research summaries, each of which collates a number of individual studies. The studies follow the same trends when it comes to positive outcomes (measured in terms of education attainment, later mental health issues, etc.) - attention from multiple parents is the most important factor, with socioeconomic effects the next after that.

[QE Harold Flair]

I'm sure you believe in equality, but you (and others) seem to be trying a bit too hard to prove that gay = better. That's not equality. There's nothing about being gay that makes you a better parent. I put it to you that it's virtually all down to class/money. How many working class gay couples are adopting? Not many, I bet.

[Boydy]

Yeah, it's definitely down to class and money because the qualifications for adopting are so much higher than for having your own kids by shagging.

I'm not sure anyone's trying to prove it's better though. Just that it's not any worse.

[QE Harold Flair]

I wonder if straight adoptive parents make better parents? Anyone bothered with that yet?

[Boydy]

Better than the average natural parents? They probably do, yeah, for the same reasons. I'd imagine some sociologist somewhere has studied it.

[ItalAussie]

I'm sure you believe in equality, but you (and others) seem to be trying a bit too hard to prove that gay = better. That's not equality. There's nothing about being gay that makes you a better parent. I put it to you that it's virtually all down to class/money. How many working class gay couples are adopting? Not many, I bet.

That's actually exactly what I said, and what the studies reflect:


But interestingly, studies on the topic indicate that children of same-sex partners have similar outcomes (even better in some cases, although there's evidence that this disparity may be down to the fact that people in same-sex relationships need to go through a lot of effort to have a child, and need to be very sure of their financial situation, etc.).
Same-sex parents tend to score higher on socioeconomic factors and parental attention. Largely because they have to adopt, and therefore have to both make the deliberate decision to have a child, and also prove that they are financially capable of raising the child. Once you account statistically for those factors, there's no statistical difference in measurable outcomes between same-sex and different-sex couples.

Which isn't to say that we shouldn't be encouraging families. But in terms of child welfare outcomes, the most beneficial thing you can work towards is making sure that families (no matter what bits the parents are smuggling) stay together, and that people plan sufficiently for children. Encouraging family stability, parental care of children, and sensible family planning, are the most effective things you can do to ensure children get the best start they can.

[Toby]

I'm sure you believe in equality, but you (and others) seem to be trying a bit too hard to prove that gay = better.

Nobody has said that.

[Lewis]

Has anybody tried to prove that gay = worse?

[QE Harold Flair]

Better than the average natural parents? They probably do, yeah, for the same reasons. I'd imagine some sociologist somewhere has studied it.

Better than gay adoptive, since the studies which claim the gays make magnificent parents doesn't seem to compare like with like.....

Better to just stop the lower classes breeding, perhaps.

[Lewis]

Lord Corbyn giving it back to the Chief of the Defence Staff is good stuff. I seem to remember Gordon Brown keeping it shut when ex-officers were giving him grief, presumably for fear of being seen to DISRESPECT OUR BOYS, where as Jezza obviously figures it doesn't really matter what he does there. Good for him.

[GS]

I see Corbyn has COMPROMISED HIS PRINCIPLES wearing a red poppy and so forth.

[Kikó]

He didn't even bow enough today. Burn him.

[Byron]

Only the Liberal Britain hating left would bow in the manner that Corbyn did. He should be hounded out of the country for such disrespect.

[QE Harold Flair]

There was a piece on Sunday Politics today which was pondering why there was a lack of Londoners wanting to join the armed forces. This after they were confused as to the polls showing Londoners were more anti-gay than was expected.

I'm baffled, too.

[Lewis]

They've probably also got better things to do.

[QE Harold Flair]

Pray?

[Kikó]

Theatre and meat liqor.

[Boydy]

663632460706660352

The BASTARD!

[Davgooner]

If a war came along he'd be on the front line with 'em.

[Jimmy Floyd]

What really annoyed me about Corbyn and his ridiculous cheerleader Owen Jones - and I usually find them laughable rather than annoying - was telling the Chief of the Defence Staff he had no right to comment on 'political matters' such as Trident.

They aren't saying that when doctors comment on 'political matters' such as Our NHS.

[QE Harold Flair]

Big Pete in playful mode here.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TZ8tsElppo

The lefty libertarians will actually be on his side on this, I think.

[QE Harold Flair]

And one not for the left perhaps, even though he's gay and therefor this will confuse some of the left. The irrepressible Milo:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZMQJSzaY3g


Insghtful, articulate, powerfully straightforward. I think we are kindred spirits in many ways.

[Reg]

Does anyone else really dislike Peter Hitchens' face? You can absolutely tell what kind of twat he'll be.

[QE Harold Flair]

I judge him by what he says and how he acts.

[Reg]

Me too. Shame his views are as shit as his face.

[Jimmy Floyd]

He's just another Oxbridge bore whose life is basically one long sneer.

[Lewis]

Peter Hitchens' review of The Long Good Friday is one of the best things on the internet.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Peter Hitchens' review of The Long Good Friday is one of the best things on the internet.

Just read that. Bloody hell.

[QE Harold Flair]

I'm pretty sure he isn't Oxbridge educated.....not that it would invalidate what is an extraordinary man.

There also is nobody else like him, so what you mean by 'another' I don't know.

[Lewis]

Just read that. Bloody hell.

It's probably the most revealing thing he's ever written. Imagine living your life like that. It's the same sort of mindset that finds everything offensive on some level.

[QE Harold Flair]

I think you misread him entirely. Complaining about things does not mean finding them offensive - a term he hates being bandied around. He is a man of great integrity.

[Lewis]

I think you've misread my post entirely.

[QE Harold Flair]

If you're not complaining about the almost impeccable Peter NHitchens then it's fine. Meanwhile, I've also dug this out for the people. More proof that I am not homophobic too, because I like what some gay people say:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUVY-ZDwkxY


This mangina gets torn limb from limb. A great watch.

[Boydy]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTcB7MJXAAAbqKS.png

Fucking hell.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I'll give them a 2% ticking off for Blairish mawkishness but other than that they are absolutely spot on. It astonishes me that people are willing to give this man the time of day because the 400,000 most left wing people in the country voted him in.

[phonics]

664020424582258688

[Jimmy Floyd]

I might get a Cecil Parkinson on my arse.

[Henry]

Peter Hitchens' review of The Long Good Friday is one of the best things on the internet.

I've just read this (http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/09/the-long-good-friday-revisited.html). I didn't agree with everything but it's pretty good.

Not sure what you're on about "living your life like that".

[Henry]

On Corbyn, that's a predictably disgraceful piece from The Sun. And LOL at right-wingers who condone interference in politics and implicit threats of mutiny by the head of the armed forces (not the first one since Corbyn was elected).

[QE Harold Flair]

I bet I know the bit you agreed with. :checkit:

[Henry]

I bet I know the bit you agreed with. :checkit:

What bit?

[Kikó]

The fascination with Corbyn is embarrassing. Concentrate on the guys in charge who are floundering about with tax credits, handing over the keys to China and struggling to get anything meaningful from the EU.

[QE Harold Flair]

What bit?

Chiefly his opposition to Thatcher, which is/was strong.

[QE Harold Flair]

The fascination with Corbyn is embarrassing. Concentrate on the guys in charge who are floundering about with tax credits, handing over the keys to China and struggling to get anything meaningful from the EU.

Would you stay in the EU no matter what he gets?

[Henry]

Chiefly his opposition to Thatcher, which is/was strong.

Well, yes, but I obviously come at it from a somewhat different perspective than him.

[Kikó]

Would you stay in the EU no matter what he gets?

I think I will be voting to stay in the EU yes but I'll read the arguments before I vote.

[QE Harold Flair]

There's going to be a joyous coming together of sections the hard left and right on Europe. We should arrange a party.

[QE Harold Flair]

I think I will be voting to stay in the EU yes but I'll read the arguments before I vote.

You must know the arguments already? I was just trying to ascertain why you would criticise what he's going to get from them (virtually nothing) when it will make no difference to the idealogues, anyway.

[Jimmy Floyd]

The fascination with Corbyn is embarrassing. Concentrate on the guys in charge who are floundering about with tax credits, handing over the keys to China and struggling to get anything meaningful from the EU.

Corbyn is the chief alternative to said people in charge. 'Concentrating' on them is pointless unless something better is available, which plainly it isn't.

[Kikó]

Concentrating on the alternative when the government is at the start of a five year term seems pointless.

Harold - I have an idea but I still would like to read it before I decide finally.

[Boydy]

Corbyn is the chief alternative to said people in charge. 'Concentrating' on them is pointless unless something better is available, which plainly it isn't.

Holding the government to account for the policies it's actually implementing is pointless?

[QE Harold Flair]

It's okay, 'John' from Dunstable hasn't told Corbyn to address that yet.

[Jimmy Floyd]

To which account precisely are you holding them?

Based on Kiko's argument you'd have been 'concentrating' on the Blair and Brown governments between 2005 and 2010 and thinking Cameron's Tories irrelevant until election time, which I'm sure everyone on the left was definitely doing.

[phonics]

They were. Is there something about being right wing that makes them so paranoid?

You do remember that Cameron only just squeaked into power due to some of the left splitting to the LiB Dems, right? Cameron wasn't even a factor outside of being consodered a lightweight.

[Boydy]

To which account precisely are you holding them?

Based on Kiko's argument you'd have been 'concentrating' on the Blair and Brown governments between 2005 and 2010 and thinking Cameron's Tories irrelevant until election time, which I'm sure everyone on the left was definitely doing.

What does that first sentence even mean? Their policies can be analysed and criticised whether you think there's a credible opposition/alternative government or not.

I can't remember 2005-2010 all that well but Cameron's Tories weren't getting anything like the shit Corbyn is getting.

[QE Harold Flair]

It almost breaks my heart, this. As a UKIP supporter I can trump your perceived grievances.

Of course had Farage appointed known terrorist sympathisers (whilst sympathising with terrorists, himself) then I might have difficulty defending him.

[Kikó]

To which account precisely are you holding them?

Based on Kiko's argument you'd have been 'concentrating' on the Blair and Brown governments between 2005 and 2010 and thinking Cameron's Tories irrelevant until election time, which I'm sure everyone on the left was definitely doing.

I think the concentration on the opposition rather than the incumbent is massively different to the norm. I can't remember the opposition party leader getting so much grief especially with 5 years to run on a cycle. Cameron seems to be getting an easy ride considering the wave of crap that seems to be happening around him and the party.

[John Arne]

Kiko is right. Just look at any news website - the coverage Corbyn is getting compared to other opposition leaders is bizarre.... especially so far out from an election.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Probably because he's a fucking mentalist who generates legitimate news stories without even having to do anything.

[Kikó]

I get that but how many times can you fake insult about a bloke that surely has no relevance to whether our glorious leaders will win re-election? Easier to poke at him than take a look at the reality of the situation.
- Rising house prices
- Disregard for human rights or security by cosying up to China
-Tax credits being on the ropes
- Syria - do we don't we
- Migrant crisis - how many do we take/do we not take
-EU stay or go (what this guy is hanging his PMship on)

Just all seem infinitely more interesting than whether a guy bowed to a specific height. Maybe the Sun needs to wear two black armbands.

[Toby]

If Corbyn is so incompetent and unelectable on policy, why is it they feel the need to attack him personally on nonsensical things like how deeply he bowed?

[niko_cee]

Swing voters don't really care for policy, presumably.

[QE Harold Flair]

I think the concentration on the opposition rather than the incumbent is massively different to the norm. I can't remember the opposition party leader getting so much grief especially with 5 years to run on a cycle. Cameron seems to be getting an easy ride considering the wave of crap that seems to be happening around him and the party.

That's because the opposition are exteremly different. The Conservatives are pretty boring.

I don't know what you're so worried about, anyway. The effects papers have is next to nothing these days.

[phonics]

Must say I do enjoy a newspaper who in record of law hacked the phones of dead soldiers and their families, so they could listen to them wubbing, getting uppity about how far a mans head tilts on Remembrance Sunday.

[QE Harold Flair]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM&feature=youtu.be

Not stricly political but it deserves an airing.

[phonics]

Going off the @hendopolis feed, everyone is leading with a picture of Camilla holding a knife looking angry. I don't have a clue what the story is even having seen 3 front pages but it's a great photo.


664198214803955712
664204722417610752
664205277336616960

[Toby]

[video]

Not stricly political but it deserves an airing.

Orwell himself would be envious of such original satire.

[QE Harold Flair]

Or well, it was worth a go.

[Boydy]

David Cameron hasn’t the faintest idea how deep his cuts go. This letter proves it

http://gu.com/p/4e4kq?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

You'd think that sort of thing would be more important than how low someone bowed.

[Kikó]

Policies shouldn't be up for debate. Appearance is much more important.

[Toby]

Today is the final day of Alistair Carmichael's election court trial. In giving evidence yesterday he essentially said, "yes of course I lied, but it was purely politically motivated and not to protect my own reputation", which is essentially what he needs people to believe if he is to be found innocent, or whatever the term is in an election court. The law is essentially that political lies are A-okay but lying about the personal character of oneself or another candidate is not. Which seems ridiculous.

I don't think anything will come of it - and it doesn't really matter for him personally as he'd already said this would be his final term - but I think he'll have seriously harmed the Lib Dems position going in to the Holyrood elections next year.

(I know literally nobody here cares about Scottish politics, let alone local politics within Scotland, but this seems interesting in that it's such an unusual case)

[Boydy]

What did he lie or not lie about?

[Toby]

He denied having authorised the leaked memo about Nicola Sturgeon supposedly telling a French ambassador she would prefer a Tory government.

[phonics]

David Cameron hasn’t the faintest idea how deep his cuts go. This letter proves it

http://gu.com/p/4e4kq?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

You'd think that sort of thing would be more important than how low someone bowed.

The ultimate nimby.

[Lewis]

England

Remain 40%
Leave 43%

Scotland

Remain 55%
Leave 30%

Wales

Remain 42%
Leave 38%

Why do the Scotch want to stay in so badly? Wales are equally as shit and poor and shit, but they seem no more insistent on remaining.

[Henry]

Probably because they see it as a big plank of their post-independence strategy.

[Toby]

I think it's because the main arguments put forward so far for leaving have been focussed on immigration, which isn't much of an issue for Scotland.

The anti-EU sentiment is much stronger here, but that's almost entirely because of fishermen who are upset about quotas.

[Henry]

John Major coming out against the Tory cuts today. And they claim not to have moved to the right. :lol:

[Jimmy Floyd]

David Cameron hasn’t the faintest idea how deep his cuts go. This letter proves it

http://gu.com/p/4e4kq?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

You'd think that sort of thing would be more important than how low someone bowed.

This is the sort of thing you'd never get with a John Major or even a Margaret Thatcher.

[Yevrah]

Oxford City Council might have a bit more to spend on the needy if they ceased in their mission to dig up every road and roundabout in the county and replace them with orange traffic cones.

[ItalAussie]

Oxford City Council might have a bit more to spend on the needy if they ceased in their mission to dig up every road and roundabout in the county and replace them with orange traffic cones.
I seem to recall neverending roadwork on High St for basically the entire four years I lived there.

[niko_cee]

Isn't Oxford officially the worst/most expensive/most pointless place to live in the UK?

[McAvennie]

Cameron is having a belter of a week - produces the lamest set of "demands" for changes to our relationship with Europe, which pleases absolutely no-one, fails to recognise the link between his cutting funding and closing local children's centres in his own constituency, and then buggers off from a conference on migration, the crisis that's gripping Europe, in order to schmooze the Indian PM on the latest round of his globetrotting.

What a miserable excuse for a leader he is

[Kikó]

Well you can't exactly send someone else when you've got the leader of a state visiting.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I'm not the biggest Dave fan but to be fair, I think if any PM since the war had twitter and a load of baying shot-to-nothing opponents following their every move he wouldn't stand up any worse than the others.

[phonics]

664794624029024256

:d