PDA

View Full Version : The UK Politics Thread [Wot did Jez do now...]



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Henry
18-09-2015, 01:07 PM
Right...might as well get the old threads back up and get some discussion going.

This is for UK politics.

John McDonnell was good on Question Time last night, wasn't he?

Demerit
18-09-2015, 01:43 PM
I found him a little annoying actually.

Less than Sandi though, why does absolutely everything have to resort to women's rights this and equality that.

Lofty
18-09-2015, 02:51 PM
Following Comrade Corbyn's storming leadership success I have become a fully paid up member of the Labour Party.

MartinSAFC
20-09-2015, 11:20 PM
Right...might as well get the old threads back up and get some discussion going.

This is for UK politics.

John McDonnell was good on Question Time last night, wasn't he?

He was reasonable enough but benefitted from the Conservative's failure to put on one of their big guns against him. I have no idea why they failed to do this.

I thought Alex Salmond was the best panellist, perfectly articulating the problems Labour might have with Jeremy Corbyn as leader. Interestingly, when I type "Jeremy" into Google UK, he is ahead of both Jeremy Clarkson and Jeremy Kyle in the listings. He is obviously attracting a lot of interest.

Yevrah
20-09-2015, 11:26 PM
I too thought McDonnell was good, surprisingly so.

I've flipped on this over the last couple of/three weeks, in that I think Corbyn might do ok now vs. the expectations.

Boydy
20-09-2015, 11:49 PM
David Cameron fucked a pig.

Boydy
21-09-2015, 02:03 AM
Seriously though, look up #piggate on Twitter.

QE Harold Flair
21-09-2015, 02:14 AM
I thought he got away with what he really thinks by apologising for it.

Henry
21-09-2015, 09:53 AM
The book, co-written by the journalist Isabel Oakeshott, alleges that Cameron knew in 2009 that Ashcroft had non-dom tax status. When a row about this blew up just before the 2010 election, the prime minister claimed only to have been aware about it for a month.

The biography also makes claims about Cameron’s alleged exploits at university, saying an MP had seen photographic evidence that he put a private part of his body into a dead pig’s head as part of a dining club initiation ritual.

A friend from university also said Cameron smoked cannabis with him occasionally while listening to Supertramp as part of a group called the Flam Club.

Says a lot about his background and how removed it is from reality in my view.

Also lol pigs.

Spammer
21-09-2015, 09:55 AM
Smoking cannabis while listening to Supertramp :cool:

MartinSAFC
21-09-2015, 10:37 AM
I've flipped on this over the last couple of/three weeks, in that I think Corbyn might do ok now vs. the expectations.

I agree with this.

I don't think these Cameron revelations will have too much impact on the Conservative's popularity. Even if Cameron is completely discredited, he is not standing as their leader at the next election anyway.

five time
21-09-2015, 10:44 AM
I agree with this.

I don't think these Cameron revelations will have too much impact on the Conservative's popularity. Even if Cameron is completely discredited, he is not standing as their leader at the next election anyway.

He's not going to be discredited. The Bullingdon club stuff already marks him down as a piece of shit and not relatable to 90% of the electorate but clearly the wider public aren't that bothered.

Toby
21-09-2015, 02:20 PM
It's not like it's particularly new. You'd hardly have been surprised by revelations he indulged in a game of soggy biscuit. The stuff we know about George Osborne is seedier anyway and nobody seems to care about that.

Boydy
21-09-2015, 02:21 PM
Stop trying to ruin this. He had his dick in a dead pig's mouth. Just load up Twitter and enjoy it, for fuck's sake.

Boydy
21-09-2015, 02:22 PM
https://twitter.com/NooseandGibbet/status/645884369647869952

Magic
21-09-2015, 02:22 PM
Personally leaving your wife for Dianne Abbott ranks up there with commissioning concentration camps.

Toby
21-09-2015, 02:36 PM
Stop trying to ruin this. He had his dick in a dead pig's mouth. Just load up Twitter and enjoy it, for fuck's sake.

It's definitely funny and pretty embarrassing for him, I just don't think there will be many political implications.

SvN
21-09-2015, 02:46 PM
Tobes, I can't help but notice you've been a miserable fucker since the move.

Magic
21-09-2015, 02:47 PM
Tobes, I can't help but notice you've been a miserable fucker since the move.

Since the move? :harold:

Boydy
21-09-2015, 02:47 PM
He really has.

I'm not even implying there will be political implications. He fucked a dead pig in the mouth. It's been reported everywhere too. He'll be going to meet other international leaders and they'll know he's had his dick in a dead pig's head. It's the best thing ever.

Magic
21-09-2015, 02:51 PM
At least it wasn't in a dead kid's ass. You've got to mark him up for that.

Toby
21-09-2015, 02:53 PM
You all think I'm a miserable fucker all the time. In this case I thought it so fucking obvious that it was funny that I just responded to five_time and Martin's conversation rather than adding a redundant grindot.

Basically, fuck the lot of you.

Magic
21-09-2015, 02:54 PM
Meltdown. :drool:

Boydy
21-09-2015, 02:55 PM
I don't actually think you're miserable all the time but you have been since we moved over here.

John Arne
21-09-2015, 02:55 PM
The first TTH.co.uk seeth :drool:

Toby
21-09-2015, 02:57 PM
I don't actually think you're miserable all the time but you have been since we moved over here.

This place is bloody brilliant, if you genuinely think I'm miserable you're misjudging my tone.

Boydy
21-09-2015, 02:58 PM
Maybe you're misjudging your own tone since everyone seems to think so.

Bernanke
21-09-2015, 02:59 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBpQJ98rR4o

Boydy
21-09-2015, 03:00 PM
[nerd voice]"Let's stop being so cliquey, guys"[/nerd voice]

[nerd voice]"Actually, the prime minister having fucked a dead pig isn't going to have any political ramifications"[/nerd voice]

Shut up, poindexter.

Magic
21-09-2015, 03:00 PM
This place is bloody brilliant, if you genuinely think I'm miserable you're misjudging my tone.

No need for that, mate. phonics has done his best here.

Toby
21-09-2015, 03:01 PM
Maybe you're misjudging your own tone since everyone seems to think so.

I must do. I do find it amusing to be perceived in that way as I thought I'd been very positive about this place, barring my one half-joking thread the other night.

Toby
21-09-2015, 03:02 PM
[nerd voice]"Let's stop being so cliquey, guys"[/nerd voice]

[nerd voice]"Actually, the prime minister having fucked a dead pig isn't going to have any political ramifications"[/nerd voice]

Shut up, poindexter.

Now you're just sounding upset that I didn't hold your hand and frolic around in laughter when you posted this story.

Boydy
21-09-2015, 03:03 PM
MAYBE I AM. STOP TRYING TO RUIN THIS.

https://soundcloud.com/theiainduncansmiths/pigs-mouth-strikes-again-feat-david-cameron

Toby
21-09-2015, 03:06 PM
That can have a :D

Magic
21-09-2015, 03:06 PM
If only it was Sturgeon sucking off a bit of roadkill we'd see the e-Version of Stalingrad develop.

Pepe
21-09-2015, 03:06 PM
What a seethe. :drool:

Boydy
21-09-2015, 03:19 PM
David Cameron pig allegations could harm UK productivity - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/david-cameron-pig-allegations-could-harm-uk-productivity-10511347.html

Spammer
21-09-2015, 03:23 PM
It's not like it's particularly new. You'd hardly have been surprised by revelations he indulged in a game of soggy biscuit. The stuff we know about George Osborne is seedier anyway and nobody seems to care about that.

What George Osbourne stuff do we know?

He's a fucking weirdo so I'm not surprised regardless.

MartinSAFC
21-09-2015, 03:27 PM
What George Osbourne stuff do we know?

He's a fucking weirdo so I'm not surprised regardless.

I would also be interested to know this.

MartinSAFC
21-09-2015, 03:28 PM
Also, I have just noticed Henry's new avatar.:D Awesome work, well done!:D

Toby
21-09-2015, 03:30 PM
What George Osbourne stuff do we know?

He's a fucking weirdo so I'm not surprised regardless.

That he is/was a cokehead and spent time with a dominatrix.

Perhaps 'seedier' is the wrong word, given sticking your cock in a dead animal is completely fucked up.

7om
21-09-2015, 03:34 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPbotDIWsAA9o77.jpg

MartinSAFC
21-09-2015, 03:34 PM
That he is/was a cokehead and spent time with a dominatrix.

Perhaps 'seedier' is the wrong word, given sticking your cock in a dead animal is completely fucked up.

To be fair, none of this will seem seedy at all to Hammer.

MartinSAFC
21-09-2015, 03:35 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPbotDIWsAA9o77.jpg

:lol:

leedsrevolution
21-09-2015, 03:36 PM
If Carlsberg did scandals.

Henry
21-09-2015, 03:52 PM
If Jeremy Corbyn had put his dick in a pigs mouth, it'd be headline news all over the media and he'd be getting hammered.

Also, Frankie, with the nail on the head again: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/21/jeremy-corbyn-non-conformist-british-frankie-boyle?CMP=fb_gu

Magic
21-09-2015, 03:55 PM
If Jeremy Corbyn had put his dick in a pigs mouth, it'd be headline news all over the media and he'd be getting hammered.

Also, Frankie, with the nail on the head again: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/21/jeremy-corbyn-non-conformist-british-frankie-boyle?CMP=fb_gu

He had an affair with Dianne Abbott...

Lewis
21-09-2015, 03:58 PM
'Say what you want about the Bullingdon Club, but when they wrecked something they left enough money behind to fix it. Labour on the other hand...'

He could have had ten years of success out of that joke, yet I'm the one without a job.

Spammer
21-09-2015, 03:58 PM
To be fair, none of this will seem seedy at all to Hammer.

I thought he might be into getting the shit kicked out of him. He's got a certain anxiety about him which suggested to me he'd be the sort.

Depends on how he went about it really. For some reason I find paying for it under the cover of darkness a lot more seedy than just meeting someone and exploring it with them for the fun of it.

Shindig
21-09-2015, 09:10 PM
I want a book full of all these stories covering all Prime Ministers, to be honest. John Major probably strangled a horse and the wore it home just for the fun of it.

phonics
21-09-2015, 09:39 PM
Test

646074530155397120

edit: Lads, I'm getting a bit good at this. I just edited a piece of javascript ffs.

Henry
23-09-2015, 07:09 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/22/uk-deficit-rises-steeply-after-surprise-fall-in-tax-receipts

Deficit rises steeply. Bullshit economics is bullshit. Quelle fucking surprise.

Yevrah
23-09-2015, 07:14 PM
How is a surprise fall in income tax receipts evidence of 'bullshit economics'?

Henry
23-09-2015, 08:31 PM
Osbourne's policies are supposed to reduce the deficit. He's made predictions to that effect. Not for the first time the predictions are way off, because cuts depress economic activity and therefore lower the tax take (like so).

phonics
23-09-2015, 08:43 PM
How is a surprise fall in income tax receipts evidence of 'bullshit economics'?

If the Office For National Statistics is saying the main culprit is the drop in corporation tax than that implies the whole 'tax private business less and they'll spend more' wank doesn't really work, no?

Jimmy Floyd
23-09-2015, 08:45 PM
Spending is up for fuck's sake. There are no cuts.

Yevrah
23-09-2015, 08:47 PM
It's the tax take for just one month and there's a quote from an economist (who I don't think is connected with the government) saying that she expects that to be recovered in the next few months.


That said, we would not read too much into one set of figures, given that the trend had previously improving for several months. Indeed, we expect growth of tax receipts to recover quickly given that the recent strength of the economic recovery should be feeding through

@ Phonics.

Yevrah
23-09-2015, 08:49 PM
Spending is up for fuck's sake. There are no cuts.

Judging by the state of the M1 the excess has all gone on roadworks, cones and those fucking awful overhanging yellow average speed cameras.

phonics
23-09-2015, 08:50 PM
It's the tax take for just one month and there's a quote from an economist (who I don't think is connected with the government) saying that she expects that to be recovered in the next few months.



@ Phonics.

I wasn't actively getting involved in the argument. Just explaining where I figured Henry was coming from. I barely even skimmed the link.

Yevrah
23-09-2015, 08:51 PM
I wasn't actively getting involved in the argument. Just explaining where I figured Henry was coming from. I barely even skimmed the link.

Well I asked the question because I had read the link and had clocked that quote, which isn't consistent with Henry's reasoning.

Lewis
23-09-2015, 09:00 PM
I was seething all the way down the M1 yesterday. To say the professional Northerners are always moaning about being cut off by shitty rail links you don't hear much about that disgrace.

Henry
23-09-2015, 09:01 PM
Jimmy Floyd - Government spending can rise even if there are cuts. If more people are unemployed for example.

Yevrah - She did not say that it would be recovered. She said that borrowing will be reduced but at a much slower rate than it was supposed to be.

Lewis
23-09-2015, 09:03 PM
Or if you're servicing a honking great debt.

Yevrah
23-09-2015, 09:03 PM
She said exactly that you pinko mentalist, I even quoted her saying it for fuck's sake.

Henry
23-09-2015, 09:12 PM
Wrong. You're only reading the parts that you want to read, and interpreting them to say something other than what they do.


Vicky Redwood, chief UK economist at Capital Economics, said the government was still on track to reduce its anual borrowing, but at a much slower pacer than previously forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).

“Borrowing in the first five months of the fiscal year so far is still below where it was at the same point a year ago. But on the face of it, this leaves borrowing for 2015-16 as a whole set to undershoot last year’s borrowing total of £90bn by only £10bn or so, rather than the £20bn drop that the OBR forecast in its July’s budget.

“That said, we would not read too much into one set of figures, given that the trend had previously improving for several months. Indeed, we expect growth of tax receipts to recover quickly given that the recent strength of the economic recovery should be feeding through,” she added.

My bolding.

Growth of tax reciepts will recover. i.e. they'll start growing again.
The rate at which taxes are growing/the deficit is being cut will not. The deficit will be cut "at a much slower pace".

Yevrah
23-09-2015, 09:16 PM
If your take on what she's saying is correct, why has she prefaced her third paragraph with "we would not read too much into one set of figures"? Doesn't sound like she's written off the whole approach to me.

And there's a world of difference between getting a forecast wrong and your whole plan being built on bullshit economics.

Lewis
23-09-2015, 09:23 PM
Gideon has constantly made it difficult for himself with bollocks forecasts, although I seem to remember the last Labour budgets in 2009/10 assuming four per cent growth until the end of time (and moan about cutting all you like, Europe would have shit that out). What matters is that he's kicked great big holes in the state whilst doing so, and we should all rejoice at that news.

Henry
23-09-2015, 09:23 PM
Not reading too much into one result is a standard disclaimer. This however is happening repeatedly with Osbourne's forecasts.

See here (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/15/imf-forecast-uk-george-osborne-deficit-reduction-growth-fuel-tax) for the IMF take.

And here's the long-term trend.

https://thenextrecession.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/osborne.png

I mean, for fuck sake. Why is anyone still believing this shit?

Lewis
23-09-2015, 09:30 PM
Didn't he end up revising those plans more recently to say that we were doing better than previously expected? It's surely the nature of five year economic plans, which never work out anywhere ever.

Lee
23-09-2015, 09:31 PM
Aren't economic forecasts always complete bollocks? Pretty sure Browm was being slagged in the same way when he was Chancellor. I like a good opportunity to slag off Tories but this doesn't seem like one to me.

GS
23-09-2015, 09:43 PM
Forecast figures are always wrong. Always. Because they're forecasts, and therefore based on assumptions. This means that actual outputs are likely to be different. In five years, I have never looked at aa forecast v actual and found it to be right.

It's fucking daft to have a go on this, unless it's obviously lol e.g. the SNP oil income figures.

Henry
24-09-2015, 06:25 AM
Forecasts are not an exact science but usually it's up and down. For the policies to be consistently delivering much worse results than expected causing the long-term plan to need continual revision says that something is terribly wrong.

But let's keep going with it anyway. Because benefit cheats!

MartinSAFC
24-09-2015, 10:29 AM
Forecast figures are always wrong. Always. Because they're forecasts, and therefore based on assumptions. This means that actual outputs are likely to be different. In five years, I have never looked at aa forecast v actual and found it to be right.

It's fucking daft to have a go on this, unless it's obviously lol e.g. the SNP oil income figures.


Forecasts are not an exact science but usually it's up and down. For the policies to be consistently delivering much worse results than expected causing the long-term plan to need continual revision says that something is terribly wrong.

I'm inclined to agree with Henry here. Forecasts are invariably wrong but they shouldn't be wrong by such massive amounts.

GS
24-09-2015, 09:18 PM
It happens with every forecast ever. Forecasts at this level affect markets, thus investment opportunity. If the assumption(s) used can be justified, then it'll present a more positive picture. It's a forecast, for fuck sake.

Yevrah
24-09-2015, 09:19 PM
Is that graph also taking a five year forecast from 2010 and still putting the actuals against the originals, despite the fact it will have been updated five times since it was originally produced?

If so, after getting the first year wrong there wasn't a hope in hell that the following years would fall in line to that original forecast.

Henry
25-09-2015, 08:50 AM
Every forecast ever is not an absurd exercise in wishful thinking. If they were then markets would hardly pay attention, would they?

phonics
25-09-2015, 09:46 AM
Mandelson’s response comes as a Guardian account of the Labour (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/labour) leadership contest – to be published online on Friday morning – discloses:• Supporters of Liz Kendall tried to arrange for her and then shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/yvette-cooper) to stand aside to give shadow health secretary Andy Burnham a clear run when it became apparent support for Corbyn was surging

• Cooper warned interim leader Harriet Harman that her decision not to oppose the welfare bill (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/12/harman-labour-not-vote-against-welfare-bill-limit-child-tax-credits) was handing Jeremy Corbyn victory and she threatened to quit the shadow cabinet if Harman refused to let Labour MPs vote against the welfare bill

• Supporters of Burnham believe he could have won the contest if he had quit the shadow cabinet over the welfare issue (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/20/andy-burnham-not-vote-against-unsupportable-welfare-bill) and say the episode was the turning point in his defeat.

• The Kendall team commissioned private YouGov polling as early as late June which showed the party membership opposed austerity and further spending cuts, making the Kendall team realise they were out of the running.

• Labour officials discovered nearly 20% of those joining the party as £3 registered supporters (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/26/labour-leadership-election-party-to-check-voting-history-of-new-supporters) had no record of previously voting Labour.

• Corbyn himself had doubts about whether he would be a successful party leader and his team expected to secure only 20% of the vote at the outset.

Imagine if Cooper and Co. had stepped down fo Burnham only to get smashed anyway :D

Boydy
25-09-2015, 09:50 AM
Why do you keep posting in a different font?

phonics
25-09-2015, 09:52 AM
It's copy pasting the formatting from other websites and I don't know what button it is to undo it.

edit: Found it, it's the red X on the left.

QE Harold Flair
26-09-2015, 07:51 PM
So Jeremy Corkikobyn is a 9/11 denying, conspiracy nutter. There's a surprise.


Jeremy Corbyn claimed the 9/11 attacks were 'manipulated' by the West so it could go to war in Afghanistan in an article he wrote 12 years ago, it has emerged today.

The Labour leader made the assertions in a number of written pieces where he criticised Tony Blair and George W Bush for using the September 11 attacks in New York to go to war.

He claims Osama bin Laden was made to look responsible to facilitate their aims and seemed to endorse conspiracy theories about a 'New World Order'.

In the 2003 piece for The Morning Star, he wrote: 'Historians will study with interest the news manipulation of the past 18 months, The Telegraph reports.

'After September 11, the claims that bin Laden and al-Qaida had committed the atrocity were quickly and loudly made.

'This was turned into an attack on the Taliban and then, subtly, into regime change in Afghanistan.'

Prior to that, he wrote a series of articles which appear to have endorsed the conspiracy theory about the 'New World Order'.


The revelations come ahead of Mr Corbyn's first Labour conference as leader where a number of MPs are expected to state the party is unelectable under him.

Labour grandee Lord Mandelson has already warned MPs against making an early move to oust Jeremy Corbyn - but insisted the party could not win with the 66-year-old 'loser' in charge.

The former business secretary said the party had 'stuck two fingers up' at the country by choosing Mr Corbyn as leader but, in a leaked memo, he said Mr Corbyn couldn't be replaced until he had shown how unpopular he is at the polls.


The articles, including one for 'Labour Briefing' in 1991, Mr Corbyn wrote that the Gulf War was a 'curtain raiser' for the New World Order, stating at the rich and powerful and 'white and western' could maintain economic order with the 'free use of all the weapons'.

Furthermore, in Socialist Campaign Group News the same year, he wrote: 'The aim of the war machine of the United States is to maintain a world order dominated by the banks and multinational companies of Europe and North America.'

Mr Corbyn stormed to victory in the Labour leadership contest with 60 per cent of the vote, despite being unknown outside Westminster.

But the nation's first impression of the 66-year-old is far from positive in an IpsosMORI poll.

Mr Corbyn was on minus 3 per cent, with 33 per cent satisfied with the way he is doing his job and 36 per cent dissatisfied.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3249892/Corbyn-s-conspiracy-theory-9-11-attacks-manipulated-make-look-like-Osama-Bin-Laden-responsible.html#ixzz3mqt9xrLD

GS
26-09-2015, 09:15 PM
Corbyn is always going to sink himself because he has written and said so much shit that he can't deny.

You can moderate your views and principles all you want, but when there's a body of evidence showing you're a nutter (relatively speaking) then there's not much you can do.

One suspects "the left" will reject the hard lesson they're going to get from this experience.

Lewis
26-09-2015, 09:16 PM
He's going to let members and supporters decide policy. :wedge:

Magic
26-09-2015, 09:18 PM
What's the longest period a consecutive government has had in power? I suspect that particular record is going to be demolished.

GS
26-09-2015, 09:21 PM
'Jeremy' has never had to take responsibility for anything, and he seemingly never wants to.

Pleb
26-09-2015, 09:22 PM
Is he on the ropes?

Sounds like a right nutter.

GS
26-09-2015, 10:20 PM
Also, I note that Labour have signed up to the Tory 'financial charter' requiring budget surpluses by the end of this parliament.

That'll go down well.

Jimmy Floyd
26-09-2015, 10:39 PM
The Whigs were in power for 40+ years at one point, although in those days parties weren't really the same as they are now, as there wasn't ideology so much, and also the voting franchise was about four people, all of whom owned a county. If my very shit knowledge of the period is right, everyone who was anyone went over to the Whigs because everyone hated the Tories for bankrupting us at the start of the Seven Years' War.

In these times 13 years is the longest there has been. EDIT: What am I saying, 17 between '79 and '97.

Shindig
26-09-2015, 10:42 PM
What's the longest period a consecutive government has had in power? I suspect that particular record is going to be demolished.

I actually think it's the Thatcher / Major stint. 1979 - 1997. Aye, Jimmy's got it.

Henry
28-09-2015, 10:07 AM
I'd like to see the actual articles rather than Daily Mail propaganda, which is suspiciously free from actual quotes, and uses terms such as "seemed to".

Davgooner
28-09-2015, 10:16 AM
I saw the various TV interviews 'Corbs' did over the weekend and he was loving every minute of it. He's not going to divert from his principles and the media are having a hard time coming to terms with that.

Henry
28-09-2015, 10:20 AM
Also, I note that Labour have signed up to the Tory 'financial charter' requiring budget surpluses by the end of this parliament.

That'll go down well.

Fucking idiocy. That's about the worst thing they could do.

phonics
28-09-2015, 10:38 AM
My parents have switched from The Times to The Telegraph that has made very entertaining weekend reading on Corbyn. The formula seems to be 'Headline that makes Corbyn sound like a nutter' then 6 paragraphs of their reading of a 10 word quote that's buried somewhere in paragraph 8 that seems to largely make sense. It's properly, properly pants shitting stuff. What a terrible newspaper.

Lewis
28-09-2015, 10:51 AM
It's terrible now isn't it?

Labour said they will 'live within our means', but they still intend to make up any shortfalls with imaginary tax gaps and by rinsing whole sectors of the economy to death, so they haven't really signed up to Gideon's scheme (well, they have in reality, since their revenue streams don't exist; but they're still arguing against it for now).

phonics
28-09-2015, 10:58 AM
It's terrible now isn't it?

Even if the content doesn't bother you the layout is fucked. Every newspaper is about 4 sections. It was okay when you had Businness and Sport in one as you got used to it but you've got Motoring in a spread between the News and Gardening. It's impossible to find anything apart from endless advertorial magazines. Load of shit. I complained but apparently the Times is too expensive these days.

Jimmy Floyd
28-09-2015, 11:00 AM
The Times is even worse. They are all fucked because they're a) not economically viable and b) run by mental sharks.

phonics
28-09-2015, 11:02 AM
I think I heard The Times makes a profit now with it's paywall/Russia+China paying them for advertising.

Lewis
28-09-2015, 11:03 AM
The website used to have the best blog section going. Now it's like a cross between Breitbart and a lifestyle guide for rich women.

Jimmy Floyd
28-09-2015, 11:11 AM
The highlight is when a 16 page pullout about 'Amazing Azerbaijan' or the like drops onto the table.

phonics
29-09-2015, 09:02 AM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQDkIJHWoAAjwa-.png

Won't apologise for slavery because 'it happened ages ago'

Wants country to do trade deal with Britain over China because 'we used to own you ages ago, remember?'

Doesn't seem the strongest game of diplomacy I've ever heard.

QE Harold Flair
29-09-2015, 09:10 AM
That seems a very fair and balanced conclusion you've come to.

Jimmy Floyd
29-09-2015, 09:14 AM
Why can a UK Prime Minister not visit a black majority country without it being demanded that he apologise for what people got up to in the 16th-18th century? And why is he not asked to apologise for the Corn Laws and workhouses?

Even if he did apologise, he'd just be asked about it again on the following visit.

QE Harold Flair
29-09-2015, 09:18 AM
I'd also like a pm when the Arabs are asked to apologise for their even bigger slave trade in the past. Cheers.

QE Harold Flair
29-09-2015, 09:26 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W69poTlZ_fk

What do we read into this?

Henry
29-09-2015, 04:49 PM
Ipsos MORI has done a Twitter sentiment analysis of tweets about Jeremy Corbyn’s speech. They looked at 41,000 tweets and classified almost 20,000 of them as positive or negative. Some 76% were positive. By comparison, when Ed Miliband gave his last conference speech as leader in 2014, only 24% were positive.

:)

The establishment and media can try to fuck him up however they like; but the public already don't trust those. His message may just get through.

QE Harold Flair
29-09-2015, 04:50 PM
You sound like a UKIP supporter now, Henners. Welcome aboard!

Lewis
29-09-2015, 04:50 PM
Twitter, mate.

Magic
29-09-2015, 04:50 PM
Noisy minority. The electorate can see right through him, it's only students and older hippies that favourite that.

QE Harold Flair
29-09-2015, 04:51 PM
'The left wing mob' as Peter Hitchens rightly describes Twitter.

Boydy
29-09-2015, 04:51 PM
That's good but the people who decide elections probably aren't the people on Twitter during his conference speech. They probably didn't even watch his conference speech.

Toby
29-09-2015, 04:55 PM
This is great:


https://vine.co/v/eQ7UZEwt9gT

phonics
29-09-2015, 04:58 PM
'The left wing mob' as Peter Hitchens rightly describes Twitter.
Twitters about as centrist as you can get. There's nutters of all shapes and sizes; Skinheads, Communists, Socialists, UKIPpers, Corbynites, Zionists, Anti Zionists, Misogynists, Meninists, Evangelists, Puritans, ISIS and any other nutter shaped hole there is in the world. It's why it's so great.

Toby
29-09-2015, 05:00 PM
It isn't, support on Twitter pretty much guarantees failure in whatever ballot its discussing. Whether there's a mixture of everybody or not, these analyses always show a huge bias towards the left-leaning options.

Toby
30-09-2015, 12:03 PM
Some might be aware that my local MP, Alistair Carmichael, has had a court case lodged against him due to comments he made in the run up to the General Election (denying knowledge of the leaked memo regarding Sturgeon's supposed comments about a preferring a Tory government). Anyway, to the surprise of many following it, the case hasn't been chucked out at the first hurdle and Carmichael will now have to give evidence.



"We wish to hear evidence..."

It's perhaps appropriate that I didn't have time to blog about the election court's Carmichael judgment this afternoon. I was giving a lecture to our young lawyers on Socrates, Plato, and that most basic and most intractable of questions, "what is justice"?

Cast your mind back, if you can, to the two days of hearings earlier this month. The petitioners' case is based on section 106 of the Representation of the People Act, which penalises making "false statements of fact" in relationship to the "personal character and conduct" of a candidate during a general election. The petition has next to nothing to do with Nicola Sturgeon, or at least not directly. Mr Carmichael is the candidate. By advising Channel 4 and the nation that he hadn't the foggiest clue how the Scotland Office memo found its way into the public domain, the Orkney four argue that Mr Carmichael lied about his own personal character and conduct during the general election campaign.

They contend that he did so to maintain his reputation as a man of honour in Orkney and Shetland, better to secure his re-election. They argue that this behaviour is caught by section 106 of the 1983 Act. If they are right, Mr Carmichael will not only lose his seat: he will be barred from seeking elective office for three years, and exposed to the (realistically remote) possibility of criminal prosecution. This is a serious business.

The legal debate earlier this month didn't concern the facts of the case. Carmichael's legal team argued that the election petition could and should be kicked out on the law, without a breath of evidence being heard. They argued that the case was without legal foundation and the Orkney four had simply misread electoral law. Roddy Dunlop QC sought to persuade Lady Paton and Lord Matthews that the Representation of the People Act should be interpreted narrowly. Look at the consequences, he said: this is a penal statute. You have an obligation to construe this law carefully. Against this backdrop, the QC advanced four key arguments. And for the petition to survive, the petitioners needed to prevail on all four points.

Firstly, Dunlop argued, the penalties of section 106 shouldn't extend to what he styled a candidate's "self-talking". That's a funny phrase for something we might put more simply: a candidate lying about themselves rather than about someone else. If you dig through the parliamentary record, he suggested, you find this legislation was intended to punish those who slander their opponents: not those who polish their CVs or deliberately tell national news organisations that they didn't do something which they did, in fact, do.

On this basis, Dunlop suggested, Carmichael couldn't be held responsible under section 106. Secondly, the QC argued section 106 should only apply to false statements which paint a candidate in a negative rather than a positive light. This distinction has no basis in the text of the legislation, which speaks only of falsehoods rather than whether the lie casts the candidate in a positive or a negative light. It finds no echo in earlier caselaw.

Unconvincing? Lady Paton and Lord Matthews thought so. Their opinion reduces this aspect of Carmichael's case to molten slag. The plain text of section 106 extends to everybody who tells lies about a candidate during an election. As Jonathan Mitchell QC quipped during the oral hearing, "Alistair Carmichael is a person". The Act extends to him just as completely as it would his campaigners or his constituents. And the broad language in which the Act is drafted also catches happy lies and nasty lies. Digressions about parliamentary debates in the 1880s are an unhelpful sideshow. The text is clear.

On the remaining two points, the election court's decision is more equivocal. Remember, Carmichael argued that his lies were political, rather than personal. The leak was a political act. Surely lying about whether or not you committed a political act should also be construed as political in character? But why does this matter?

Section 106 punishes only false statements of fact in relation to a candidate's personal character or conduct. The courts have long recognised a protected area of speech - political speech and political debate - which lie beyond the pains and penalties of section 106. If Carmichael can persuade the court his lies were political and not personal in character -- he keeps his seat and gets off scot free. At least in law. Carmichael sought to persuade the judges that this was an open and shut question. He failed. At para [32], Lady Paton offered the court's rationale for rejecting this construction:
"We do not therefore accept the submission by senior counsel for the first respondent that the context of the statement under challenge (namely the fact that he was being asked questions in his capacity as Secretary of State for Scotland, it being understood that the leak had come from the Scotland Office) automatically has the result that the statement should be categorised as one given “in relation to the public or official character of the candidate” (Fairbairn, Lord Ross at page 396).
On the contrary, we consider that a false statement of fact may be “in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct” even although it is made in a political context by someone who is the holder of an office in a particular party and relates to events involving politicians, political campaigning, political parties’ offices, staff, publications and so on. Each case must be considered on its own facts, and the question may often be one of fact and degree."
Carmichael also raised the question of motive. The petitioners must show that Carmichael's lies were motivated by his election in the northern isles. They must show, in short, that he lied to save his own skin, rather than to dent the SNP nationally, or to diminish the credibility of Nicola Sturgeon as a political figure.

Lady Paton's opinion is extremely clear here - the court can't reach a conclusion about (a) whether the lie was political or personal or (b) what motivated the cover-up - without hearing evidence. It isn't a decision which the election court can make on the law alone.
"Circumstances can be envisaged where a false statement of fact is of such a nature that the effect in relation to a candidate’s personal character or conduct transcends the political context. In other words, being involved in a political matter will not necessarily provide protection from the effect of section 106. We consider therefore that it is necessary for this court to examine the facts surrounding the statement and its context with some care.
The question of the type of relationship between the statement and the personal character and conduct of the first respondent is one which requires evidence, including evidence as to the motive or reason for giving the false statement. We do not accept, therefore, that it is sufficient simply to provide the court with a written narration of events and to invite the court to reach a view on the basis of the statute and the authorities. On the contrary, we consider that, in a case such as this, there may be subtle but significant inferences and nuances to be drawn from evidence when heard."
Law and fact interact. The election court's decision is necessarily context-dependent. Better to understand that context, evidence must be heard. That doesn't mean the four petitioners will ultimately prevail -- though they must be feeling considerably more chipper, having survived adjudication at the threshold. There remains every likelihood that Carmichael will keep his seat on the court's final analysis. But it seems highly probable that the last Liberal Democrat in Scotland will find himself obliged to give evidence. And that wasn't part of the plan.

Lady Paton's legal opinion is an upset. An upset for those who thought this case was a crackpot and oppressive challenge without any sound basis in the Representation of the People Act. The election court's judgment today is a rebuke to the lazy cynics and a vindication for the Orkney four. This is no screwball use of the legislation. Their case is novel, absolutely. Unusual, for sure. But electoral law is complex, little understood and often arcane. It remains a mystery to me, how many folk who (a) know sod all about election law and (b) didn't bother to find out still felt able to pronounce the petition hopeless, baseless and motivated by ill will. Well, ye ken noo.

Lady Paton's decision also represents a bitter upset for Mr Carmichael, whose last best hope was to have the case kicked on the law. Now there is a distinct possibility that the northern isles MP will find himself in the witness box, answering impertinent questions including "Would you describe yourself as an honest man, Mr Carmichael? Do you think your constituents in Orkney and Shetland regard you as an honest man? Why did you lie? When you told Channel 4 that you were not involved in the leaking of this document, that was a lie, wasn’t it? Do you really think that is a credible explanation for your behaviour, Mr Carmichael?”

Grisly. "We wish to hear evidence." Five of the cruellest words in the English language.

Read the whole decision here.

It's probably thoroughly dull to others but it does seem like the case has some wider implications, as its really the first time the Representation of the People Act has been interpreted in this way. The spoilered bit is a good summary of what has gone on from here: http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/we-wish-to-hear-evidence.html

Jimmy Floyd
30-09-2015, 12:11 PM
If they backdated that 650 times we'd have a pleasantly empty House of Commons.

Toby
30-09-2015, 12:25 PM
So a lot of people are still saying and have been saying all along. I don't think it's really the case though, as there's still a few hurdles for the petitioners to overcome before anything would actually come of this.

Magic
30-09-2015, 12:41 PM
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/scotland/snp-suspend-mp-michelle-thomson-amid-property-deals-probe-1.902733

They're falling apart. :drool:

GS
03-10-2015, 12:50 PM
:)

The establishment and media can try to fuck him up however they like; but the public already don't trust those. His message may just get through.

On this point, polling on opposition leaders started in 1955.

Corbyn is, by some distance, the most unpopular opposition leader in their first few weeks in office since polling began, with a -8 rating:

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/jeremy-corbyn-the-most-unpopular-new-opposition-leader-in-the-history-of-polling/

The nuclear issue is bizarre, in one way. You can't have a party with an official defence policy that is pro-Trident, and a leader (the only one in the proposed 'alternative government' who would exercise the royal prerogative and thus be able to press the button) saying he'll never press the button under any circumstances. The Tory attacks are going to stick, and he's going to sink. If he can't even get traction in the first few weeks when a new leader would generally get the benefit of the doubt then he has nowhere really to go. He's certainly never going to recover enough ground to be remotely competitive in 2020. If anything, it's just going to alienate more potential Labour voters who think the party have lost the plot.

Jimmy Floyd
03-10-2015, 12:54 PM
The longer the lefties believe their own hype, the better. If this Labour regime gets all the way through to an actual general election there will be a complete bloodbath.

Boydy
03-10-2015, 12:59 PM
This is a good article by Aditya Chalrabortty - Corbyn must slay the zombie ideas that blight our economy (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/29/corbyn-zombie-ideas-economy-labour).

I think he's probably my favourite journalist/commentator.

Lewis
03-10-2015, 01:03 PM
I saw Seamus Milne telling us not to write him off the other day. It's over.

GS
03-10-2015, 01:12 PM
It would be fine if otherwise sensible people weren't using fucking Twitter mentions, of all things, as evidence that "the message is getting through".

Most people just want to be left alone to get on with things.

Lewis
03-10-2015, 05:15 PM
David Cameron: 'We've lost a huge figure of post-war politics. A hero in World War Two as Beach Master at Anzio and a brave politician, Denis Healey told his party hard truths about Britain having to live within her means'.

Have a day off mate.

QE Harold Flair
03-10-2015, 05:31 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-uoaIorfVU

Henry
03-10-2015, 08:05 PM
It would be fine if otherwise sensible people weren't using fucking Twitter mentions, of all things, as evidence that "the message is getting through".

Most people just want to be left alone to get on with things.

Is your implication that this is what the Tories are doing? If so, big LOL

GS
03-10-2015, 09:42 PM
Is your implication that this is what the Tories are doing? If so, big LOL

Let me consult recent Twitter trends and get back to you.

Boydy
04-10-2015, 03:29 AM
Robert Peston - Corbynomic's Thatcher moment (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34376085)

elth
04-10-2015, 11:02 AM
Twitter is left leaning, but not by as much as some think. What makes it a lousy predictor is that it's an echo chamber - because you curate your own feed, it's unlikely most people have any idea what people who disagree with them are saying, apart from the subset of deliberate trolls.

Yevrah
04-10-2015, 11:11 AM
That Robert Peston clip on HIGNFY on Friday night was gold.

Boydy
04-10-2015, 11:20 AM
That Robert Peston clip on HIGNFY on Friday night was gold.

:D

Yeah.

Jimmy Floyd
04-10-2015, 01:32 PM
There are a load of protestors at Tory conference spitting at journalists and holding up banners like 'Get the Tories Out'.

Didn't we just have an election?

Lewis
04-10-2015, 01:45 PM
The lad who gobbed at the journalist will end up being from some right posh family. The Mail will be working on the story as we speak.

Boydy
04-10-2015, 01:46 PM
At least he didn't fuck a dead pig.

Yevrah
04-10-2015, 01:47 PM
If these wasters spent as much time and effort building a career as they do being hoodlums they might have a bit less to moan about.

Boydy
04-10-2015, 01:59 PM
Maybe they don't think living to work is a very good idea.

Yevrah
04-10-2015, 02:00 PM
Clearly they don't think that.

EDIT: Oops, that should have read don't.

Boydy
04-10-2015, 02:02 PM
What?

Speaking of careers:
Half of all teachers in England threaten to quit as morale crashes

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

Nice one, tories.

Henry
04-10-2015, 02:08 PM
Didn't we just have an election?

You do realise that democracy isn't just something that happens every five years, don't you?

Jimmy Floyd
04-10-2015, 02:12 PM
How do they propose to 'Get the Tories Out', then?

Lewis
04-10-2015, 02:15 PM
There should be a mechanism in place for teachers to take control of (or even start their own) schools and run them more according to their ideas. Some sort of 'Free Schools' programme or something like that.

Boydy
04-10-2015, 02:27 PM
There should be a mechanism in place for teachers to take control of (or even start their own) schools and run them more according to their ideas. Some sort of 'Free Schools' programme or something like that.

If they actually work like that why do teachers hate them so much?

Lewis
04-10-2015, 02:30 PM
Because they're lazy communist whingers.

GS
04-10-2015, 02:31 PM
At least he didn't fuck a dead pig.

One unsubstantiated, uncorroborated story in a book which is, at best, a hatchet job by someone with an axe to grind.

If anything, the Ashcroft book has made Cameron look quite sensible in that it's demonstrated he was quite right to deprive him of any meaningful office post-2010 because he's clearly not fit for it.


You do realise that democracy isn't just something that happens every five years, don't you?

It's not, but they won a democratic election. What do they propose to do, exactly? Orchestrate a coup? Let's check Twitter and see what they think.

GS
04-10-2015, 02:32 PM
Because they're lazy communist whingers.

Quite. That and a load of centralised nonsense like continuous inspections, paperwork, examinations, testing and so forth create an atmosphere where kids are taught to the test rather than fostering a genuine spirit of education. Academies with flexibility over curricula are a step forward on this.

We should re-introduce academic selection and proper grammar schools as well.

Jimmy Floyd
04-10-2015, 02:33 PM
I went to a posh(ish) school and even there all the teachers were unreconstructed Marxists. It's part of the psyche. The job is fundamentally about telling people what to do, which suits a left wing perspective.

Lewis
04-10-2015, 02:39 PM
It's hard to know in which direction you would start windmilling here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZB8_RMwFfI). The state of those Young Conservatives.

Toby
04-10-2015, 02:42 PM
It seems you have to be a bit of a bellend to actively identify with one party or another, especially outside an election cycle. It's not a football team.

Yevrah
04-10-2015, 02:47 PM
It's hard to find a scenario where a group of people could come off worse than Young Tories, but those unwashed, egg throwing morons have managed it.

QE Harold Flair
04-10-2015, 04:58 PM
Quite. That and a load of centralised nonsense like continuous inspections, paperwork, examinations, testing and so forth create an atmosphere where kids are taught to the test rather than fostering a genuine spirit of education. Academies with flexibility over curricula are a step forward on this.

We should re-introduce academic selection and proper grammar schools as well.

I wouldn't waste your time. What lefties like Hennerz really love are dictators.

Davgooner
04-10-2015, 05:00 PM
Academies with flexibility over curricula are a step forward on this..

Many lols were had.

QE Harold Flair
04-10-2015, 05:02 PM
I've been warning of this left wing mob mentality for some time, in various forms.

Davgooner
04-10-2015, 05:03 PM
It's hard to know in which direction you would start windmilling here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZB8_RMwFfI). The state of those Young Conservatives.

:lol:

Who thought it was a good idea to combat that lot by sending out a bunch of smug-faced gimps to stand there and look smug?

QE Harold Flair
04-10-2015, 05:05 PM
It was a great idea, actually. Those twats egging what are probably children makes them look like an even bigger bunch of cunts.

Davgooner
04-10-2015, 05:08 PM
They're a bunch of wankers, but there's nothing weirder than a young conservative, and you'd think the Tories would want to keep that mob under wraps.

Someone find that 'Young, bright, and very right' documentary again.

QE Harold Flair
04-10-2015, 05:09 PM
I think anyone of that age who are members of a political party are cunts. Look at that fat SNP thing that got into parliament.

Henry
04-10-2015, 09:11 PM
How do they propose to 'Get the Tories Out', then?

It's not realistic, but it conceivably could happen. They don't have dictatorial powers because they won an election, and it's still right to protest if you disagree with them.

QE Harold Flair
04-10-2015, 09:16 PM
Are you a big fan of Corbyn, Henners?

GS
04-10-2015, 09:16 PM
It's not realistic, but it conceivably could happen. They don't have dictatorial powers because they won an election, and it's still right to protest if you disagree with them.

Right.

Henry
04-10-2015, 09:21 PM
Are you a big fan of Corbyn, Henners?

Obviously.

QE Harold Flair
04-10-2015, 09:25 PM
I was just wondering if you'd considered giving up your beloved Greens for the new Communist party?

Henry
04-10-2015, 09:30 PM
It's a few years since I've been involved with the Greens. And I'm not a communist.

Yevrah
04-10-2015, 09:31 PM
What put you off the Greens Henners?

QE Harold Flair
04-10-2015, 09:32 PM
Are you sure? Corbyn is, after all.

Henry
04-10-2015, 09:35 PM
I'm not clear how you define that word. Corbyn is a democratic socialist, not a communist.

And Yevrah, I drifted away from the Greens after they went into coalition in Ireland. I still might vote for them depending on options/circumstances etc.

QE Harold Flair
04-10-2015, 09:39 PM
Well he has talked about having communist heroes and the like. It's certainly there within him at the very least.

Henry
04-10-2015, 09:42 PM
Well he has talked about having communist heroes and the like. It's certainly there within him at the very least.

There are "heroes" of all stripes. But who are you talking about, specifically?

QE Harold Flair
04-10-2015, 09:45 PM
Something in the back of my mind remembers an article where he said Marx a hero of his. From a while ago, mind.

Henry
04-10-2015, 09:47 PM
This one? (http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/593968/Corbyn-admits-Karl-Marx-my-communist-hero)

Seems to be another example of the right-wing press taking a qualified, considered statement and turning it into a distorted soundbite. To deny the influence of Marx on politics and politicians of all types would be very ignorant indeed.

QE Harold Flair
04-10-2015, 11:38 PM
Are you ashamed to be linked to communism or something?

Henry
05-10-2015, 08:31 AM
I have no links to communism. I am in opposition to communist ideals, methods and their outdated theories. You've been told.

Lewis
05-10-2015, 12:42 PM
Millions of working people. These people need to know we are on their side. Because many of them, let’s be frank, still voted for the Labour Party just this May... We’ve got to understand their reservations... Do you know what the supporters of the new Labour leadership now call anyone who believes in strong national defence, a market economy, and the country living within its means? They call them Tories. Well, it’s our job to make sure they’re absolutely right. Because we’re now the party of work, the only true party of labour.

Bye, Labour. It's been shit.

QE Harold Flair
05-10-2015, 01:39 PM
I have no links to communism. I am in opposition to communist ideals, methods and their outdated theories. You've been told.

I will revisit this in time, I fear.

Henry
05-10-2015, 07:06 PM
Gideon posturing for the leadership, interestingly.

Jeremy Hunt calling for American and Asian work practices, revealingly.

Boydy
05-10-2015, 07:32 PM
Does Harold think anyone who admires Marx is a communist?

Jimmy Floyd
05-10-2015, 08:03 PM
It takes quite a lot for me to side with Len McCluskey over a Tory, but Jeremy Hunt has managed it there. We shouldn't be aspiring to be American or Chinese. Those are inferior countries and societies to our own.

Lee
05-10-2015, 08:30 PM
Fucking Hunt. He's a massive wanker.

What was Osborne's speech like? When I saw the content reported my first thought was "well Labour are absolutely fucked" but it is being reported that his delivery was piss poor. Which isn't much good if he wants to be the next PM, which we all know he does.

QE Harold Flair
05-10-2015, 09:39 PM
Does Harold think anyone who admires Marx is a communist?

There's usually a link.

phonics
06-10-2015, 09:40 AM
651329091426217984

:d

Lewis
06-10-2015, 10:35 AM
David Cameron apparently stands like that behind podiums. It's some weird stability thing (fitting).

Benny
06-10-2015, 10:51 AM
They're a bunch of wankers, but there's nothing weirder than a young conservative, and you'd think the Tories would want to keep that mob under wraps.

Someone find that 'Young, bright, and very right' documentary again.

I recently discovered a boy I went to school with is into politics and made a tit of himself on live TV.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3112366/Ed-Miliband-good-f-ing-country-says-fan-ex-Labour-leader-live-TV.html

Jimmy Floyd
06-10-2015, 11:12 AM
Theresa May has just made a pretty terrifying speech. Hateful cow.

GS
06-10-2015, 08:58 PM
Elaborate for those of us who missed it.

Henry
06-10-2015, 09:01 PM
She went big on the anti-immigrant thing, though I don't know the details.

Jimmy Floyd
06-10-2015, 09:08 PM
Boris, on the other hand, donned the whole year's worth of politics.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2jJQumLfg8

Disco
06-10-2015, 09:20 PM
It's going to be amazing when he's PM.

Jimmy Floyd
06-10-2015, 09:22 PM
Osborne v Boris is an intriguing battle. Osborne has total control of the party and now the government's internal machine, but Boris is far more appealing to voters.

In reality I'd want Gideon running things and Boris foreign sec.

QE Harold Flair
06-10-2015, 09:33 PM
She went big on the anti-immigrant thing, though I don't know the details.

She is correct but I scarcely believe she believes what she's saying.

Jimmy Floyd
06-10-2015, 09:36 PM
A better explanation of the awful cow's awfulness than I could give: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11913927/Theresa-Mays-immigration-speech-is-dangerous-and-factually-wrong.html

Her political career ended today.

QE Harold Flair
06-10-2015, 09:39 PM
She's saying what most people think (and is mostly true), so I don't think it will harm her at all.

I'm mot sure why the article is so quick to believe the evidence of the same person they claim can't be trusted.


The government's own assessments in other documents say other things too. The Treasury, for instance, says immigration means annual GDP growth is .25 percentage points higher. The OBR, meanwhile, says immigration means the deficit is smaller because of the taxes immigrants pay.

Yes, and those taxes would be mostly down to the skilled immigrants who nobody is against (until we actually bother training our own people instead of making a point of not doing so and relying on immigration). The majority of immigrants are low-skilled and not needed. They're great for big business, though.

Lewis
06-10-2015, 09:45 PM
If they weren't needed they wouldn't be here.

Boydy
06-10-2015, 09:47 PM
'She's just saying what everyone's thinking!'

:D

Raoul Duke
06-10-2015, 09:49 PM
Do you have a full time job Hazza?

QE Harold Flair
06-10-2015, 09:50 PM
'She's just saying what everyone's thinking!'

:D

The majority, yes. What's funny about such a fact?

QE Harold Flair
06-10-2015, 09:51 PM
If they weren't needed they wouldn't be here.

What an utterly moronic statement.


"But as Mark Carney, the (immigrant) Governor of the Bank of England, recently observed, low wages are kept down by a never-ending supply of talented newcomers happy with the minimum wage. So all of this, while pretty good for the rich, is tougher if you’re competing with immigrants for jobs, school places, a GP appointment or social housing. Failing to recognise the real pressures people face, or to confuse such worries as xenophobia, is the surest way to incubate extremism."

Lewis
06-10-2015, 09:53 PM
It's too crude a speech really. You can't just say 'immigration' wanks up cohesion. You need to be more specific about which immigrants. Unfortunately nobody wants to do that, which is why the Poles and that get a load of unearned grief. They aren't taking over schools.

Lewis
06-10-2015, 09:55 PM
What an utterly moronic statement.

You said yourself they're 'great for big business'. How much more would you be willing to pay for food (for example) if it meant British people farmed it on a 'good wage'?

QE Harold Flair
06-10-2015, 09:58 PM
You said yourself they're 'great for big business'. How much more would you be willing to pay for food (for example) if it meant British people farmed it on a 'good wage'?

I'd pay a bit more for a country with a sense of identity, certainly. Not that I accept your inference that big business would have to raise prices to pay people a proper wage (they would spend more, so what's the difference?). I'm more concerned about the social aspect anyway, not the economic, as I have made clear many times.

phonics
06-10-2015, 09:59 PM
I'd pay a bit more for a country with a sense of identity, certainly.

Would you? Because the public's in meltdown due to Tesco are asking 5p for a plastic bag. So I somehow doubt it.

QE Harold Flair
06-10-2015, 10:03 PM
Would you? Because the public's in meltdown due to Tesco are asking 5p for a plastic bag. So I somehow doubt it.

What does that have to do with what I personally think? The majority of the country is in favour of significantly less migration, so then you must be. Right?

Lewis
06-10-2015, 10:15 PM
I'd pay a bit more for a country with a sense of identity, certainly. Not that I accept your inference that big business would have to raise prices to pay people a proper wage (they would spend more, so what's the difference?). I'm more concerned about the social aspect anyway, not the economic, as I have made clear many times.

So am I, but what is there to suggest that Eastern Europeans don't/won't integrate? There is nothing in their cultures that is inherently opposed to our 'values' in the way that Third World hang-overs suck shit in the developed world (or how people identify as Muslims and stick to that pish).

QE Harold Flair
06-10-2015, 10:16 PM
Forty years after the Swedish parliament unanimously decided to change the formerly homogenous Sweden into a multicultural country, violent crime has increased by 300% and rapes by 1,472%. Sweden is now number two on the list of rape countries, surpassed only by Lesotho in Southern Africa.

Another victory for forced multiculturalism.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape

phonics
06-10-2015, 10:17 PM
What does that have to do with what I personally think? The majority of the country is in favour of significantly less migration, so then you must be. Right?

I can't claim to be speaking as a 'man of the people' or know when people are 'just saying what everyone's thinking' like you, sadly.

QE Harold Flair
06-10-2015, 10:18 PM
So am I, but what is there to suggest that Eastern Europeans don't/won't integrate? There is nothing in their cultures that is inherently opposed to our 'values' in the way that Third World hang-overs suck shit in the developed world (or how people identify as Muslims and stick to that pish).

I'm not as against eastern europeans as I am against the third world lot, but immigration at this level leads to separate communities. Poles still largely group together because there's so many of them here in such a short space of time. Immigration at pre-2000 levels of 30-50k a year should be what we return to.

QE Harold Flair
06-10-2015, 10:21 PM
I can't claim to be speaking as a 'man of the people' or know when people are 'just saying what everyone's thinking' like you, sadly.

I never once mentioned 'what everyone is thinking'. If you're actually interested in what I said it's right here


She's saying what most people think.

Saying what the majority are thinking. And such claims are easily backed up by numerous polls which show this. Next?

Toby
06-10-2015, 10:24 PM
Another victory for forced multiculturalism.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape

In that time they've also redefined 'rape' to incorporate various other forms of sexual assault that were previously considered lesser charges, and they also log individual acts of sexual assault (within the same reported 'case') separately.

QE Harold Flair
06-10-2015, 10:26 PM
In that time they've also redefined 'rape' to incorporate various other forms of sexual assault that were previously considered lesser charges, and they also log individual acts of sexual assault (within the same reported 'case') separately.

That's it, put the blinkers on. How about this little factoid?


Since 2000, there has only been one research report (http://www.adlibris.com/se/bok/ar-kulturgenererad-grov-brottslighet-myt-eller-verklighet-brottsoffer-och-garningsman-vid-grova-brottmal-i-svea-hovratt-2002-9789185335817) on immigrant crime. It was done in 2006 by Ann-Christine Hjelm from Karlstads University.
It emerged that in 2002, 85% of those sentenced to at least two years in prison for rape in Svea Hovrätt, a court of appeals, were foreign born or second-generation immigrants.
A 1996 report (http://www.pdf-archive.com/2011/05/08/br-1996-2-invandrares-och-invandrares-barns-brottslighet-1/) by the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention reached the conclusion that immigrants from North Africa (Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia) were 23 times as likely to commit rape as Swedish men. The figures for men from Iraq, Bulgaria and Romania were, respectively, 20, 18 and 18. Men from the rest of Africa were 16 times more prone to commit rape; and men from Iran, Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia, 10 times as prone as Swedish men.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape

(http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape)
How is it, then, that in 2008, Sweden's neighbor Denmark only had 7.3 rapes per 100,000 inhabitants compared to 53.2 in Sweden?

Danish legislation is not very different from Sweden's, and there is no obvious reason why Danish women should be less inclined to report rape than their Swedish counterparts.
In 2011, 6,509 rapes were reported to the Swedish police -- but only 392 in Denmark. The population of Denmark is about half the size of Sweden's, so even adjusted for size, the discrepancy is significant.
In Sweden, the authorities do what they can to conceal the origin of the rapists. In Denmark, the state's official statistical office, Statistics Denmark, revealed that in 2010 more than half of convicted rapists (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/rape-jihad-in-denmark-more-than-half-of-all-convicted-rapists-have-immigrant-backgrounds-iraqis-iran) had an immigrant background.

(http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape)

phonics
06-10-2015, 10:30 PM
More weird standing

651515042119221248

Toby
06-10-2015, 10:30 PM
I'm not putting any "blinkers" on, stop getting so defensive. I'm merely pointing out for anybody who finds those stats startling that there are additional factors beyond societal changes.

QE Harold Flair
06-10-2015, 10:31 PM
Oh, right. So you noticed the edited parts I put in? What 'factors' do you attribute to those other discrepancies?

phonics
06-10-2015, 10:33 PM
*Checks Harold Source*
Nutty Sidebar
Picture of Britain First on the homepage
*Googles Gatestone Institute*

Ah, right.

Toby
06-10-2015, 10:35 PM
What parts? Most of your latest post doesn't have much relevance to what I have said.

Lewis
06-10-2015, 10:37 PM
I'm not as against eastern europeans as I am against the third world lot, but immigration at this level leads to separate communities. Poles still largely group together because there's so many of them here in such a short space of time. Immigration at pre-2000 levels of 30-50k a year should be what we return to.

Yeah, but those Polish communities will integrate better through their kids than Third World people. The Chinese don the piss out of our education system and don't cause any aggro. Even the Nigerians are sound. Like the, there doesn't seem to be any obvious block on Eastern Europeans melting in over time in the way that literally shipping in entire villages from the crapper parts of Pakistan set us up for a ballache.

QE Harold Flair
06-10-2015, 10:39 PM
*Checks Harold Source*
Nutty Sidebar
Picture of Britain First on the homepage
*Googles Gatestone Institute*

Ah, right.

So you're just going to bury your head because you don't want to know the truth? If you bothered to read the piece it gives sources for their information. They don't just make it up, you know. But then you're not interested in things you don't like to read/hear which happen to be true.

QE Harold Flair
06-10-2015, 10:40 PM
Yeah, but those Polish communities will integrate better through their kids than Third World people. The Chinese don the piss out of our education system and don't cause any aggro. Even the Nigerians are sound. Like the, there doesn't seem to be any obvious block on Eastern Europeans melting in over time in the way that literally shipping in entire villages from the crapper parts of Pakistan set us up for a ballache.

I don't have a problem with the Poles - they're fairly similar to us. But immigration, wherever it's from, has to be kept at a reasonable level. And that reasonable level is somewhere around what I suggested.

QE Harold Flair
06-10-2015, 10:41 PM
You know, the parts which directly state that the immigrants (especially the third world Muslim lot) are several times more likely to be rapists.

@ Tobes

Toby
06-10-2015, 10:42 PM
You know, the parts which directly state that the immigrants (especially the third world Muslim lot) are several times more likely to be rapists.

And what is the relevance of that to me saying, "there are additional factors beyond societal changes"?

I can tell there's an argument you want to have here but maybe wait until the other side is actually put forward before you go steaming in to it.

QE Harold Flair
06-10-2015, 10:44 PM
And what is the relevance of that to me saying, "there are additional factors beyond societal changes"?

I can tell there's an argument you want to have here but maybe wait until the other side is actually put forward before you go steaming in to it.

It's fucking obvious. I made that statistic clear to show that more multiculturalism, more immigration, more rape. You tried to make it seem that other factors were at work, so I've given further evidence that my inference is backed up by even more direct evidence.

Toby
06-10-2015, 10:45 PM
But other factors are at work.

Is this going to be one of those discussions where you need to have absolute basic logic spelled out to you?

Lewis
06-10-2015, 10:55 PM
I don't have a problem with the Poles - they're fairly similar to us. But immigration, wherever it's from, has to be kept at a reasonable level. And that reasonable level is somewhere around what I suggested.

It's a bit daft putting arbitrary caps in place. By all means make it harder to get in, but we should be hoovering up all the skilled people we can (even unskilled people for certain industries).

QE Harold Flair
06-10-2015, 11:23 PM
It's a bit daft putting arbitrary caps in place. By all means make it harder to get in, but we should be hoovering up all the skilled people we can (even unskilled people for certain industries).

I don't think we had arbitrary caps prior to the free movement of people. You don't need it anyway, you just have a points based system. That way the cries of BUT THE DOCTORS AND NURSES! carry no traction.

QE Harold Flair
06-10-2015, 11:24 PM
But other factors are at work.

Is this going to be one of those discussions where you need to have absolute basic logic spelled out to you?

Can you guess what the main factor is? Or are you another person in great fear of true things?

Henry
07-10-2015, 09:39 AM
When the Home Secretary makes a speech that everyone else shits on but which Harold likes, you know she's gone off the reservation.

Toby
07-10-2015, 09:43 AM
Can you guess what the main factor is? Or are you another person in great fear of true things?

The main factor is the different way rape is logged, since a husband raping his wife every day for a year would be logged as 365 incidents rather than one case as it is almost everywhere else. If you have more than a vague and unsubstantiated claim that, "Danish legislation is not very different from Sweden's" it'll be an interesting contribution, but as things are that being the only difference accounts for a large part of those numbers (and there is absolutely no way those numbers would be so out of sync if they were recorded in the same way).

That's not to say there aren't societal factors, and it may be that rape cases are genuinely on the increase, but the statistical comparisons just aren't that helpful given these issues.

QE Harold Flair
07-10-2015, 10:12 AM
The main factor is the different way rape is logged

:happycry:


since a husband raping his wife every day for a year would be logged as 365 incidents rather than one case as it is almost everywhere else. If you have more than a vague and unsubstantiated claim that, "Danish legislation is not very different from Sweden's" it'll be an interesting contribution, but as things are that being the only difference accounts for a large part of those numbers (and there is absolutely no way those numbers would be so out of sync if they were recorded in the same way).

Why ignore the real meat of that post, which is that immigrants or second generation immigrants are several times more likely to be convicted of rape (and subsequently the rape cases in Sweden exploding after they went for multiculturalism. Coincidence!)? That's not insignificant to anyone who doesn't deliberately choose to ignore it.

Jimmy Floyd
07-10-2015, 11:04 AM
Dave's properly going for Jezza here. Says he hates Britain.

QE Harold Flair
07-10-2015, 11:25 AM
Oh dear. He was doing alright until going off on a tangent about racism and equality.

Lee
07-10-2015, 11:27 AM
He didn't ask for equality for pig fuckers.

Magic
07-10-2015, 11:29 AM
Harold did you see about the female activist raped at a refugee camped by Sudanese men multiple times was forced not to report it as it would 'damage the cause'. :harold:

QE Harold Flair
07-10-2015, 11:30 AM
This is more like it. Getting on those Muslim cunts now.

QE Harold Flair
07-10-2015, 11:31 AM
Harold did you see about the female activist raped at a refugee camped by Sudanese men multiple times was forced not to report it as it would 'damage the cause'. :harold:

As it happens, I had a cracking article lined up about the double standards (and outright lies) of feminists just waiting for Tobes. But fuck it, let's all educate ourselves now:

http://www.infowars.com/feminists-mute-on-muslim-rape-epidemic-sweeping-europe/

The opening piece:



After years of screaming bloody murder about a rape epidemic on college campuses in the United States that didn’t exist, feminists remain mute on the real rape epidemic sweeping Europe – that being perpetrated primarily by Muslim men.

Feminist groups have campaigned tirelessly to draw attention to their claim that one in five women on college campuses are victims of sexual assault. This figure was completely debunked by a December 2014 U.S. Department of Justice report (http://thefederalist.com/2014/12/11/new-doj-data-on-sexual-assaults-college-students-are-actually-less-likely-to-be-victimized/) which found that non-students are 25% more likely to be victims of sexual assault than students.
In fact, the actual rate of female college students becoming sexual assault victims is 6.1 per 1,000 students, compared to 7.6 per 1,000 people for non-students. That means that just 0.03-in-5 female students, not one in five, are victims of sexual assault.
The myth of the college campus rape epidemic was prominently illustrated in November last year when it emerged that the Rolling Stone’s lurid University of Virginia gang-rape story was almost certainly fabricated. This was just one of numerous college rape scandals (http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/14/here-are-eight-campus-rape-hoaxes-eerily-like-the-uva-rape-story/) that turned out to be completely contrived. “The truth is that there’s no epidemic outbreak of college rape,” writes Glenn Harlan Reynolds (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/12/14/campus-rape-uva-crisis-rolling-stone-politics-column/20397277/), a University of Tennessee law professor. “In fact, rape on college campuses is — like rape everywhere else in America — plummeting in frequency. And that 1-in-5 college rape number you keep hearing in the press? It’s thoroughly bogus, too. (Even the authors of that study say that “We don’t think one in five is a nationally representative statistic,” because it sampled only two schools.)” While feminists are quick to condemn the ‘white male patriarchy’ for non-existent rape scandals in America, their attitude to actual rape epidemics being carried out by Muslim men across Europe has been noticeably more reserved.

I recommend reading the rest.

Magic
07-10-2015, 11:36 AM
Lots of smiling, no doom and gloom, positive messages.

Compare that to the Corbyn's disastrous speech...:harold:

Magic
07-10-2015, 11:42 AM
Fuck that, I'd hate that. 'Hi you're live on the BBC'

Stomach contents ejected. How do these guys look like it's all pre-rehearsed? Or am I just socially retarded?

Christ this dude has a Harry Potter scar.

EDIT: Christ :D Good to see some other young blokes make complete cunts of themselves.

EDIT 2: I feel unemployed. :(

Lee
07-10-2015, 11:45 AM
There's something very wrong with people that young hanging around at party conferences.

Magic
07-10-2015, 11:46 AM
There's something very wrong with people that young hanging around at party conferences.

Probably been groomed from a young age.

:henn0rz:

Toby
07-10-2015, 12:02 PM
:happycry:



Why ignore the real meat of that post, which is that immigrants or second generation immigrants are several times more likely to be convicted of rape (and subsequently the rape cases in Sweden exploding after they went for multiculturalism. Coincidence!)? That's not insignificant to anyone who doesn't deliberately choose to ignore it.

I haven't said those findings are insignificant, but attempts to suggest Sweden actually has significantly more incidents of rape than elsewhere just don't stand up to scrutiny. The demographic breakdown of who is doing the raping doesn't play in to that.

Toby
07-10-2015, 12:03 PM
Again that post and your follow ups suggest you're looking for an argument that isn't being made. Your reading comprehension gets more tragic by the day.

John Arne
07-10-2015, 12:05 PM
What an odious cunt Cameron is.

Jimmy Floyd
07-10-2015, 12:07 PM
Cameron with a land grab of epic proportions here. Labour have given him a free pass to take the whole of the centre ground and he's marched the troops in already.

This period of Tory rule will last a long, long time.

QE Harold Flair
07-10-2015, 12:11 PM
Again that post and your follow ups suggest you're looking for an argument that isn't being made. Your reading comprehension gets more tragic by the day.

I was very much making the argument suggested in my very first post. Unless you were unable to deduce that my initial inference was that more immigration = more rape. I didn't make it that hard for even you to understand. But now that is crystal clear, perhaps you can address the uncomfortable truth? Or are you going to repeat your disingenuous self again?

Davgooner
07-10-2015, 12:14 PM
But if they're in the centre is it really Tory rule at all?

:pards:

I'm going to keep using that until I figure out what it is.

Lewis
07-10-2015, 12:15 PM
Cameron with a land grab of epic proportions here. Labour have given him a free pass to take the whole of the centre ground and he's marched the troops in already.

This period of Tory rule will last a long, long time.

They need to work on getting 'Big Ruth' a safe seat somewhere.

QE Harold Flair
07-10-2015, 12:16 PM
Peter Hitchens has it right - they are not really Conservatives any more.

Jimmy Floyd
07-10-2015, 12:16 PM
It'll end in about 2065 when they try to put gays into workhouses or something, but until then I'm going to ride the wave.

Davgooner
07-10-2015, 12:17 PM
We'll all be working for Korean companies with five years.

Lewis
07-10-2015, 12:22 PM
Peter Hitchens' definition of conservative is to conserve a particular day he had in 1956.

QE Harold Flair
07-10-2015, 12:26 PM
Peter Hitchens' definition of conservative is to conserve a particular day he had in 1956.

An often repeated jibe he swats away regularly. Back in the day he was a Marxist, lest you forget. That's why the left hate him - he knows how they think and can see through the bollocks.

Lee
07-10-2015, 12:26 PM
Cameron with a land grab of epic proportions here. Labour have given him a free pass to take the whole of the centre ground and he's marched the troops in already.

This period of Tory rule will last a long, long time.

It looks that way but it wasn't so long ago people were writing the Tories off. Labour will bin Corbyn eventually and there's always the risk that the stories pick a shit leader after Cameron.

The Asian baldie and Johnson are their best options. Osborne is clever but plays badly with people and they could go properly mental and choose May. A new recession would mean all bets are off too. Four years is a long time.

QE Harold Flair
07-10-2015, 12:30 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug47iNTWCKU

http://i60.tinypic.com/2j5kt1v.gif

Jimmy Floyd
07-10-2015, 12:34 PM
It looks that way but it wasn't so long ago people were writing the Tories off. Labour will bin Corbyn eventually and there's always the risk that the stories pick a shit leader after Cameron.

The Asian baldie and Johnson are their best options. Osborne is clever but plays badly with people and they could go properly mental and choose May. A new recession would mean all bets are off too. Four years is a long time.

Say what you like about Tories 1997-2005, but they never elected Peter Bone as leader. Labour have gone much, much further off the cliff than they ever did. Nobody in the south will ever vote Labour again, and it was those people who won Blair three elections.

Magic
07-10-2015, 12:38 PM
They need to work on getting 'Big Ruth' a safe seat somewhere.

100% shameful lustage.

The domination. :drool:

Lewis
07-10-2015, 12:40 PM
An often repeated jibe he swats away regularly. Back in the day he was a Marxist, lest you forget. That's why the left hate him - he knows how they think and can see through the bollocks.

He moans about social liberalism and laments the decline of Christianity as the centre of national life. His ex-Marxism just marks (arf) him out as somebody prone to believing crap.