UK General Election 2017 - 8 June

[Spammer]

I posted it because you appeared to be incapable of understanding his quite basic point.

:D

Don't let your inability to read get in the way of your desperate need to talk down to people. Anything that makes you feel better, right?

[Pepe]

If you're in the private sector, policies which make it easier for your business / employer to grow and spend their money on you through development, promotion, and pay increases are going to sound better.

Lol.

[GS]

:D

Don't let your inability to read get in the way of your desperate need to talk down to people. Anything that makes you feel better, right?

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

[GS]

Lol.

No, you're right, the employed welcome high taxes to fund free tuition and high welfare payouts.

[randomlegend]

It's a case of recognising people have self interest. Parties of the left are looser with public money, ergo if you rely on it for your job / livelihood then you're more likely to support the party who are going to give you more of it.

If you're in the private sector, policies which make it easier for your business / employer to grow and spend their money on you through development, promotion, and pay increases are going to sound better. The money goes to you as an employee and not too the exchequer to be redirected to the aforesaid public money recipients. You'll also be less interested in arguments about welfare etc. when you're the one whose taxes are paying for it.

I would imagine this is quite normal.

Or maybe people who are less self-interested are both more likely to work in the public sector and more likely to vote for the left.

I don't even understand the bit about taxes/welfare, public sector workers still pay taxes.

[Spammer]

There are only five posters in the thread with more than fifty posts. One of them is Henners, one of them is some bot that reproduces shit Twitter snark and Guardian extracts, and the others - with over a hundred each - are GS, Floyd, and me. Is it all that surprising that we might tend towards addressing each other rather than the wider universe?

I'd wonder why it's become like that in the first place, as one of the things about this place is the variety of opinion.

You've addressed my point though. Nice one.

[Spammer]

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

Evidently.

[GS]

Or maybe people who are less self-interested are both more likely to work in the public sector and more likely to vote for the left.

I don't even understand the bit about taxes/welfare, public sector workers still pay taxes.

Doctors aren't altruistic, mate. We've been through this.

[Magic]

Fucking.

Keep reading Hammer's posts as Giggles's because of the avatar for some reason.

[Jimmy Floyd]

It's almost like having people understanding precisely what is meant isn't even the point.

I've assumed it was due to stupidity, and then due to poor expression. I'm starting to think that even if it's a throwaway, half-baked observation that adds very little to anything, people really think that's it's worth something and that people are interested. Self-absorption, then? Or a complete lack of any self-awareness whatsoever? Do people really think that their perspective is important, in and of itself, even if it adds nothing to the conversation? That's the only explanation I can think of for people expressing themselves in this way.

GS's post further up is a good example of it too. I mean, he's basically just parroted what you've said and added literally nothing to conversation that wasn't there already. Why would he post it? I don't know. I don't think anyone will know.

And then you look through the thread and wonder why it's become a circle-jerk between about four people rather than an interesting conversation about an important subject. I'm guessing most other members chat about this stuff elsewhere.

What am I supposed to post, other than my own perspective?

[Pepe]

No, you're right, the employed welcome high taxes to fund free tuition and high welfare payouts.

No, you're right. Only unemployed people have ever cared about that.

[Magic]

I can assure you Hamster that other members don't talk about this bilge elsewhere. We're more interested in cat gifs and leaked celebs.

[John]

GS's post further up is a good example of it too. I mean, he's basically just [...] added literally nothing to conversation that wasn't there already. Why would he post it? I don't know. I don't think anyone will know.

With that criticism in mind, why do you do that 'New Page :cool:' thing. Do you feel like it adds to the conversation?

[Boydy]

I posted it because you appeared to be incapable of understanding his quite basic point.
Stop being a cunt.


There are only five posters in the thread with more than fifty posts. One of them is Henners, one of them is some bot that reproduces shit Twitter snark and Guardian extracts, and the others - with over a hundred each - are GS, Floyd, and me. Is it all that surprising that we might tend towards addressing each other rather than the wider universe?

I thought the second one there was me at first but then I checked the numbers of posts. Phew.

[Pepe]

:D

[GS]

There will be live blood sport on BBC at 7pm, if anyone is interested.

[GS]

He is literally incapable of answering a straight question on the RA. "I never met the IRA" has to be a new low.

[randomlegend]

GS, you really are genuinely incapable of coming to terms with the concept that anyone might do anything for reasons which aren't self-serving. It's a bit sad to be honest.

[GS]

Hardly, but they're always going to be a minority when it necessitates a material sacrifice.

[randomlegend]

:( Lad

[Byron]

He is literally incapable of answering a straight question on the RA. "I never met the IRA" has to be a new low.

Serious question, how do you compare Corbyn with the fact that the Conservative government of the 80's and 90's was almost certainly meeting the IRA in secret?

[Reg]

GS, you really are genuinely incapable of coming to terms with the concept that anyone might do anything for reasons which aren't self-serving.
Nailed it. Did I read once you used to be a Labour supporter, GS?

[Boydy]

Serious question, how do you compare Corbyn with the fact that the Conservative government of the 80's and 90's was almost certainly meeting the IRA in secret?

They were meeting with them even back in the 70s.

[GS]

Serious question, how do you compare Corbyn with the fact that the Conservative government of the 80's and 90's was almost certainly meeting the IRA in secret?

Some context is important, as I suspect the general knowledge of this period of Northern Ireland is somewhat scarcely spread these days.

The Conservatives met the IRA secretly in 1972, when Willie Whitelaw was Secretary of State - here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/10/newsid_2499000/2499643.stm). 1972 was the worst year of the Troubles, with nearly 500 people killed. Their key demands at the meeting (which was also attended by Martin McGuinness who was already second in command in Derry) included an immediate amnesty for all "political prisoners" (that is, terrorists in normal language) and full withdrawal of British forces by 1975. This was clearly unworkable in a modern democracy, and they were rightly told no - so they continued the campaign.

There was a border poll in 1973, which the nationalists boycotted because they knew they couldn't possibly win - here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_border_poll_1973). There was also the first attempt at a negotiated settlement with the Sunningdale agreement - here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunningdale_Agreement). The elections were boycotted by the republicans, who continued the campaign of violence (Paisley's role in this was equally stupid, but we're focusing on the IRA here). So attempts at resolving the issue 'constitutionally' and / or 'democratically' failed.

So it was very clear from the early seventies that the IRA were not interested in 'proper' negotiation. The government may have had certain back channels to the IRA at various points over the following years, but we had no devolved administration and security was therefore their direct responsibility under 'direct rule'. Given the IRA weren't going to stop unless they forced Britain out of Ireland, the government had two choices: 1) they could concede the point, which would have been monumentally thick, or 2) not concede the point and set about beating them.

They did the latter. They may have negotiated with them through back channels (for example, at the height of the hunger strikes in 1981), but they were also simultaneously infiltrating the organisation, seizing its weapons, and, where necessary, outright shooting their members before they could undertake attacks. The IRA ultimately came to the table because the British state successfully reduced its operational capacity to such an extent that it simply couldn't carry on. When a deal was reached under Blair, accepting that the constitutional status of the north could only change through a referendum was basically their official recognition of defeat (not that they'll ever admit it was anything other than a draw). The south also revoked its constitutional clauses claiming jurisdiction over the 'six counties', so it recognised the border officially.

So ultimately the government talking to the IRA whilst simultaneously beating them into the ground meant the troubles ended. There's also the quite clear distinction that the government are actually in a position to implement decisions and / or make concessions. What the fuck was Jeremy Corbyn going to do exactly? He was an obscure backbench MP who liked a bit of romantic terrorism. He had absolutely no power whatsoever (Labour weren't in government the whole of Corbyn's parliamentary career until 1997), no influence, no substantial intellectual weight behind which anybody could fall. This leader from the Guardian, no less, is really quite scathing of Corbyn's relationship with the IRA at the time:

641187345505591297

This is also the sort of thing he was saying and doing publicly at the time (this is merely one example):

‘I’m happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland’. (http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/night-jeremy-corbyn-stood-in-honour-of-dead-ira-terrorists-1-7008757)

He quite blatantly supported the IRA campaign. He supported an armed terrorist group seeking to kill British citizens, to destroy the territorial integrity of Britain against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, and he did so repeatedly over many, many years despite continued IRA bombings and atrocities. Comparing that to legitimate government back channels (whilst they simultaneously smashed them into defeat) isn't a line of debate that needs to be pursued further. There is no comparison.

By the way, I'm aware this may not exercise huge numbers of people under the age of about 50. Which is fine. What I simply can't hack is the attempt to rewrite the history of the thing. At least recognise him for what he is in respect of the Troubles. If you still think it's worthwhile voting for despite his blatant IRA apologist stance, that's fine - but pretending it doesn't matter or doesn't represent a dreadful black mark on his personal judgement is taking the piss. It doesn't really matter it he's offering free tuition - the man is a tool who is singularly unfit for public office, never mind as Prime fucking Minister.

(Apologies for the long post, but it's a complex issue and deserves to be treated as such.)

[Magic]

I'll be voting for him because I hate northern Irish people.

[Lewis]

Unless we ever met them to discuss our unconditional surrender, any comparisons with the British state are stupid.

[Adamski]

It's almost like having people understanding precisely what is meant isn't even the point.

I've assumed it was due to stupidity, and then due to poor expression. I'm starting to think that even if it's a throwaway, half-baked observation that adds very little to anything, people really think that's it's worth something and that people are interested. Self-absorption, then? Or a complete lack of any self-awareness whatsoever? Do people really think that their perspective is important, in and of itself, even if it adds nothing to the conversation? That's the only explanation I can think of for people expressing themselves in this way.

GS's post further up is a good example of it too. I mean, he's basically just parroted what you've said and added literally nothing to conversation that wasn't there already. Why would he post it? I don't know. I don't think anyone will know.

And then you look through the thread and wonder why it's become a circle-jerk between about four people rather than an interesting conversation about an important subject. I'm guessing most other members chat about this stuff elsewhere.

It's like I said a few pages back, Hammer.

Virgins.

[Lewis]

That Michael Fallon footage is sort of lol, but he could have just said Boris Johnson was wrong and got out of it, so it's not quite as bad as people are making out (although he is prone to coming out with shite, which probably robs him of the benefit of any doubt).

[Boydy]

Some context is important, as I suspect the general knowledge of this period of Northern Ireland is somewhat scarcely spread these days.

The Conservatives met the IRA secretly in 1972, when Willie Whitelaw was Secretary of State - here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/10/newsid_2499000/2499643.stm). 1972 was the worst year of the Troubles, with nearly 500 people killed. Their key demands at the meeting (which was also attended by Martin McGuinness who was already second in command in Derry) included an immediate amnesty for all "political prisoners" (that is, terrorists in normal language) and full withdrawal of British forces by 1975. This was clearly unworkable in a modern democracy, and they were rightly told no - so they continued the campaign.

There was a border poll in 1973, which the nationalists boycotted because they knew they couldn't possibly win - here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_border_poll_1973). There was also the first attempt at a negotiated settlement with the Sunningdale agreement - here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunningdale_Agreement). The elections were boycotted by the republicans, who continued the campaign of violence (Paisley's role in this was equally stupid, but we're focusing on the IRA here). So attempts at resolving the issue 'constitutionally' and / or 'democratically' failed.

So it was very clear from the early seventies that the IRA were not interested in 'proper' negotiation. The government may have had certain back channels to the IRA at various points over the following years, but we had no devolved administration and security was therefore their direct responsibility under 'direct rule'. Given the IRA weren't going to stop unless they forced Britain out of Ireland, the government had two choices: 1) they could concede the point, which would have been monumentally thick, or 2) not concede the point and set about beating them.

They did the latter. They may have negotiated with them through back channels (for example, at the height of the hunger strikes in 1981), but they were also simultaneously infiltrating the organisation, seizing its weapons, and, where necessary, outright shooting their members before they could undertake attacks. The IRA ultimately came to the table because the British state successfully reduced its operational capacity to such an extent that it simply couldn't carry on. When a deal was reached under Blair, accepting that the constitutional status of the north could only change through a referendum was basically their official recognition of defeat (not that they'll ever admit it was anything other than a draw). The south also revoked its constitutional clauses claiming jurisdiction over the 'six counties', so it recognised the border officially.

So ultimately the government talking to the IRA whilst simultaneously beating them into the ground meant the troubles ended. There's also the quite clear distinction that the government are actually in a position to implement decisions and / or make concessions. What the fuck was Jeremy Corbyn going to do exactly? He was an obscure backbench MP who liked a bit of romantic terrorism. He had absolutely no power whatsoever (Labour weren't in government the whole of Corbyn's parliamentary career until 1997), no influence, no substantial intellectual weight behind which anybody could fall. This leader from the Guardian, no less, is really quite scathing of Corbyn's relationship with the IRA at the time:

641187345505591297

This is also the sort of thing he was saying and doing publicly at the time (this is merely one example):

‘I’m happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland’. (http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/night-jeremy-corbyn-stood-in-honour-of-dead-ira-terrorists-1-7008757)

He quite blatantly supported the IRA campaign. He supported an armed terrorist group seeking to kill British citizens, to destroy the territorial integrity of Britain against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, and he did so repeatedly over many, many years despite continued IRA bombings and atrocities. Comparing that to legitimate government back channels (whilst they simultaneously smashed them into defeat) isn't a line of debate that needs to be pursued further. There is no comparison.

By the way, I'm aware this may not exercise huge numbers of people under the age of about 50. Which is fine. What I simply can't hack is the attempt to rewrite the history of the thing. At least recognise him for what he is in respect of the Troubles. If you still think it's worthwhile voting for despite his blatant IRA apologist stance, that's fine - but pretending it doesn't matter or doesn't represent a dreadful black mark on his personal judgement is taking the piss. It doesn't really matter it he's offering free tuition - the man is a tool who is singularly unfit for public office, never mind as Prime fucking Minister.

(Apologies for the long post, but it's a complex issue and deserves to be treated as such.)

SoMe cOnTeXt iS ImPoRtAnT, aS I SuSpEcT ThE GeNeRaL KnOwLeDgE Of tHiS PeRiOd oF NoRtHeRn iReLaNd iS SoMeWhAt sCaRcElY SpReAd tHeSe dAyS. tHe cOnSeRvAtIvEs mEt tHe iRa sEcReTlY In 1972, wHeN WiLlIe wHiTeLaW WaS SeCrEtArY Of sTaTe - hErE. 1972 WaS ThE WoRsT YeAr oF ThE TrOuBlEs, WiTh nEaRlY 500 PeOpLe kIlLeD. tHeIr kEy dEmAnDs aT ThE MeEtInG (wHiCh wAs aLsO AtTeNdEd bY MaRtIn mCgUiNnEsS WhO WaS AlReAdY SeCoNd iN CoMmAnD In dErRy) InClUdEd aN ImMeDiAtE AmNeStY FoR AlL "pOlItIcAl pRiSoNeRs" (tHaT Is, TeRrOrIsTs iN NoRmAl lAnGuAgE) aNd fUlL WiThDrAwAl oF BrItIsH FoRcEs bY 1975. ThIs wAs cLeArLy uNwOrKaBlE In a mOdErN DeMoCrAcY, aNd tHeY WeRe rIgHtLy tOlD No - sO ThEy cOnTiNuEd tHe cAmPaIgN. tHeRe wAs a bOrDeR PoLl iN 1973, WhIcH ThE NaTiOnAlIsTs bOyCoTtEd bEcAuSe tHeY KnEw tHeY CoUlDn't pOsSiBlY WiN - HeRe. ThErE WaS AlSo tHe fIrSt aTtEmPt aT A NeGoTiAtEd sEtTlEmEnT WiTh tHe sUnNiNgDaLe aGrEeMeNt - hErE. tHe eLeCtIoNs wErE BoYcOtTeD By tHe rEpUbLiCaNs, WhO CoNtInUeD ThE CaMpAiGn oF ViOlEnCe (PaIsLeY'S RoLe iN ThIs wAs eQuAlLy sTuPiD, bUt wE'Re fOcUsInG On tHe iRa hErE). So aTtEmPtS At rEsOlViNg tHe iSsUe 'CoNsTiTuTiOnAlLy' AnD / Or 'DeMoCrAtIcAlLy' FaIlEd. So iT WaS VeRy cLeAr fRoM ThE EaRlY SeVeNtIeS ThAt tHe iRa wErE NoT InTeReStEd iN 'pRoPeR' nEgOtIaTiOn. ThE GoVeRnMeNt mAy hAvE HaD CeRtAiN BaCk cHaNnElS To tHe iRa aT VaRiOuS PoInTs oVeR ThE FoLlOwInG YeArS, bUt wE HaD No dEvOlVeD AdMiNiStRaTiOn aNd sEcUrItY WaS ThErEfOrE ThEiR DiReCt rEsPoNsIbIlItY UnDeR 'dIrEcT RuLe'. gIvEn tHe iRa wErEn't gOiNg tO StOp uNlEsS ThEy fOrCeD BrItAiN OuT Of iReLaNd, ThE GoVeRnMeNt hAd tWo cHoIcEs: 1) tHeY CoUlD CoNcEdE ThE PoInT, wHiCh wOuLd hAvE BeEn mOnUmEnTaLlY ThIcK, oR 2) nOt cOnCeDe tHe pOiNt aNd sEt aBoUt bEaTiNg tHeM. tHeY DiD ThE LaTtEr. ThEy mAy hAvE NeGoTiAtEd wItH ThEm tHrOuGh bAcK ChAnNeLs (FoR ExAmPlE, aT ThE HeIgHt oF ThE HuNgEr sTrIkEs iN 1981), bUt tHeY WeRe aLsO SiMuLtAnEoUsLy iNfIlTrAtInG ThE OrGaNiSaTiOn, SeIzInG ItS WeApOnS, aNd, WhErE NeCeSsArY, oUtRiGhT ShOoTiNg tHeIr mEmBeRs bEfOrE ThEy cOuLd uNdErTaKe aTtAcKs. ThE IrA UlTiMaTeLy cAmE To tHe tAbLe bEcAuSe tHe bRiTiSh sTaTe sUcCeSsFuLlY ReDuCeD ItS OpErAtIoNaL CaPaCiTy tO SuCh aN ExTeNt tHaT It sImPlY CoUlDn't cArRy oN. wHeN A DeAl wAs rEaChEd uNdEr bLaIr, AcCePtInG ThAt tHe cOnStItUtIoNaL StAtUs oF ThE NoRtH CoUlD OnLy cHaNgE ThRoUgH A ReFeReNdUm wAs bAsIcAlLy tHeIr oFfIcIaL ReCoGnItIoN Of dEfEaT (nOt tHaT ThEy'lL EvEr aDmIt iT WaS AnYtHiNg oThEr tHaN A DrAw). tHe sOuTh aLsO ReVoKeD ItS CoNsTiTuTiOnAl cLaUsEs cLaImInG JuRiSdIcTiOn oVeR ThE 'sIx cOuNtIeS', So iT ReCoGnIsEd tHe bOrDeR OfFiCiAlLy. So uLtImAtElY ThE GoVeRnMeNt tAlKiNg tO ThE IrA WhIlSt sImUlTaNeOuSlY BeAtInG ThEm iNtO ThE GrOuNd mEaNt tHe tRoUbLeS EnDeD. tHeRe's aLsO ThE QuItE ClEaR DiStInCtIoN ThAt tHe gOvErNmEnT ArE AcTuAlLy iN A PoSiTiOn tO ImPlEmEnT DeCiSiOnS AnD / Or mAkE CoNcEsSiOnS. wHaT ThE FuCk wAs jErEmY CoRbYn gOiNg tO Do eXaCtLy? He wAs aN ObScUrE BaCkBeNcH Mp wHo lIkEd a bIt oF RoMaNtIc tErRoRiSm. He hAd aBsOlUtElY No pOwEr wHaTsOeVeR (lAbOuR WeReN'T In gOvErNmEnT ThE WhOlE Of cOrByN'S PaRlIaMeNtArY CaReEr uNtIl 1997), No iNfLuEnCe, No sUbStAnTiAl iNtElLeCtUaL WeIgHt bEhInD WhIcH AnYbOdY CoUlD FaLl. ThIs lEaDeR FrOm tHe gUaRdIaN, nO LeSs, Is rEaLlY QuItE ScAtHiNg oF CoRbYn's rElAtIoNsHiP WiTh tHe iRa aT ThE TiMe. ThIs iS AlSo tHe sOrT Of tHiNg hE WaS SaYiNg aNd dOiNg pUbLiClY At tHe tImE (tHiS Is mErElY OnE ExAmPlE): ‘i’m hApPy tO CoMmEmOrAtE AlL ThOsE WhO DiEd fIgHtInG FoR An iNdEpEnDeNt iReLaNd’. hE QuItE BlAtAnTlY SuPpOrTeD ThE IrA CaMpAiGn. He sUpPoRtEd aN ArMeD TeRrOrIsT GrOuP SeEkInG To kIlL BrItIsH CiTiZeNs, To dEsTrOy tHe tErRiToRiAl iNtEgRiTy oF BrItAiN AgAiNsT ThE WiShEs oF ThE PeOpLe oF NoRtHeRn iReLaNd, AnD He dId sO RePeAtEdLy oVeR MaNy, MaNy yEaRs dEsPiTe cOnTiNuEd iRa bOmBiNgS AnD AtRoCiTiEs. CoMpArInG ThAt tO LeGiTiMaTe gOvErNmEnT BaCk cHaNnElS (wHiLsT ThEy sImUlTaNeOuSlY SmAsHeD ThEm iNtO DeFeAt) IsN'T A LiNe oF DeBaTe tHaT NeEdS To bE PuRsUeD FuRtHeR. tHeRe iS No cOmPaRiSoN. bY ThE WaY, i'm aWaRe tHiS MaY NoT ExErCiSe hUgE NuMbErS Of pEoPlE UnDeR ThE AgE Of aBoUt 50. wHiCh iS FiNe. WhAt i sImPlY CaN'T HaCk iS ThE AtTeMpT To rEwRiTe tHe hIsToRy oF ThE ThInG. aT LeAsT ReCoGnIsE HiM FoR WhAt hE Is iN ReSpEcT Of tHe tRoUbLeS. iF YoU StIlL ThInK It's wOrThWhIlE VoTiNg fOr dEsPiTe hIs bLaTaNt iRa aPoLoGiSt sTaNcE, tHaT'S FiNe - bUt pReTeNdInG It dOeSn't mAtTeR Or dOeSn't rEpReSeNt a dReAdFuL BlAcK MaRk oN HiS PeRsOnAl jUdGeMeNt iS TaKiNg tHe pIsS. iT DoEsN'T ReAlLy mAtTeR It hE'S OfFeRiNg fReE TuItIoN - ThE MaN Is a tOoL WhO Is sInGuLaRlY UnFiT FoR PuBlIc oFfIcE, nEvEr mInD As pRiMe fUcKiNg mInIsTeR. (ApOlOgIeS FoR ThE LoNg pOsT, bUt iT'S A CoMpLeX IsSuE AnD DeSeRvEs tO Be tReAtEd aS SuCh.)

https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/mocking-spongebob.jpg?quality=100&w=650

[Mellberg]

What the fuck?

[Byron]

Do you even meme bro?

[Alan Shearer The 2nd]

Am I high?

[Magic]

:D

[Pepe]

Is he drunk?

That must have taken some effort.

[Shindig]

All that education finally paid off, Stephen.

[Magic]

If he hasn't converted that somehow I'm repping. Can you confirm Toid?

[Reg]

There must be a website that does that for you, otherwise in terms of willpower required Boydy has pretty much ran a marathon.

[7om]

Lovely seethe. Just what I needed to kick start my Friday night.

[niko_cee]

Is that our Chrissy that just popped up on Newsnight?

[randomlegend]

Website or not, that Boyd post is great :D

[Boydy]

I wrote a small Python program to do it for me. I've been pissing around trying to learn some coding and that was the main motivation for doing it.

[Pepe]

Nah, you wouldn't put that much effort into anything.

[Boydy]

It was only 11 lines. Plus, I learnt something out of it. And I thought it was funny.

[Henry]

Corbyn did well in the interview I thought, claims from the bigoted section of our membership that he was insufficiently vitriolic in his attitude towards the IRA notwithstanding.

May is going full on with the terrorism stuff too, in the aftermath of the Manchester attack, blatantly lying about Corbyns position. Hopefully people understand nuance better than she thinks, and the implication that you're either unquestionably behind middle-eastern wars or a supporter of ISIS won't stand.
It's worth noting that this has happened before, when the Spanish government tried to use the Madrid bombing for political gain on much the same grounds, and it backfired.

[Shindig]

Meh, I'll be voting Labour anyway. They're the only one canvassing in our area. I've seen maybe two Tory leaflets in my time here and they're both either, "Our candidate's in a band." or "Yeah but Labour proper did all those school cuts that the Tory government definitely had nothing to do with."

Our Labour mainstay is taken credit for the building I work in and the regeneration of the city centre. Fine, I guess. That's the thing I get from local politicians. You're never really sure how much they actually do or how far their power reaches. Ultimately, the decisions are made by people with far more influence than them.

[Spikey M]

Can someone explain how 'yes but the loyalists killed lots of people too' is as offensive as the dick heads on my Facebook seem to find it? I mean, it seems a simple declaration of both sides being murderous cunts to me.

[Henry]

The loyalists killed more, often in collusion with the British state.

But that's consigned to the memory hole, apparently.

[Boydy]

The loyalists killed more, often in collusion with the British state.

But that's consigned to the memory hole, apparently.
Loyalists didn't kill more.

[Offshore Toon]

Corbyn took the battering well, but ultimately anybody that watched it will have witnessed 20 minutes dedicated to reasons to not vote for him. The best he could do is not lose votes.

[Henry]

Loyalists didn't kill more.

Apologies. They killed more civilians. I remembered that wrong.

[Boydy]

Yeah, that sounds more accurate although I don't know the exact figures on that.

[Shindig]

What I get from the Irish is that both sides of the conflict were massively shit.

[GS]

Henry and Boydy refusing to acknowledge the issue / pretending it doesn't exist / equivocating proves the point perfectly here. Exactly as you'd expected from the fully-paid up tinfoil hat brigade.

[Lewis]

One of the most dangerous words is 'extremist'. A person who commits acts of violence is not an 'extremist'; he is a criminal. If he commits those acts of violence with the object of detaching part of the territory of the United Kingdom and attaching it to a foreign country, he is an enemy under arms. There is the world of difference between a citizen who commits a crime, in the belief, however mistaken, that he is thereby helping to preserve the integrity of his country and his right to remain a subject of his sovereign, and a person, be he citizen or alien, who commits a crime with the intention of destroying that integrity and rendering impossible that allegiance. The former breaches the peace; the latter is executing an act of war. The use of the word 'extremist' of either or both conveys a dangerous untruth: it implies that both hold acceptable opinions and seek permissible ends, only that they carry them to 'extremes'. Not so: the one is a lawbreaker; the other is an enemy.

The same purpose, that of rendering friend and foe indistinguishable, is achieved by references to the 'impartiality' of the British troops and to their function as 'keeping the peace'. The British forces are in Northern Ireland because an avowed enemy is using force of arms to break down lawful authority in the province and thereby seize control. The army cannot be 'impartial' towards an enemy, nor between the aggressor and the aggressed: they are not glorified policemen, restraining two sets of citizens who might otherwise do one another harm, and duty bound to show no 'partiality' towards one lawbreaker rather than another. They are engaged in defeating an armed attack upon the state. Once again, the terminology is designed to obliterate the vital difference between friend and enemy, loyal and disloyal.

Quite fitting.

[Henry]

So now we're on to defending loyalist terrorism. Nice.

[Boydy]

You could pretty easily argue that the IRA were committing crimes in the belief that they were helping to preserve the integrity of their country.

[Boydy]

But what I think is more fitting is this:

OnE Of tHe mOsT DaNgErOuS WoRdS Is 'ExTrEmIsT'. A PeRsOn wHo cOmMiTs aCtS Of vIoLeNcE Is nOt aN 'eXtReMiSt'; hE Is a cRiMiNaL. iF He cOmMiTs tHoSe aCtS Of vIoLeNcE WiTh tHe oBjEcT Of dEtAcHiNg pArT Of tHe tErRiToRy oF ThE UnItEd kInGdOm aNd aTtAcHiNg iT To a fOrEiGn cOuNtRy, He iS An eNeMy uNdEr aRmS. tHeRe iS ThE WoRlD Of dIfFeReNcE BeTwEeN A CiTiZeN WhO CoMmItS A CrImE, iN ThE BeLiEf, HoWeVeR MiStAkEn, ThAt hE Is tHeReBy hElPiNg tO PrEsErVe tHe iNtEgRiTy oF HiS CoUnTrY AnD HiS RiGhT To rEmAiN A SuBjEcT Of hIs sOvErEiGn, AnD A PeRsOn, Be hE CiTiZeN Or aLiEn, WhO CoMmItS A CrImE WiTh tHe iNtEnTiOn oF DeStRoYiNg tHaT InTeGrItY AnD ReNdErInG ImPoSsIbLe tHaT AlLeGiAnCe. ThE FoRmEr bReAcHeS ThE PeAcE; tHe lAtTeR Is eXeCuTiNg aN AcT Of wAr. ThE UsE Of tHe wOrD 'eXtReMiSt' Of eItHeR Or bOtH CoNvEyS A DaNgErOuS UnTrUtH: iT ImPlIeS ThAt bOtH HoLd aCcEpTaBlE OpInIoNs aNd sEeK PeRmIsSiBlE EnDs, OnLy tHaT ThEy cArRy tHeM To 'ExTrEmEs'. nOt sO: tHe oNe iS A LaWbReAkEr; ThE OtHeR Is aN EnEmY. tHe sAmE PuRpOsE, tHaT Of rEnDeRiNg fRiEnD AnD FoE InDiStInGuIsHaBlE, iS AcHiEvEd bY ReFeReNcEs tO ThE 'iMpArTiAlItY' oF ThE BrItIsH TrOoPs aNd tO ThEiR FuNcTiOn aS 'kEePiNg tHe pEaCe'. tHe bRiTiSh fOrCeS ArE In nOrThErN IrElAnD BeCaUsE An aVoWeD EnEmY Is uSiNg fOrCe oF ArMs tO BrEaK DoWn lAwFuL AuThOrItY In tHe pRoViNcE AnD ThErEbY SeIzE CoNtRoL. tHe aRmY CaNnOt bE 'iMpArTiAl' ToWaRdS An eNeMy, NoR BeTwEeN ThE AgGrEsSoR AnD ThE AgGrEsSeD: tHeY ArE NoT GlOrIfIeD PoLiCeMeN, rEsTrAiNiNg tWo sEtS Of cItIzEnS WhO MiGhT OtHeRwIsE Do oNe aNoThEr hArM, aNd dUtY BoUnD To sHoW No 'PaRtIaLiTy' ToWaRdS OnE LaWbReAkEr rAtHeR ThAn aNoThEr. ThEy aRe eNgAgEd iN DeFeAtInG An aRmEd aTtAcK UpOn tHe sTaTe. OnCe aGaIn, ThE TeRmInOlOgY Is dEsIgNeD To oBlItErAtE ThE ViTaL DiFfErEnCe bEtWeEn fRiEnD AnD EnEmY, lOyAl aNd dIsLoYaL.

https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/mocking-spongebob.jpg?quality=100&w=650

[Lewis]

You could pretty easily argue that the IRA were committing crimes in the belief that they were helping to preserve the integrity of their country.

You could. But you can't then run the country that you wanted to lose.

[Shindig]

You could pretty easily argue that the IRA were committing crimes in the belief that they were helping to preserve the integrity of their country.

Not for me, Clive. Not when the divisions are so clear and present.

[GS]

I trust Crosby is now driving the train without Team May attempting to tell him where to go.

868217762027536384

[Yevrah]

I might need to be educated here, but how does someone seemingly so principled in all other areas of violence end up in a situation where he refuses to condemn the IRA?

[Boydy]

I might need to be educated here, but how does someone seemingly so principled in all other areas of violence end up in a situation where he refuses to condemn the IRA?

He didn't refuse to condemn the IRA.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2017/05/no-jeremy-corbyn-did-not-refuse-condemn-ira-please-stop-saying-he-did

https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/05/22/yes-corbyn-condemned-the-ira-and-the-rest/

The second one's a good read.

[GS]

Boydy has drunk the Kool-Aid, evidently.

[Henry]

Excellent article, and this is worth highlighting, a similar point to the one I made above.


Corbyn’s comments are more easily read as a refusal to condemn the IRA by an audience that either defends the actions of loyalist paramilitaries or – likely in the case of many of the English viewers of yesterday’s interview – cares little or even knows nothing about the violence carried out by loyalist paramilitaries and the British state.

[GS]

I might need to be educated here, but how does someone seemingly so principled in all other areas of violence end up in a situation where he refuses to condemn the IRA?

Because his principles include supporting terrorists against "oppressive western governments". You can see it in his language towards Hamas, Hezbollah and his fraternising constantly with unsavoury terrorist types. He's surrounded himself with people who hold similar views (Seamus Milne, as an example, wrote an article in the week after 9/11 basically telling the Americans it was their own fault).

It's his world view. Which is fine if you're prepared to acknowledge that's the case and you're going to vote for him despite all of it, but pretending it's not and / or desperately equivocating to get out of acknowledging it is seriously lol. Just look at Boydy and Henry, who are so utterly determined to apologise for him they can't bring themselves to call a spade a spade. Much like Jez, really.

[Henry]

He hasn't refused to condemn the IRA. Stop lying.

[Lewis]

Everything he has said and done suggests that, at best, he was merely too thick to fully comprehend what he was doing, but was still content to wave the unionist (and non-violent nationalist, lest we forget that John Hume consistently out-polled Gerry Adams during the period in question) majority off without their having any say in the matter; and, at worst, he saw anti-British violence as a regrettable necessity. What makes it difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt is things like having IRA members over for a buffet two weeks after their attempt to mass murder the British government, which you wouldn't really do if you were genuinely committed to a peaceful settlement. Unless you were thick, of course. Either way, he shouldn't be running the country.

[GS]

"Occupation."

868582029193031680

[Lewis]

He said IRA bombing was wrong earlier because it killed civilians. Again, it either implies a certain thickness in his approach, or a belief that coppers and soldiers were fair game.

[Lewis]

Anyway, as far as these latest polls go, I would take 44/35-ish as basically the ideal result (those 50/30 polls were always stupid). The Theresa May and Unionist Party would coast home with a comfortable majority, and the Jezza bunker would get twenty feet deeper and a new set of lead-lined blast doors.

[randomlegend]

I trust Crosby is now driving the train without Team May attempting to tell him where to go.

868217762027536384

That video is fucking retarded :D

It's like an intro to a reality TV show.

[GS]

I believe the phrase you're looking for is "legitimate target".

The IRA once kidnapped a man's family, chained him to a van and told him they'd shoot them if he didn't do what he was told. They forced him to drive a bomb to an army barracks at which point it was remotely detonated, obliterating him and five soldiers. Apparently using a human bomb was acceptable, because the bloke worked in the kitchens of an army barracks and was thus a "legitimate target". This was in 1990. McGuinness was the IRA's northern commander, and approved the attack.

If ISIS did that, they'd be - rightly - denounced as barbarians plumbing new depths. When the IRA did it, Corbyn continued to apologise for them, to equivocate, and to refuse to condemn them. He continued to share platforms with IRA members. Not once did he denounce them in public at the time.

This is what you're dealing with. McDonnell, Abbott, Livingstone were all the same. It's just part of the hard-left mindset that any 'armed struggle' against a western occupying force (as they see the British role in Northern Ireland) is fair game.

[GS]

Anyway, as far as these latest polls go, I would take 44/35-ish as basically the ideal result (those 50/30 polls were always stupid). The Theresa May and Unionist Party would coast home with a comfortable majority, and the Jezza bunker would get twenty feet deeper and a new set of lead-lined blast doors.

Agreed. A Tory majority of c 80 with a clear manifesto pledge to pull out of the single market and customs union effectively puts the Liberal Democrats and associated whingers out of business for the next ten years. Corbyn being able to cling on to ruin Labour forever on the back of increasing the vote share would make the early election worthwhile.


That video is fucking retarded :D

It's like an intro to a reality TV show.

It's an attack ad - what are you expecting. It doesn't have to do anything other than replay things Corbyn has actually said. Unless you think his views on defence, security and terrorism are irrelevant when he's pitching to be Prime fucking Minister.

[randomlegend]

DRAMATIC MUSIC. ZOOM IN.

BIG.

CAPITAL.

LETTERS.

It's all so childish.

[GS]

If you're looking for something less childish, perhaps we could just put pictures of IRA bomb atrocities on the screen and interlace it with pictures of Jez standing for a minute's silence to honour the people who carried them out.

[Mellberg]

Childish? How about photos of Theresa May mingling with the Saudis a few weeks before another (recent) terrorist attack, with the caption 'ISIS ENABLER!'

[GS]

Do you believe terrorist attacks are our own fault, then?

[Mellberg]

No. I believe they are the fault of terrorists.

Do you believe denouncing terrorism one day and getting in bed with Saudi Arabia on another is acceptable behaviour?

[Lewis]

There are good reasons not to be buddies with the Saudi Arabians, but, unless their actual government is directly supporting the people attacking us (and Theresa May knows about it), it's not equivalent to backing the IRA.

[GS]

Dealing with Saudi Arabia is unpalatable, but dealing with them is the difference between being the Prime Minster and continuing to indulge faux outrage student union-esque gesture politics. The Prime Minister should only be interested in doing what is right for the UK's national interest.

We would achieve absolutely nothing from internationally ostracising Saudi Arabia, by the way. Rather you'd encourage them to fight further proxy wars as they sought to achieve compensating influence. See: Putin/Russia. We'd also immediately lose any intelligence provided from one of the key regional players. As an example, we ostracised Gaddafi and he retaliated by supplying semtex and other powerful weaponry to the IRA.

[Mellberg]

It's not the equivalent to anything, but it's still a blot on her character and all of those before her. I appreciate the Saudi Arabia situation is complicated, but to continually address the Corbyn IRA links whilst the Prime Minister is day tripping to the Middle East is slightly hypocritical. The way in which she (falsely) attacked Corbyn following Manchester was, at best, in very poor taste too. Considering you could argue, and excuse the extreme nature of the statement, she's indirectly financing ISIS herself.

[GS]

Theresa May, as Prime Minister, dealing with the legitimate government of Saudi Arabia is within the acceptable parameters of "being wrong". You may not agree with it, but you can see why she has to do it when she's running a country and not putting her day in at Stop the War rallies.

Supporting the IRA armed campaign is outside the acceptable parameters of "being wrong".

This is the key distinction.

[Lewis]

Yeah, wrongness vs treason. It's a bit like me thinking that Trident is a waste of money. I might be wrong, but, as long as my reasons for binning it aren't so that it helps the Chinese take over, I'm merely stupid.

[Mellberg]

You say "within the acceptable paramaters of being wrong" like it's a fact. It isn't. As Lewis alludes to, it depends who is supporting ISIS both financially and logistically. I wouldn't be surprised if that was known and being kept hush because of the implications, but the question is why aren't the Saudi government, who we're dealing with, prosecuting them? Why aren't we pressuring them to prosecute?

[Lewis]

It's all mental Islamic charities and wealthy idiots (some of them are probably quite prominent), like when the IRA and Sinn Fein used to receive goodwill packages from their deluded American cousins. There is obviously a large amount of stupidity and dishonesty in our foreign policy (us issuing that joint statement accusing Russian bombing [and Russian bombing only] of radicalising Syrians was a classic of the genre), but you can draw a reasonable distinction between who is and isn't directly seeking to blow up the people you now want to vote for you.

[Lewis]

This (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39974177) is the best satire the BBC has produced in about ten years.

[GS]

You say "within the acceptable paramaters of being wrong" like it's a fact. It isn't. As Lewis alludes to, it depends who is supporting ISIS both financially and logistically. I wouldn't be surprised if that was known and being kept hush because of the implications, but the question is why aren't the Saudi government, who we're dealing with, prosecuting them? Why aren't we pressuring them to prosecute?

The IRA were directly targeting British civilians and actively sought to wipe out the entire cabinet in the Brighton bombing. They specifically targeted British soldiers, members of the security services, Members of Parliament and the Royal Family. It's just not the same as the Prime Minister engaging with the Saudi government because she deems it to be in the UK's national interest.

Supporting the IRA, who were actively seeking to destroy the integrity of the UK against the majority wishes of the people in 'the north', by bombing them into submission, probably does classify as treason. If you wanted a united Ireland, there was always the SDLP under John Hume - someone who holds deep respect on all sides. He didn't bother with them - he chose the terrorists. Again, it's completely outside the acceptable parameters of "being wrong".

[Henry]

Lol at the excuse making for enabling Islamic terrorism.

So, under what circumstances would you people support a couple against Corbyn were he elected?

[GS]

https://andrewgilliganblog.wordpress.com/2017/05/28/jeremy-corbyn-helped-get-the-ira-a-taxpayer-subsidy-see-the-documents/

You wonder how much more of this there's going to be.

868751331623936000

She could be the Home Secretary. :harold:

[GS]

https://order-order.com/2017/05/28/corbyn-honoured-munich-massacre-terrorist/

The state of him.

[Spammer]

...is within the acceptable parameters of "being wrong".

Fucking hell :D

It's like he thinks he's God or something.

[GS]

Do you even understand what the discussion is about?

[Spammer]

I can read, yes. I'm sure I don't understand as much as you do though, oh mighty one!

:hail:

I for one would like to hear more about what precisely constitutes acceptable levels of wrongness, and how one can know if they have crossed the line into unacceptable levels of wrongness. Next time I get something wrong, I'll then be ask myself "Am I wrong, or am I unacceptably wrong?"

Can you explain the basic principles of the difference, and how a individual person can know which category they fall into in any given situation? I hope there's a .pdf file somewhere that I can use as a frame of reference. I'm sorry to take time out of your very important day.

[Byron]

Put it this way, according to our great oracle, if you vote Conservative you are correct, if you vote Lib Dem, you're naive and our you vote Labour, you are not only wrong but unacceptably wrong.

[Shindig]

Again, I'll stress to all outside of Britain, a vote in the election is not for your eventual Prime Minister.

[Reg]

...but it also kind of very much is.

[GS]

Put it this way, according to our great oracle, if you vote Conservative you are correct, if you vote Lib Dem, you're naive and our you vote Labour, you are not only wrong but unacceptably wrong.

No, I said that supporting the IRA was unacceptable.

There is no way to sustain the argument that publicly supporting an organisation with the stated aim of destroying the United Kingdom through an armed struggle is acceptable. It would be the equivalent today of a politician supporting a sustained IS bombing campaign because of perceived historical grievance.

You cannot lead the country when you were happy to see a part of handed over to a foreign power without the democratic consent of the people who lived there. You certainly cannot lead the country when you wanted that country to lose to a terrorist organisation determined to bomb you into submission by killing your citizenry in sufficient numbers to make it too unpalatable for you to stay.

[Spammer]

I'd like to hear odds on GS being a bot.

[GS]

It's nobody's fault other than your own if you can't follow the argument enough to understand it. We can only hope that repetition might hammer the point home. You can decide for yourself if that's a pun or not.

[Lewis]

Paul Nuttall being willing to execute nonces and terrorists himself is pretty lol.

[GS]

I fear for Nuttall when he's interviewed by Brillo.

[Lewis]

Nicolas Turgeon lasted about three minutes here.

[Magic]

Is he ripping her apart? :drool:

[Offshore Toon]

I don't think she did too bad. All of these interviews are just accusations and denials, though.

[Shindig]

"Same question?"
"Same answer."
Same question?
"Same answer."
Same question phrased differently?
"I defer you to me previous answer."
"Thank you for your time.

[GS]

Sturgeon's problem is that the SNP are absolutely shit at governing and their entire programme is founded on blaming other people.

[Yevrah]

It's amazing that that boron gets a platform of equal billing to Mrs May and Sir Jezza.

Such a missed opportunity at the first referendum.

[GS]

They'd be bankrupt if they'd voted yes as well, which would have presented the satisfying spectacle of the Scots rioting in the streets in the face of impending economic catastrophe.

[Kikó]

How dare someone challenge the status quo of the British empire.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I feel I need to distance myself from GS a bit, so I've stuck The Proclaimers on my Sonos. Really is decent stuff.

[GS]

I wouldn't usually mind, but listening to Alex Salmond claim that they'd be the fifteenth richest country in the world on the back of record oil production and record prices was a bit much. Then again, we're scamming more money out of the south east than even the Scots are, so there you go.

Meanwhile:

868758757416763393

Cutting through. :nodd:

[Jimmy Floyd]

This is the story of our first teacher, Shetland made her jumpers and the devil made her features.

Why don't the snips just run on this sort of lyrical genius.

[Lewis]

Various things that weren't worth posting for their own sake suggest that the IRA stuff only cuts through with older people, but it does so reasonably well, so expect them to bore the shit out of us all week hammering that. I saw that Labour apparently coast the election quite comfortably if nobody over forty-five was allowed to vote (which you would hope is down to housing rather than any enthusiasm for communism [at least in anyone over twenty]), but there stands to be another blinding seethe against the biddies whatever happens.

[Jimmy Floyd]

It's only people over 45 (over 60, in fact) who remember the last time the reds were in charge.

[GS]

The generational split between under 45 and over 45 suggests it would be a landslide for Labour and the Tories respectively. It's around 68/15 both ways. Apparently the difference in the Tory poll leads is whether or not the pollster is using stated 'intention to vote' this time round or historical turnout for the demographics. The naive youth vote going in for a bit of communism isn't exactly new, but unless they decide to buck every trend ever and turn out in huge numbers then it'll just turn into yet another massive pissing into the wind exercise for the reds.

We probably need a new reds government somewhere soon, just to remind everyone how useless it is. Hollande looked promising, but like every French manoeuvre since 1918 he ended up giving up when he encountered resistance.

[GS]

I saw earlier that the gap between May and Corbyn in terms of PM preference is +65 amongst pensioners. Still. That, plus voting intention, plus a relatively stable Tory vote percentage suggests the social care fuck up isn't resulting in a complete haemorrhage of the vote.

That said, the Maybot interacts with real people again this evening so hopefully they've had a chance to upgrade her software beforehand.

[Reg]

'May v Corbyn' on channel 4 at 8:30 tonight.

[Offshore Toon]

What time does it finish? That's when the action really starts when this thread goes mad.

[Reg]

:D 10pm.

[Jimmy Floyd]

This reminds me of that passage in the Mr Bean film where everyone is convinced he is a famous art expert and they can't believe he isn't until the bitter, bitter end.

[Spammer]

Seems to be making sense to me, in honesty.

[Spammer]

"We're all better off when everybody is better off"

:D spoke too soon there

He's talking like a human being though, which is a massive plus point.

[Cord]

He's doing alright. He's not actually answering any of the questions asked, but he's at least talking confidently and fluently enough. If May does her usual stuttery warbling he'll come out of this a lot better off.

[Lewis]

He's doing alright here, but this next bit could see it all falling apart.

[Jimmy Floyd]

He's at his best when he gets to rant passionately about justice and all that. When it comes to the IRA stuff he's a lot weaker - we all know he loved the Irish cock, just come clean.

[Lewis]

It's times like this when not actually following MPs and that on the Twitter comes into its own.

[Jimmy Floyd]

It's times like this when not actually following MPs and that on the Twitter comes into its own.

I've gone the other way and have become a slavish Dominic Cummings disciple. 'None of this will have any effect'.

These Paxo bits will probably be pointless, because Paxo is rubbish.

[GS]

Brillo is miles better than him.

[Lewis]

I think Damian McBride finished him off when he just admitted to everything and scrambled his brain.

[GS]

This Paxo attack line (so far) has been a bit wet.

[Cord]

Thus far he's doing well again. Paxman's hectoring doesn't really work when he's basically shouting as a guy who, at least on the surface, is just a reasonable genial old man.

Paxman's weird focus on the manifesto not just being a list of Corbyn's personal convictions is letting him off the hook a bit.

[GS]

Jez's least comfortable territory is security, defence and terrorist apology. Paxo has ignored it all to try and come at him from the left. He's lost it.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Oh no Jeremy, you were doing so well, don't fuck up on the Falklands.

[Cord]

There we go, finally landed a punch.

[Reg]

Paxman's interviewing style is shite. You can probe information without accusing someone like they've just been chuckling while running over a cat.

[Jimmy Floyd]

This stuff on terrorism/foreign policy is awful for Corbz. Has to make weak excuses every time. Luckily for him it will have no effect.

His best moments are when he steams back in and says 'But this is what really matters...'

[GS]

He's absolutely terrible on these issues. You might as well just turn an entire interview into smashing into him on these topics.

[Offshore Toon]

Having the question up on the screen the entire time they're answering is something that should be done across the board.

[GS]

Someone really should take Nick Timothy out the back of CCHQ and have him kneecapped.

[GS]

She managed to navigate the social care thing well enough there. Thankfully.

[Jimmy Floyd]

The first thing May should do is wipe the shit-eating grin off her face.

Can you imagine the blessed Margaret doing this, she'd pepper the bastards, albeit without understanding a single joke along the way.

[GS]

The first thing May should do is wipe the shit-eating grin off her face.

Can you imagine the blessed Margaret doing this, she'd pepper the bastards, albeit without understanding a single joke along the way.

"They're a weak lot some of them in this audience... Weak. Feeble."

[GS]

"I voted to leave because £350m."

Unlucky, love.

[Lewis]

Someone really should take Nick Timothy out the back of CCHQ and have him kneecapped.

She can probably arrange that on her way out.

[GS]

"Jeremy, are you still in touch with Gerry?"

[Cord]

I presume someone has paid off this crowd to clap after every answer. She's just talking in her usual shit platitudes.

[Jimmy Floyd]

To be fair to May, I'm not sure why she has to account for £350 million. They should drag King Dom and Govers out for that one.

[GS]

She clearly doesn't - it was a terrible question that shouldn't have got through vetting. There's plenty of other legitimate things to bollock the Tories for.

May did very well there. Thank fuck for that.

[Lewis]

To be fair to May, I'm not sure why she has to account for £350 million. They should drag King Dom and Govers out for that one.

If somebody ever uploads the full four hours (or whatever it was) of him stonewalling that select committee I'll make a night of it with crisps.

EDIT: Woah mate (http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/treasury-committee/news-parliament-2015/uks-eu-referendum-evidence-15-16/) it exists. :cool:

[Reg]

She was crap on the Brexit/NHS question and even crapper on the second NHS question. The audience laughed ffs.

[GS]

This question from Paxman is absolutely shit again - what the fuck is she meant to do after the referendum result.

He's completely past it.

[Waffdon]

The crowd laughing at her was a bit good.

[Jimmy Floyd]

The best bit about this (she is pretty crap, though not as crap as the Brillo one) is that Twitter is starting to BELIEVE.

[Jimmy Floyd]

If somebody ever uploads the full four hours (or whatever it was) of him stonewalling that select committee I'll make a night of it with crisps.

EDIT: Woah mate (http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/treasury-committee/news-parliament-2015/uks-eu-referendum-evidence-15-16/) it exists. :cool:

I was watching that the other day. If you understand how he thinks (i.e. thinks they are all a load of irrelevant narcissists) it really makes it quite entertaining.

[Cord]

This has been a bit of a dry bumming for the last 5/10 minutes.

[Waffdon]

She's all over the place and he's not even going in that hard on her. Shambles

[GS]

The big difference between May and Corbyn in this format is that the latter can afford to be wooly and promise the world knowing it's unlikely he'll have to deliver it. It's much more difficult for May to defend the status quo unless she pretends she's going to piss the economy up the wall for it.

[Lewis]

This is good stuff on Brexit though.

[GS]

The Brexit argument is easy for her - she can just repeat the lines about "will of the people", "fuck the EU" etc. and people like me will give her a standing ovation.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I reckon there literally won't be a single vote move in the entire country, in any direction, as a result of that programme.

[GS]

I can't imagine viewing figures would be particularly high. It's just a case of minimising the risk, really.

[Reg]

I reckon there literally won't be a single vote move in the entire country, in any direction, as a result of that programme.
The last debate had a big effect on young people. I know this wasn't one of those debates, but yeah.

[Lewis]

I was watching that the other day. If you understand how he thinks (i.e. thinks they are all a load of irrelevant narcissists) it really makes it quite entertaining.

The single market exchange is amazing.

[GS]

The BBC cut Corbyn's time down to equivocating on the IRA and his refusal to say he'd take out a jihadi with a drone. :nodd:

If the question is security and / or Brexit in the closing days, then he's fucked. I do wonder what Jim Messina's targeted advertisements are focusing on in the marginals, mind you. It's alright driving vote share up in a small number of areas, but this sort of stealth targeting campaign is what destroyed the Lib Dems.

[Jimmy Floyd]

The single market exchange is amazing.

It's the effortless way he provokes deep and immense seething based on their own egomania.

[Jimmy Floyd]

The last debate had a big effect on young people. I know this wasn't one of those debates, but yeah.

Did it? Do you have evidence for that in terms of votes?

[Reg]

Did it? Do you have evidence for that in terms of votes?
Read it somewhere else which I can't find now, but here's a(n admittedly not very big) study. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35050075

PS I know that doesn't address your earlier point quite, but a Google didn't lead me anywhere really.

[GS]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DA--lcPWAAAWls7.jpg

Youth turnout was down in 2015 from 2010.

It went up in 2010, but that's more likely to do with it being a tight election compared to 2005's Blairist victory parade.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Read it somewhere else which I can't find now, but here's a(n admittedly not very big) study. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35050075

Well the first significant problem crops up in the first ten words:


We would like to thank ITV for funding this research

The rest of it basically says people who previously knew nothing about politics knew more about politics after watching the debates, which I'm sure is true but that would be equally true of any television programme on any subject. Whether it moves votes or has any impact on the result compared to a non-debate campaign (or a campaign without interview programmes such as tonight's) I am pretty sceptical, having followed 2010 and 2015 and the EU referendum.

[Magic]

Sent my postal vote for labour away to today. Let the riots begin.

[GS]

The only evidence anyone can point to that these set pieces have an impact on polling is Cleggmania. That the spike disappeared completely by election day suggests it had no measurable impact on actual voting.

[Waffdon]

Sent my postal vote for labour away to today. Let the riots begin.

You lazy cunt :D

[Alan Shearer The 2nd]

Postal votes are bloody brilliant.

[Magic]

The only evidence anyone can point to that these set pieces have an impact on polling is Cleggmania. That the spike disappeared completely by election day suggests it had no measurable impact on actual voting.

On the ropes.

[Shindig]

Okay, this is the first time I've heard of the Young People's Party but apparently they'd like to decriminalise foxhunting, controlled substances and brothels. Also their leaflet contains a "I'm not this namesake who is also a paedophile." disclaimer.

[Henry]

The Sun are being made to print a front page apology to Jeremy Corbyn. Cunts.

[Spammer]

The Sun are being made to print a front page apology to Jeremy Corbyn. Cunts.

Again? What about?

I knew it happened a year or two ago but didn't know they're having to do it again. The one they did last time was fucking disgraceful too.

[John Arne]

The Sun are being made to print a front page apology to Jeremy Corbyn. Cunts.

Source? Seems like FAKE NEWS to me.

[Byron]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/the-sun-told-to-put-apology-to-jeremy-corbyn-on-front-page-a6782181.html

[Spammer]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/the-sun-told-to-put-apology-to-jeremy-corbyn-on-front-page-a6782181.html

Yes, that's what I was referring to. Dated December 2015.

Edit: But all the comments at the bottom have been within the last 24 hours. Weird.

[Lewis]

lol at Labour having their proposed land value tax (good idea) dubbed the 'Garden Tax'. Wankers.

[Mellberg]

I enjoyed last night. Corbyn came across relatively strong and stable, whilst May had more of an erratic badger aura. I see she's gone back to Maybot in her speech in Wolverhampton today. Need to get her on TV more. She's a liability and the lid may come off at some stage.

[Henry]

Yeah, that 2015 story seems to be doing the rounds on social media. That's where I'd seen it and assumed it was new.

[phonics]

I notice it's no longer 'Theresa May for President' but 'Theresa May & The Conservatives Present Strong And Stable' which sounds like the worlds shittest jam band.

[GS]

It's the hope that's going to make the impending loss great.

The Tories are going big on the IRA links, so they clearly have evidence it's cutting through. YouGov had a poll that only one in five were aware of it.

There's a rather good article in the Spectator on the topic, which summarises it rather neatly.

[Jimmy Floyd]

She's quite reminiscent of Gordon Brown in many ways. Not quite as useless but also not as intelligent. Fortunately unlike Gordon she's up against some crank grandad and the remnants of the 1985 Oxford communist society.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Also, I've noticed the various UKIP/Arron Banks vehicles have started backing Labour hard in the last few days (UKIP even pulled out of a seat somewhere saying they were backing Labour). What is their game?

[Lewis]

The theory goes that a Conservative landslide will allow them to get complacent on Brexit (probably because half of the new MPs will be fannies), and come up with a crap middle ground, whilst a narrow win will keep them worried about UKIP enough to Brexit properly.

[Jimmy Floyd]

ICM has 45/33. This is like the good old days of 2010 with Lee posting them all. No Lib Dem Tide to deal with this time though.

I've had some money on the majority falling between 125-149.

[GS]

Increases to a fifteen point leave when undecideds are split on leadership. Crosby has this.

[Lewis]

The smaller leads are apparently down to thinking eighty per cent of young people will vote so lol at that.

[GS]

Michael Gove needs to be brought back into cabinet.

[mo]

Michael Gove needs to be brought back into cabinet.

Go on, entertain us. Why?

[Jimmy Floyd]

'Needs' is a stretch, but it would be good for entertainment purposes if you put him somewhere crap like DEFRA and he tried to reform trees.

[GS]

Because it should be all hands on deck after the Maybot wins a bigger majority.

[Lewis]

Jez sez 'Only Labour can be trusted to unlock the talent of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic people, who have been held back by the Conservatives'.

The mother (the father is obviously absent) of all fake OUTRAGE storms coming in 5, 4, 3...

[Henry]

Another poll says that the gap has closed to six, motherfuckers.

[Offshore Toon]

Do you (try to) use "motherfuckers" in real life, Henners?

[Lewis]

This Labour broadcast is bemoaning the decline of the coal industry.

[GS]

It has closed to six assuming that the Communist Youth League turn out in numbers unheard of in British political history, which simply won't happen. Still, if it scares the core Tory vote into storming the polls ala 1992 then happy days.

Even then, it hardly matters if they're piling up votes in safe seats in Islington. They're still going to get annihilated in many marginals owing to vacuuming the 2015 UKIP vote. It'll probably wobble in advance, but a heavy campaigning line on Brexit in the closing days will see it home.

[Henry]

Do you have evidence that said poll was skewed toward the communist youth league?

He probably won't win, but it begins to look like Corbyn could have a chance if things continue as they are. The gnashing of teeth alone would be glorious.

[Boydy]

Jeremy Corbyn treated unfairly by press, says David Dimbleby (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/30/jeremy-corbyn-david-dimbleby-rightwing-bias-british-newspapers)

[7om]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40064009

The first four paragraphs of that really are quite repulsive.

[Pepe]

'The quality press.' :sick:

I'm sure whoever wrote that considers himself part of that group.

[GS]

Do you have evidence that said poll was skewed toward the communist youth league?

He probably won't win, but it begins to look like Corbyn could have a chance if things continue as they are. The gnashing of teeth alone would be glorious.

The gap in the polls (i.e. six points versus fourteen points, which has been the upper end of the post manifesto launches) has been down to the pollsters' assumptions on turnout. YouGov et al have simply applied the 18-25 'stated intention to vote' from the survey, which suggests a turnout of about 80% can be expected. Given they're voting something like 70/15 for Labour, it massively increases the Labour vote. In contrast, ComRes / ICM have taken a different view which is modifying the surveys for historical turnout as opposed to stated turnout. This is why you see much bigger Tory leads. Basically the polls' key sensitivity is 18-25 year old turnout.

It could well be that the youth will finally turn out en masse and make it close, but it would have to be at levels not seen for decades and in complete contradiction to every precedent the demographic has exhibited for ages.

Corbyn has no chance. For all the Labour increase in the polls, the Tory vote looks remarkably stable. Labour are squeezing more votes out of smaller parties (the Greens are basically non-existent, and the Lib Dems should basically be closed down) sure, but a lot of it is down to "don't knows" and previous non-voters suddenly saying they're a) going to vote for Labour and b) definitely turnout. It's a recipe for crushing disappointment if their passing enthusiasm doesn't manifest itself in a massive rush to the polls.

In contrast, the Tories are taking some 70% of the 65+ vote and their turnout will be over 80%.

[GS]

There's an unfortunate headline on the BBC at the minute: "Is Chancellor Merkel looking to the East?"

For lebensraum, presumably.

[Jimmy Floyd]

That's a point. Where is Farage? He should be defecting to the Tories at this point and trying to infiltrate it.

[phonics]

Doesn't want to give up his Brussels salary.

[Lewis]

He is a media personality now.

'Now I'm sorry. *that weird hand thing he does* I'm sorry. But we have to talk about...'

[GS]

Lads, YouGov have a projection out that has the Tories retreating behind the Oder in the face of the Red Army's advance - they chuck 20-odd seats and it results in a hung parliament. :drool:

The sense of disappointment when she ends up with a significantly increased majority is going to be marvellous.

For balance's sake, there's a ComRes projection which has a Tory majority of 100+ - but nobody cares because who doesn't want to try communism again.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I'm not sure how YouGov have got to that unless they think about 90% of the 2015 kippers are staying at home.

[Lewis]

As for the actual night, should I have an Independent Brexit Britain theme for my food (sausage rolls, jam tarts, offal), or should I stuff my head with the soon to be inaccessible foreign muck that we take for granted?

[GS]

Well, this is it. It's very difficult to reconcile with their published headline polling data. They were a full 45 seats out in their final projection in 2015, as well as completely fucking up the EU referendum final projection, so one assumes a perfect hat-trick would put them out of business.

[GS]

As for the actual night, should I have an Independent Brexit Britain theme for my food (sausage rolls, jam tarts, offal), or should I stuff my head with the soon to be inaccessible foreign muck that we take for granted?

British Food for British People.

[Alan Shearer The 2nd]

That's next Friday booked off. Something I never thought I'd waste a holiday on.

[Magic]

That's next Friday booked off. Something I never thought I'd waste a holiday on.

:D

You sad cunt

[Alan Shearer The 2nd]

I'd have even less self-respect left if I tried to deny that, even from yourself.

[Lewis]

He'll just waste his on an actual wasted holiday.

[phonics]

It's never going to happen but I'd enjoy a Jezza win just to post 'MANDATE' in massive letters every time GS moans.

[GS]

His government would collapse when he failed to get the budget passed. It's being overlooked that even if he, somehow, managed to become PM in a coalition, he wouldn't be able to maintain the confidence of the house.

[mo]

Every smug GS post makes me feel like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXpUdBlRZe8

Mostly because I think he's depressingly right. Oh well.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Even I'm not blowing a day's leave on this. Power on through like a bastard.

I don't think the morning after the referendum will ever be topped, though.

[Baz]

That's next Friday booked off. Something I never thought I'd waste a holiday on.

Why?

[Offshore Toon]

Even I'm not blowing a day's leave on this. Power on through like a bastard.

I don't think the morning after the referendum will ever be topped, though.
It was hilarious at Glastonbury. My mate, the one that London has turned into a self-conscious bellend, said it "ruined my weekend" and he even shouted "fuck Farage!" attempting to get a cheer, but it was ignored. Except for me calling him pathetic. Loads of people were pretending to be upset so there were easy targets everywhere.

[Jimmy Floyd]

The moment Keith Vaz came on the TV at 5am pretty much in tears was the moment I realised it was going to be absolutely hilarious, and it hasn't really stopped ever since.

I had a moment of clarity at about 11pm when I realised Leave was going to win (think it's recorded in the thread) when it was 14/1, but absolutely bottled putting the life savings on it. Pathetic.

[Yevrah]

I had a moment of clarity at about 11pm when I realised Leave was going to win (think it's recorded in the thread) when it was 14/1, but absolutely bottled putting the life savings on it. Pathetic.

I was in the same boat. You could even have had 4/1 when it was clearly all over. With that and POTUS, I could be sat typing this from a £2m house now.

[GS]

There's a lot of money to be made if you really believe there's going to be a hung parliament, or if the Tories are getting 300-349 seats.

I'm still on a majority of 80+.

[Jimmy Floyd]

A hung parliament would require the Tories to lose ground on 2015. Given that UKIP are going from 13% to nigh on zero (not even running in half the seats), I don't see how that's possible.

[phonics]

I missed the Paul Nuttall Andrew Neil interview? Were there any good comedic moments worth reliving?

[GS]

A hung parliament would require the Tories to lose ground on 2015. Given that UKIP are going from 13% to nigh on zero (not even running in half the seats), I don't see how that's possible.

It goes against all polling fundamentals. Yougov have got every poll fundamentally wrong since Scottish independence.

There's an article in the Telegraph from a bloke who got the major votes right to within about 0.5% saying the Tories are on for a majority of 103-108 and Yougov's analysis, to put it bluntly, is horseshit.

The question would be at what point major media outlets stop using them. There's only so many times Peter Kellner can abase himself before his peers and say they'll do better next time.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I think the worst they can do is 60 and the best (if everyone has a collective epiphany about Corbyn on the 8th, as usually happens with shit party leaders) about 180-200.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Jezza is going to the debate this evening. Wrong move from him IMO (though a gamble he probably has to take). He'll just end up getting sucked down a Tim Farron shaped wormhole.

[Yevrah]

I think it's the right move, but might not make any difference, as I'm not sure how much these things do.

[AyDee]

Why do people get so annoyed about the increase in tuition fees? Do people still not understand that it largely only negatively effects the graduates who go on to be big earners? And still calling it debt ffs.

I'll probably end up voting Labour but meh.

[AyDee]

Also, is Farron the least inspiring politician of all time?

[GS]

He has to be seen to win if he takes part. Big gamble, but one he probably needs to take at this stage. May is right not to bother. Rudd can just steamroller into people without it affecting perception of Maybot 2.0

[phonics]

I'm not sure about that one. Much like the rest of the cabinet, Amber Rudd is horribly incompetent at the slightest amount of pressure.

[GS]

She's not - she did very well in the EU referendum debates for the remain side. Whether that works in a seven way (fucking seven way) debate is different.

Not that it really matters anyway. It might impact the fabled narrative, but it'll have no serious impact on anything. The broadcasters obsession with them does a bit of a disservice to the campaign. Question Time set pieces / Andrew Neil interviews are miles more worthwhile.

[phonics]

Why do people get so annoyed about the increase in tuition fees? Do people still not understand that it largely only negatively effects the graduates who go on to be big earners? And still calling it debt ffs.

I'll probably end up voting Labour but meh.

You have to start paying tuition fees when you earn over 15/16 grand. Hardly big earners. You then have to pay interest on it every month for the next 30 years/till you pay it off. It's very clearly debt.

[Yevrah]

You have to start paying tuition fees when you earn over 15/16 grand. Hardly big earners. You then have to pay interest on it every month for the next 30 years/till you pay it off. It's very clearly debt.

Wrong.

You only start paying back at £21k. The interest rate is lower than that which you'd expect to see on a commercial loan and if you don't earn enough, you don't pay it back.

It's not debt.

[phonics]

21k? It was deffo 15k when I was at uni but that was the year before they tripled them.

I'd bloody well hope that the interest is lower than a commercial loan. It's an investment in people to create a stronger workforce. They make more money down the line if you have a better/are better at your job.

[Yevrah]

21k? It was deffo 15k when I was at uni but that was the year before they tripled them.

I'd bloody well hope that the interest is lower than a commercial loan. It's an investment in people to create a stronger workforce. They make more money down the line if you have a better/are better at your job.

Well yeah, I'd agree.

That point was more in supporting evidence of it not being debt - it's much closer to a tax.

[phonics]

And to further my point, I'd hardly say someone earning 21k a year is rolling in it. After tax that's what, a grand and a bit per month? Chuck in rent, internet, phone and food, student loan, and transport and how much do you have left?

[Yevrah]

And to further my point, I'd hardly say someone earning 21k a year is rolling in it. After tax that's what, a grand and a bit per month? Chuck in rent, internet, phone and food, student loan, and transport and how much do you have left?

Which is why you pay next to fuck all at that level of earnings.


You only start repaying your loan once you've graduated and you're earning more than £21,000 a year. After that, you'll pay back 9% of anything you earn over £21,000. So if you're earning £26,000 a year, you'll lose £450 in loan repayments - £37.50 each month.

[GS]

Which is why you pay next to fuck all at that level of earnings.

One of the biggest issues with tuition fees is that people legitimately don't understand how the repayment schedules work.

It's a tax (not debt) because you're not required to repay it unless you're in work.

[phonics]

Which is why you pay next to fuck all at that level of earnings.

And the interest on what remains pushes up your total owed by how much per month?

[Yevrah]

And the interest on what remains pushes up your total owed by how much per month?

It doesn't matter, because if you stay at that level of earnings for your entire career you won't pay it back, but I'd suggest anyone who's deterred from going to uni because they'll have to pay £37.50 a month for life (while they're working) really has no place being there.

[Yevrah]

You have to pay it back with interest. It's debt. How you can say otherwise is fucking idiotic.

For fuck's sake. You don't have to pay it back.

How hard is this concept to grasp?

[GS]

For fuck's sake. You don't have to pay it back.

How hard is this concept to grasp?

I've tried before. People genuinely don't get it. It might be they simply don't want to get it.

[phonics]

For fuck's sake. You if you're so dirt poor you can't, then you don't have to pay it back.

How hard is this concept to grasp?

ftfy