This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
OK, OK, calm down. Just kidding.
But to all the lefty moaners that "they wouldn't attack the Tories like that"; remember in future the kicking May and the Tories are getting this week. The fact is the media prefer the trivia, entertainment and personalities that sell over substance. A good metaphor is always a plus.
To it's credit the Graniad has made the best effort to focus on the substance of her speech over the presentational failings.
19
16
In reply to Postmanpat:
I think what we're seeing from the telegraph, times etc is them formenting a leadership challenge. The daily express is full square behind the old girl though, so that will be a comfort to her.
I think what we're seeing from the telegraph, times etc is them formenting a leadership challenge. The daily express is full square behind the old girl though, so that will be a comfort to her.
7
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
That must have been a short article then........
> To it's credit the Graniad has made the best effort to focus on the substance of her speech over the presentational failings.
That must have been a short article then........
30
3
In reply to Ian W:
Very witty old boy, you must come down to the Palace some time....
> That must have been a short article then........
Very witty old boy, you must come down to the Palace some time....
7
15
In reply to Andy Hardy:
That's my suspicion.
But then I thought about the coverage Boris has been receiving recently, which hasn't seemed to me to have been flattering. But maybe it's highlighting aspects of Boris's behaviour that appeals to Tory voters?
> I think what we're seeing from the telegraph, times etc is them formenting a leadership challenge.
That's my suspicion.
But then I thought about the coverage Boris has been receiving recently, which hasn't seemed to me to have been flattering. But maybe it's highlighting aspects of Boris's behaviour that appeals to Tory voters?
2
1
In reply to captain paranoia:
Maybe they are just trying to sell newspapers? "Look what Boris has done", "Look at hopeless May", Phil hates Boris" blah blah.
There doesn't seem to me much rhyme or reason to it.
> That's my suspicion.
> But then I thought about the coverage Boris has been receiving recently, which hasn't seemed to me to have been flattering. But maybe it's highlighting aspects of Boris's behaviour that appeals to Tory voters?
Maybe they are just trying to sell newspapers? "Look what Boris has done", "Look at hopeless May", Phil hates Boris" blah blah.
There doesn't seem to me much rhyme or reason to it.
10
4
4
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Thats my take on it as well. Theres so much Tory bashing going on, they are just trying to get a new angle on it and differentiate themselves.
As to the leadership challenge, or possibility thereof, theres probably more than an element of truth in that. The tories currently dont appear to be able to run a piss up in a brewery, and TM's leadership was fatally damaged before the speech anyway, so I suspect there will be a rush now to push a credible alternative to Boris, who would be the greatest gift ever to Labour if he got the job.
> Maybe they are just trying to sell newspapers? "Look what Boris has done", "Look at hopeless May", Phil hates Boris" blah blah.
> There doesn't seem to me much rhyme or reason to it.
Thats my take on it as well. Theres so much Tory bashing going on, they are just trying to get a new angle on it and differentiate themselves.
As to the leadership challenge, or possibility thereof, theres probably more than an element of truth in that. The tories currently dont appear to be able to run a piss up in a brewery, and TM's leadership was fatally damaged before the speech anyway, so I suspect there will be a rush now to push a credible alternative to Boris, who would be the greatest gift ever to Labour if he got the job.
3
In reply to Postmanpat:
Did they 'attack' her on how she ate some food or some such?
> OK, OK, calm down. Just kidding.
> But to all the lefty moaners that "they wouldn't attack the Tories like that"; remember in future the kicking May and the Tories are getting this week. The fact is the media prefer the trivia, entertainment and personalities that sell over substance. A good metaphor is always a plus.
Did they 'attack' her on how she ate some food or some such?
12
5
In reply to MG:
Well behaved, or comatose, I'm never sure!
> Phillip Hammond is being very well behaved...
Well behaved, or comatose, I'm never sure!
4
2
In reply to Shani:
No, for having a cold. Her table manners are no doubt impeccable.
> Did they 'attack' her on how she ate some food or some such?
No, for having a cold. Her table manners are no doubt impeccable.
10
4
In reply to MG:
He is, but then again, he's never really been at the centre of any controversy........or at the centre of anything, really.....
A suspiciously safe pair of hands.....
> Phillip Hammond is being very well behaved...
He is, but then again, he's never really been at the centre of any controversy........or at the centre of anything, really.....
A suspiciously safe pair of hands.....
1
In reply to Shani:
Not quite, but the BBC News' 5pm programme did seem to spend the first fifteen minutes analysing trivial nonsense rather than exploring in detail the implementation of key Labour policies
> Did they 'attack' her on how she ate some food or some such?
Not quite, but the BBC News' 5pm programme did seem to spend the first fifteen minutes analysing trivial nonsense rather than exploring in detail the implementation of key Labour policies
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Undoubtedly. She'd probably eat a hamburger with a knife and fork.
*Edit: Hang on, didn't she muff up the eating of a bag of chips?
> No, for having a cold. Her table manners are no doubt impeccable.
Undoubtedly. She'd probably eat a hamburger with a knife and fork.
*Edit: Hang on, didn't she muff up the eating of a bag of chips?
Post edited at 10:05
2
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
The papers are not really attacking the Tories as much as fretting about May and their real and growing fear of Corbyn.
The substance is really about the Conservatives moving leftwards onto Labour ground. The Tory membership and their backers are as uncomfortable with that as left wingers were with the dropping of clause IV.
It appears that the political mood is moving leftwards and the Tories are becoming gloomy and desperate.
The papers are not really attacking the Tories as much as fretting about May and their real and growing fear of Corbyn.
The substance is really about the Conservatives moving leftwards onto Labour ground. The Tory membership and their backers are as uncomfortable with that as left wingers were with the dropping of clause IV.
It appears that the political mood is moving leftwards and the Tories are becoming gloomy and desperate.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Timing is essential though. It matters whether concerted criticism comes during an election campaign, or during conference season. The press does not report politics, it very actively tries to influence politics. That is even fair enough, as long as they are up front about it, and the public aware of this fact.
CB
Timing is essential though. It matters whether concerted criticism comes during an election campaign, or during conference season. The press does not report politics, it very actively tries to influence politics. That is even fair enough, as long as they are up front about it, and the public aware of this fact.
CB
2
2
In reply to NeilBoyd:
Meanwhile, here's an update from whatever bizarre alternate dimension the Daily Mail is currently inhabiting:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLUzVLIW0AAC8LD.jpg
> It appears that the political mood is moving leftwards and the Tories are becoming gloomy and desperate.
Meanwhile, here's an update from whatever bizarre alternate dimension the Daily Mail is currently inhabiting:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLUzVLIW0AAC8LD.jpg
1
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Here’s a good headline I saw today.......
‘Gran evicted... Forced to live in tent.’
Here’s a good headline I saw today.......
‘Gran evicted... Forced to live in tent.’
4
In reply to Postmanpat:
I seem to remember from last nights ITN news at 18-30hrs that the sound/audio of Theresa's coughing was turned down to the point that you could only see her miming the cough and not actually hear the sounds.
Everybody else in the media both on the telly and radio had the coughing audible. Why edit the substance of the story to almost a mime act rather than hear the fact the PM had a cough/cold?
Subtle editing, but deliberate editing non the less. Its not as if the editing was to silence obscenities.
> OK, OK, calm down. Just kidding.
> But to all the lefty moaners that "they wouldn't attack the Tories like that"; remember in future the kicking May and the Tories are getting this week.
I seem to remember from last nights ITN news at 18-30hrs that the sound/audio of Theresa's coughing was turned down to the point that you could only see her miming the cough and not actually hear the sounds.
Everybody else in the media both on the telly and radio had the coughing audible. Why edit the substance of the story to almost a mime act rather than hear the fact the PM had a cough/cold?
Subtle editing, but deliberate editing non the less. Its not as if the editing was to silence obscenities.
1
1
In reply to Ian W:
"so I suspect there will be a rush now to push a credible alternative to Boris, who would be the greatest gift ever to Labour if he got the job."
That's what the Tories thought about Corbyn. Look how wrong they were. Boris might be more popular than you think if he took the helm and started getting patriotic.
"so I suspect there will be a rush now to push a credible alternative to Boris, who would be the greatest gift ever to Labour if he got the job."
That's what the Tories thought about Corbyn. Look how wrong they were. Boris might be more popular than you think if he took the helm and started getting patriotic.
2
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Not so sure - how much of the closing of the gap was due to Labour running a good campaign, and how much was due to the Tories running a bad one? If things continue on the current trajectory, the tories are in deep trouble. However, I cant really believe central office will not have learned lessons. The one thing that now appears to be turning people off is the divisiveness of BJ, who is clearly only doing this for self aggrandisement.
A bit like Trump. And we dont really want to go there, do we?
> "so I suspect there will be a rush now to push a credible alternative to Boris, who would be the greatest gift ever to Labour if he got the job."
> That's what the Tories thought about Corbyn. Look how wrong they were. Boris might be more popular than you think if he took the helm and started getting patriotic.
Not so sure - how much of the closing of the gap was due to Labour running a good campaign, and how much was due to the Tories running a bad one? If things continue on the current trajectory, the tories are in deep trouble. However, I cant really believe central office will not have learned lessons. The one thing that now appears to be turning people off is the divisiveness of BJ, who is clearly only doing this for self aggrandisement.
A bit like Trump. And we dont really want to go there, do we?
2
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Boris had been a high profile public figure for some and he's now turned the jingoism up to 11. If it was working I think we'd know about it.... there were indicators to Corbyn's appeal, people just didn't realise it would translate to the electorate in general.
I agree with a recent article, Boris is yesterday's novelty.
> That's what the Tories thought about Corbyn. Look how wrong they were. Boris might be more popular than you think if he took the helm and started getting patriotic.
Boris had been a high profile public figure for some and he's now turned the jingoism up to 11. If it was working I think we'd know about it.... there were indicators to Corbyn's appeal, people just didn't realise it would translate to the electorate in general.
I agree with a recent article, Boris is yesterday's novelty.
Post edited at 11:01
1
1
In reply to Ian W:
Well, I disagree that BJ is anymore controversial than Corbyn was. A half decent campaign and a tory fck up and Corbyn is now considered a potential PM. Unthinkable only a year or so ago. He still turns plenty of people off, just like BJ does.
Anyway, who knows. Stressful times for May, that's for sure.
Well, I disagree that BJ is anymore controversial than Corbyn was. A half decent campaign and a tory fck up and Corbyn is now considered a potential PM. Unthinkable only a year or so ago. He still turns plenty of people off, just like BJ does.
Anyway, who knows. Stressful times for May, that's for sure.
1
In reply to Mike Stretford: "If it was working I think we'd know about it.."
I think it did work, London Mayor 8 years? Foreign office? A bit better than Corbyns CV. You may have a point that his schtick is becoming less effective/wearing thin, but it has definitely worked for him up until now.
I think it did work, London Mayor 8 years? Foreign office? A bit better than Corbyns CV. You may have a point that his schtick is becoming less effective/wearing thin, but it has definitely worked for him up until now.
1
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
I think that just shows how badly off we are for potential leaders - REAL leaders - of any particular political colour.
Not going to disagree there. Shes been lined up for can carrying duties if/when it goes tits up in a number of arenas, from Brexit to General Election and no doubt will be on scapegoat rota for a while after she's gone. I dont have any sympathy btw, I regard her as unprincipled and dishonest.
> Well, I disagree that BJ is anymore controversial than Corbyn was. A half decent campaign and a tory fck up and Corbyn is now considered a potential PM. Unthinkable only a year or so ago. He still turns plenty of people off, just like BJ does.
I think that just shows how badly off we are for potential leaders - REAL leaders - of any particular political colour.
> Anyway, who knows. Stressful times for May, that's for sure.
Not going to disagree there. Shes been lined up for can carrying duties if/when it goes tits up in a number of arenas, from Brexit to General Election and no doubt will be on scapegoat rota for a while after she's gone. I dont have any sympathy btw, I regard her as unprincipled and dishonest.
6
2
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
One of the Problems the Tories are going to hit is that their policy of Austerity and gutting of the civil service with a hint of populist anti expert among it ranks added to the increase in revolving doors between the private sector and civil servants means that incompetents like Boris can cause real damage, likewise well meaning idealists also have increased risk of causing mayhem by not having a strong impartial civil service available to research and implement policy.
One of the Problems the Tories are going to hit is that their policy of Austerity and gutting of the civil service with a hint of populist anti expert among it ranks added to the increase in revolving doors between the private sector and civil servants means that incompetents like Boris can cause real damage, likewise well meaning idealists also have increased risk of causing mayhem by not having a strong impartial civil service available to research and implement policy.
4
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
I think Corbyn's lack of office turned out to be an asset, were as Boris's previous office could be a stick to beat him. Foreign Office was and apointment rather than an electroral succes and I don't think he's done a great job.
There has been something of a transformation from the less Eurosceptic Boris that won the Mayoral election.... he's turned into a Colonel Blimp like figure. Indications are it's not working, in his own constituency, his Labour rival seemed to pickup the UKIP votes after the referendum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uxbridge_and_South_Ruislip_(UK_Parliament_con...
> "If it was working I think we'd know about it.."
> I think it did work, London Mayor 8 years? Foreign office? A bit better than Corbyns CV.
I think Corbyn's lack of office turned out to be an asset, were as Boris's previous office could be a stick to beat him. Foreign Office was and apointment rather than an electroral succes and I don't think he's done a great job.
> You may have a point that his schtick is becoming less effective/wearing thin, but it has definitely worked for him up until now.
There has been something of a transformation from the less Eurosceptic Boris that won the Mayoral election.... he's turned into a Colonel Blimp like figure. Indications are it's not working, in his own constituency, his Labour rival seemed to pickup the UKIP votes after the referendum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uxbridge_and_South_Ruislip_(UK_Parliament_con...
Post edited at 12:04
1
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
He has lost two jobs because of lying. He has been hauled over the coals by a couple of impartial organisations, not least the statistical watchdog. He has a history of racially offensive behaviour and has caused international offence on several occasions. He is openly mocked in several European countries and has been ridiculed heavily in Chinese and Indian media.
His buffoonery does have a harmless charm if you are not on the wrong end of it, but a few obscure latin phrases and a posh accent hide a rather dim, lying, egotisical, duplicitous and narcissistic person. don't get me wroong, this can be entertaining - even more more so when they get their hands on the levers of power in a country (as we are seeing with Trump).
Just please don't let it be our country.
> That's what the Tories thought about Corbyn. Look how wrong they were. Boris might be more popular than you think if he took the helm and started getting patriotic.
He has lost two jobs because of lying. He has been hauled over the coals by a couple of impartial organisations, not least the statistical watchdog. He has a history of racially offensive behaviour and has caused international offence on several occasions. He is openly mocked in several European countries and has been ridiculed heavily in Chinese and Indian media.
His buffoonery does have a harmless charm if you are not on the wrong end of it, but a few obscure latin phrases and a posh accent hide a rather dim, lying, egotisical, duplicitous and narcissistic person. don't get me wroong, this can be entertaining - even more more so when they get their hands on the levers of power in a country (as we are seeing with Trump).
Just please don't let it be our country.
9
3
1
In reply to Shani:
Don't make the mistake of thinking I think BJ is a perfect man for PM. I don't. I am merely pointing out that thinking this bumbling buffoon will be the worst thing for the Tories could be a mistake, because Corbyn has proven that willful blindness is firmly back in fashion.
Unfortunately I can't resist a game of top trumps so here we go.....
1) Supported the IRA during the NI peace process
2) Anti Semitism - (praising Raed Salah, calling Hamas and Hizbollah his friends when inviting them to parliament, supporting holocaust deniers www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/18/labour-antisemitism-jews-jeremy-corbyn)
3) Righthand man is Seamus Milne - pro Stalin, pro Soviet, British communist
4) Lefthand man is John Mcdonnell - pro marxist and potential chancellor of exchequer
5) Support for Venezuela
anyway, before any libtard eurosexuals get an erection for this rather pointless argument, I will bring us back to Ian W's great point just a little further up
"I think that just shows how badly off we are for potential leaders - REAL leaders - of any particular political colour."
Don't make the mistake of thinking I think BJ is a perfect man for PM. I don't. I am merely pointing out that thinking this bumbling buffoon will be the worst thing for the Tories could be a mistake, because Corbyn has proven that willful blindness is firmly back in fashion.
Unfortunately I can't resist a game of top trumps so here we go.....
1) Supported the IRA during the NI peace process
2) Anti Semitism - (praising Raed Salah, calling Hamas and Hizbollah his friends when inviting them to parliament, supporting holocaust deniers www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/18/labour-antisemitism-jews-jeremy-corbyn)
3) Righthand man is Seamus Milne - pro Stalin, pro Soviet, British communist
4) Lefthand man is John Mcdonnell - pro marxist and potential chancellor of exchequer
5) Support for Venezuela
anyway, before any libtard eurosexuals get an erection for this rather pointless argument, I will bring us back to Ian W's great point just a little further up
"I think that just shows how badly off we are for potential leaders - REAL leaders - of any particular political colour."
5
7
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
“I think that just shows how badly off we are for potential leaders - REAL leaders - of any particular political colour”
Yes - Harry Kane: captain of the England football team for Christ’s sake
“I think that just shows how badly off we are for potential leaders - REAL leaders - of any particular political colour”
Yes - Harry Kane: captain of the England football team for Christ’s sake
In reply to Greenbanks:
Don't think the Brexiteers could stomach that.
David Davis would have been in the hat but I don't think getting slapped around by Barnier is good for his image.
> Hammond as pm?
Don't think the Brexiteers could stomach that.
David Davis would have been in the hat but I don't think getting slapped around by Barnier is good for his image.
In reply to Mike Stretford:
People seem to forget that Davis threw his hat into the ring against Cameron, but despite being favourite he was just too idle and so lost to the smarmy one.
In addition to still being idle he's now demonstrated his incompetence as well.
Hammond would be the sensible choice; Rees Mogg the barking one.
Labout have a few candidates - Chuka Umana and Keir Starmer to name but two, but the PLP are going to have to deal with this barmy lurch to the left before either stand a chance.
People seem to forget that Davis threw his hat into the ring against Cameron, but despite being favourite he was just too idle and so lost to the smarmy one.
In addition to still being idle he's now demonstrated his incompetence as well.
Hammond would be the sensible choice; Rees Mogg the barking one.
Labout have a few candidates - Chuka Umana and Keir Starmer to name but two, but the PLP are going to have to deal with this barmy lurch to the left before either stand a chance.
2
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward: They'd be wise to stick with May..... a decent deal with the EU will involve compromise and the leader at that time will look weak. A hard Brexiteer could appear strong, but I doubt they've got the nerve or numbers to do that.
In reply to Greenbanks:
I think I'd take him as PM over the current choice, never mind captain of the footie team.........
> “I think that just shows how badly off we are for potential leaders - REAL leaders - of any particular political colour”
> Yes - Harry Kane: captain of the England football team for Christ’s sake
I think I'd take him as PM over the current choice, never mind captain of the footie team.........
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Ref my earlier ost about real leaders - you might have just named him - Keir Starmer would be better than the lot of them, even Harry Kane. He's a moderate, seems reasonably principled for a politico, has been involved in international negotiations at a very high level without embarrassing himself or others, and has wiped the floor with Davis, Johnson, May etc etc when on the subject of brexit.
He also appears reasonably normal, and looks like he could hold down a proper job outside politics.
> People seem to forget that Davis threw his hat into the ring against Cameron, but despite being favourite he was just too idle and so lost to the smarmy one.
> In addition to still being idle he's now demonstrated his incompetence as well.
> Hammond would be the sensible choice; Rees Mogg the barking one.
> Labout have a few candidates - Chuka Umana and Keir Starmer to name but two, but the PLP are going to have to deal with this barmy lurch to the left before either stand a chance.
Ref my earlier ost about real leaders - you might have just named him - Keir Starmer would be better than the lot of them, even Harry Kane. He's a moderate, seems reasonably principled for a politico, has been involved in international negotiations at a very high level without embarrassing himself or others, and has wiped the floor with Davis, Johnson, May etc etc when on the subject of brexit.
He also appears reasonably normal, and looks like he could hold down a proper job outside politics.
2
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Bastard ate my hamster too.
> 1) Supported the IRA during the NI peace process
> 2) Anti Semitism - (praising Raed Salah, calling Hamas and Hizbollah his friends when inviting them to parliament, supporting holocaust deniers www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/18/labour-antisemitism-jews-jeremy-corbyn)
> 3) Righthand man is Seamus Milne - pro Stalin, pro Soviet, British communist
> 4) Lefthand man is John Mcdonnell - pro marxist and potential chancellor of exchequer
> 5) Support for Venezuela
Bastard ate my hamster too.
8
In reply to Postmanpat:
Yes. Her grandmother speech.
'My grandmother worked downstairs in a big house to put food on table blah.... Now 2 are ? Barristers and 1 is pm'!
My grandmother had a great saying for people crowing about success.
'Don't forget your old arse when you get a new one', which is quite apt for Mrs May.
Yes. Her grandmother speech.
'My grandmother worked downstairs in a big house to put food on table blah.... Now 2 are ? Barristers and 1 is pm'!
My grandmother had a great saying for people crowing about success.
'Don't forget your old arse when you get a new one', which is quite apt for Mrs May.
2
2
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Touche!
We could discuss Churchill's support for the gassing of the Marsh Arabs, or his involvement in the Bengal famine - point being you are never going to find a 'leader' who'd pass a purity test, I guess. But JC has kept to his principles whilst Boris has flip-flopped as his career/backers have dictated...
What about playing the ball not the man? Boris is for much more of the same Tory policies which will keep us on the current economic trajectory of inequality.
Notwithstanding BREXIT, JC intends to pursue much more progressive policies.
So given the choice of two unpalatable leaders, why not go with the one whose policies you find most appealing?
Touche!
We could discuss Churchill's support for the gassing of the Marsh Arabs, or his involvement in the Bengal famine - point being you are never going to find a 'leader' who'd pass a purity test, I guess. But JC has kept to his principles whilst Boris has flip-flopped as his career/backers have dictated...
What about playing the ball not the man? Boris is for much more of the same Tory policies which will keep us on the current economic trajectory of inequality.
Notwithstanding BREXIT, JC intends to pursue much more progressive policies.
So given the choice of two unpalatable leaders, why not go with the one whose policies you find most appealing?
5
2
In reply to Ian W:
Yeah Starmer has defo got potential.
I'm also looking forward to seeing Bob Flemming stand for the tory leadership next time..
> Ref my earlier ost about real leaders - you might have just named him - Keir Starmer
Yeah Starmer has defo got potential.
I'm also looking forward to seeing Bob Flemming stand for the tory leadership next time..
2
In reply to JMarkW:
http://www.keirstarmer.com/about
His time as DPP showed him as a measured, principled man
http://www.keirstarmer.com/about
His time as DPP showed him as a measured, principled man
1
1
3
2
1
3
In reply to Shani:
Please expand your point.
He went from an ardent unilateralist to a supporter of Trident in the space of the General Election.
Please expand your point.
He went from an ardent unilateralist to a supporter of Trident in the space of the General Election.
7
3
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Just googled for Boris's opposition to the Tory deal with the DUP. Answers came there none!
> 1) Supported the IRA during the NI peace process
Just googled for Boris's opposition to the Tory deal with the DUP. Answers came there none!
1
In reply to Dave the Rave:
Brilliant
> 'Don't forget your old arse when you get a new one', which is quite apt for Mrs May
Brilliant
In reply to FactorXXX:
Source please. I suspect you have forsaken nuance in his position - conflating his personal position and his party's position. You'll understand that a degree of acrasia and pragmatism is essential in a democracy, less so in fascism.
> Please expand your point.
> He went from an ardent unilateralist to a supporter of Trident in the space of the General Election.
Source please. I suspect you have forsaken nuance in his position - conflating his personal position and his party's position. You'll understand that a degree of acrasia and pragmatism is essential in a democracy, less so in fascism.
Post edited at 17:51
5
5
In reply to FactorXXX:
He said he opposed it but would respect the parties position.
Obviously, when he does get in he'll scrap it. And Seamus will assign you and that Bjartur chap to re-education.
> He went from an ardent unilateralist to a supporter of Trident in the space of the General Election.
He said he opposed it but would respect the parties position.
Obviously, when he does get in he'll scrap it. And Seamus will assign you and that Bjartur chap to re-education.
2
In reply to Shani:
You make a good point re playing the ball not the man , and I understand why people who dislike the tories would see BJ as more of the same..maybe even worse. Regarding JC, as I mentioned a few times on here...it's his team that worry me more than him (and more than Boris Johnson/Hammond/Moggster/May). As Mike Stretford amusingly points out, I definitely would need re educating to get on board with some of their ideas and passions.
Having said all that, it's looking more likely that we may get to be guinea pigs in their socialist dream, so I understand why many on here have their tails up.
You make a good point re playing the ball not the man , and I understand why people who dislike the tories would see BJ as more of the same..maybe even worse. Regarding JC, as I mentioned a few times on here...it's his team that worry me more than him (and more than Boris Johnson/Hammond/Moggster/May). As Mike Stretford amusingly points out, I definitely would need re educating to get on board with some of their ideas and passions.
Having said all that, it's looking more likely that we may get to be guinea pigs in their socialist dream, so I understand why many on here have their tails up.
1
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
I have my own suspicions about JC and Momentum (see other posts), but I've sought to defend some of JC's policies from very early days of him coming to power. His ideas and policies should be understood and considered/analysed in a sober fashion - moreso now he has undoubtedly moved closer to power, rather than the knee jerk tabloid anti-lefty rant of the Mail/Sun/Express.
It is an interesting time in UK politics. Socialism has been refreshed. Can the Tories do the same for Capitalism?
I have my own suspicions about JC and Momentum (see other posts), but I've sought to defend some of JC's policies from very early days of him coming to power. His ideas and policies should be understood and considered/analysed in a sober fashion - moreso now he has undoubtedly moved closer to power, rather than the knee jerk tabloid anti-lefty rant of the Mail/Sun/Express.
It is an interesting time in UK politics. Socialism has been refreshed. Can the Tories do the same for Capitalism?
2
In reply to Shani:
Source please. I suspect you have forsaken nuance in his position - conflating his personal position and his party's position. You'll understand that a degree of acrasia and pragmatism is essential in a democracy, less so in fascism.
Corbyn was typically mealy mouthed about Trident at the outset of the election, but seemed to back it more and as the election progressed. The cynical would say, that he was looking at what could be possibly swaying the direction of the vote and adjusted his stance accordingly.
He's been a unilateralist all his life and was vice-president of CND. He seemed quite happy to ignore the vast majority of his fellow Labour MP's when compiling the manifesto - why change his mind on something he is so passionate about and has been at loggerheads with Labour policy for many years? Sudden respect for Labour policy, or knowing that getting rid of Trident as a policy would more than likely cost him many, many votes?
Source please. I suspect you have forsaken nuance in his position - conflating his personal position and his party's position. You'll understand that a degree of acrasia and pragmatism is essential in a democracy, less so in fascism.
Corbyn was typically mealy mouthed about Trident at the outset of the election, but seemed to back it more and as the election progressed. The cynical would say, that he was looking at what could be possibly swaying the direction of the vote and adjusted his stance accordingly.
He's been a unilateralist all his life and was vice-president of CND. He seemed quite happy to ignore the vast majority of his fellow Labour MP's when compiling the manifesto - why change his mind on something he is so passionate about and has been at loggerheads with Labour policy for many years? Sudden respect for Labour policy, or knowing that getting rid of Trident as a policy would more than likely cost him many, many votes?
4
In reply to Postmanpat:
Lol, the media is not kicking the tories, it's the tories kicking each others through the media.
> OK, OK, calm down. Just kidding.
> But to all the lefty moaners that "they wouldn't attack the Tories like that"; remember in future the kicking May and the Tories are getting this week. The fact is the media prefer the trivia, entertainment and personalities that sell over substance. A good metaphor is always a plus.
> To it's credit the Graniad has made the best effort to focus on the substance of her speech over the presentational failings.
Lol, the media is not kicking the tories, it's the tories kicking each others through the media.
8
3
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
We'll really be in trouble if he starts getting patriotic.
> "so I suspect there will be a rush now to push a credible alternative to Boris, who would be the greatest gift ever to Labour if he got the job."
> That's what the Tories thought about Corbyn. Look how wrong they were. Boris might be more popular than you think if he took the helm and started getting patriotic.
We'll really be in trouble if he starts getting patriotic.
In reply to Ian W:
Yes, who can forget the Chancellor of the exchequer not knowing what was in the party manifesto when it came to the budget... Memory is short it appears.
Yes, who can forget the Chancellor of the exchequer not knowing what was in the party manifesto when it came to the budget... Memory is short it appears.
In reply to Dave B:
Good point.......
Interview with Grant Schapps this morning on the Beeb. Its kicked off.
Good point.......
Interview with Grant Schapps this morning on the Beeb. Its kicked off.
Post edited at 08:26
In reply to JMarkW:
Starmer has one fundamental issue- he is a lawyer- just like Blair.So to die hards in the labour party- he does not tick the boxes.
I personally am not sure that anything will come of this Grant Shaps and his 30 Mp's idea to remove May.
There is no real fervour for it... apart from in the press.
Starmer has one fundamental issue- he is a lawyer- just like Blair.So to die hards in the labour party- he does not tick the boxes.
I personally am not sure that anything will come of this Grant Shaps and his 30 Mp's idea to remove May.
There is no real fervour for it... apart from in the press.
In reply to FactorXXX:
Lots of blather and regurgitation through the M/E/S/S lens. You might want to read what he has said rather than what Mail/Express/Sun/Star report.
Lots of blather and regurgitation through the M/E/S/S lens. You might want to read what he has said rather than what Mail/Express/Sun/Star report.
1
In reply to Shani:
Lots of blather and regurgitation through the M/E/S/S lens. You might want to read what he has said rather than what Mail/Express/Sun/Star report.
Nope, observation of answers to the same question at various periods before and during and after the election campaign. He starts off damning all nuclear weapons, then declares that against his will that he will accept them at Labour's behest and finally sort of says that he would use them if he really had to. Pandering to the electorate to secure votes at any cost. He did exactly the same with any questions about the IRA/Hamas, etc.
Principled? Maybe as a backbencher where he can demonstrate his anti-establishment leanings without any consequences, but as a potential PM? No, he realises what are vote winners/losers and adjusts his rhetoric accordingly.
Lots of blather and regurgitation through the M/E/S/S lens. You might want to read what he has said rather than what Mail/Express/Sun/Star report.
Nope, observation of answers to the same question at various periods before and during and after the election campaign. He starts off damning all nuclear weapons, then declares that against his will that he will accept them at Labour's behest and finally sort of says that he would use them if he really had to. Pandering to the electorate to secure votes at any cost. He did exactly the same with any questions about the IRA/Hamas, etc.
Principled? Maybe as a backbencher where he can demonstrate his anti-establishment leanings without any consequences, but as a potential PM? No, he realises what are vote winners/losers and adjusts his rhetoric accordingly.
6
2
In reply to FactorXXX:
Yep, as he still does.
Yep, as i pointed out above, this is pragmatism/acrasia, necessary when developing policy democratically.
Did he? Source? A reluctance to kill millions of people at a button press is an advantage in my eyes.
Look at it this way, the current list of people prepared to launch nuclear weapons consists of Trump and Kim Jong Un. You happy with this?
Anyone who confidently asserts they could order the mass killing of people has not thought it through, or is deluded, psycopathic, or, lying.
Eh? At ANY cost? He's just unveiled a host of policies (renationalisations) that have been unpopular for 30 years. The electorate are coming to HIS policies.
You need to expand this point as it sounds like more rightwit jerking redolent of M/E/S/S newspapers.
> He starts off damning all nuclear weapons,
Yep, as he still does.
> then declares that against his will that he will accept them at Labour's behest
Yep, as i pointed out above, this is pragmatism/acrasia, necessary when developing policy democratically.
> and finally sort of says that he would use them if he really had to.
Did he? Source? A reluctance to kill millions of people at a button press is an advantage in my eyes.
Look at it this way, the current list of people prepared to launch nuclear weapons consists of Trump and Kim Jong Un. You happy with this?
Anyone who confidently asserts they could order the mass killing of people has not thought it through, or is deluded, psycopathic, or, lying.
> Pandering to the electorate to secure votes at any cost.
Eh? At ANY cost? He's just unveiled a host of policies (renationalisations) that have been unpopular for 30 years. The electorate are coming to HIS policies.
> He did exactly the same with any questions about the IRA/Hamas, etc.
You need to expand this point as it sounds like more rightwit jerking redolent of M/E/S/S newspapers.
Post edited at 10:45
3
3
In reply to lummox:
Im off to france or germany in that case......it would have been barcelona, but i'm not so sure at the moment.......
Im off to france or germany in that case......it would have been barcelona, but i'm not so sure at the moment.......
In reply to Ian W:
Of course, your man Shapps is known to fly quite close to propriety - so he's a very credible source
Of course, your man Shapps is known to fly quite close to propriety - so he's a very credible source
1
In reply to Shani:
This is colloquially known as the “nirvana fallacy”: the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a problem. A politician who uses the nirvana fallacy gains an easy rhetorical advantage. He can paint inspiring pictures of his perfect world, and attack the existing state of affairs for not living up to it. He can accuse anyone who doesn’t accept its plausibility as cynical, lacking in vision, or principle.
But this advantage comes at a cost, because the nirvana fallacy makes you stupid. "
Courtesy of the New Statesman.
> Yep, as he still does.
> Yep, as i pointed out above, this is pragmatism/acrasia, necessary when developing policy democratically.
> Did he? Source? A reluctance to kill millions of people at a button press is an advantage in my eyes.
>
"In a paper from 1969, the American economist Harold Demsetz distinguished between two approaches to public policy: the “nirvana” approach, and the “comparative institution” approach. The former presents the choice as between an ideal norm and the imperfect existing arrangement; the latter as between alternative, real world arrangements, imperfect and less imperfect.> Yep, as i pointed out above, this is pragmatism/acrasia, necessary when developing policy democratically.
> Did he? Source? A reluctance to kill millions of people at a button press is an advantage in my eyes.
>
This is colloquially known as the “nirvana fallacy”: the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a problem. A politician who uses the nirvana fallacy gains an easy rhetorical advantage. He can paint inspiring pictures of his perfect world, and attack the existing state of affairs for not living up to it. He can accuse anyone who doesn’t accept its plausibility as cynical, lacking in vision, or principle.
But this advantage comes at a cost, because the nirvana fallacy makes you stupid. "
Courtesy of the New Statesman.
6
In reply to Postmanpat:
That's absolutely fascinating but what I want to know is..who do you think will look better in a morning suit at PMQs- BoJo or R-Mogg ?
That's absolutely fascinating but what I want to know is..who do you think will look better in a morning suit at PMQs- BoJo or R-Mogg ?
1
1
In reply to Greenbanks:
You mean he's a tw*t. You'd be right of course, and my take is that he is the front for whoever fancies the job. He was at pains to point out that it isnt Boris, but given his background, it still wouldn't surprise me.
I think because he is "damaged goods" as ex chair of the tories, he can be used to put the idea out there of a leadership challenge and see if it has any legs. He must be getting some support from some MP's in marginals, as they can see the dole queue and a spell on universal credit looming ever larger after that conference.
It reminds me of the mid 90's, with the tories self destructing. Labour then were a much more credible alternative than they are now, but the tories were so much involved in their own internal fights that they seemed to take the eye off the ball completely, and labour got a landslide. Dont see that happening now, but if any tory seat comes up for a bye election, it will certainly be squeaky bum time in the shires.
You mean he's a tw*t. You'd be right of course, and my take is that he is the front for whoever fancies the job. He was at pains to point out that it isnt Boris, but given his background, it still wouldn't surprise me.
I think because he is "damaged goods" as ex chair of the tories, he can be used to put the idea out there of a leadership challenge and see if it has any legs. He must be getting some support from some MP's in marginals, as they can see the dole queue and a spell on universal credit looming ever larger after that conference.
It reminds me of the mid 90's, with the tories self destructing. Labour then were a much more credible alternative than they are now, but the tories were so much involved in their own internal fights that they seemed to take the eye off the ball completely, and labour got a landslide. Dont see that happening now, but if any tory seat comes up for a bye election, it will certainly be squeaky bum time in the shires.
1
In reply to lummox:
Rees Mogg. He is already a cartoon caricature of an early 20th century butler. Boris will just look like the Fat Controller with messy hair
Rees Mogg. He is already a cartoon caricature of an early 20th century butler. Boris will just look like the Fat Controller with messy hair
3
1
In reply to lummox:
R.Mogg definitely. I've always though Bertie Wooster would have made a fine PM as long as he could have appointed Jeeves as his PPS. He'd look so dapper. So R.Mogg would be a perfect substitute, preferably be-monocled..
Bojo, by contrast, is a fat slug.
> That's absolutely fascinating but what I want to know is..who do you think will look better in a morning suit at PMQs- BoJo or R-Mogg ?
R.Mogg definitely. I've always though Bertie Wooster would have made a fine PM as long as he could have appointed Jeeves as his PPS. He'd look so dapper. So R.Mogg would be a perfect substitute, preferably be-monocled..
Bojo, by contrast, is a fat slug.
1
In reply to Ian W:
There were many highlights of the Cons conference but I did love the repeated jibes about Corbyn taking us back to the 1970s from skidmarks who get a stirring in their withered loins at the thought of taking us back to the 1870s.
There were many highlights of the Cons conference but I did love the repeated jibes about Corbyn taking us back to the 1970s from skidmarks who get a stirring in their withered loins at the thought of taking us back to the 1870s.
5
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
I find it fascinating you've posted this as one of the forum's vocal Brexit advocates, given how frequently the nirvana approach has been adopted by brexiteers (see the sovereignty debate as a prime example)!
I find it fascinating you've posted this as one of the forum's vocal Brexit advocates, given how frequently the nirvana approach has been adopted by brexiteers (see the sovereignty debate as a prime example)!
11
1
In reply to lummox:
When we happily interfered in other countries affairs, which we will have plenty of time to do now that we have stopped those pesky europeans interfering in ours.
When we happily interfered in other countries affairs, which we will have plenty of time to do now that we have stopped those pesky europeans interfering in ours.
In reply to Shani:
"Look at it this way, the current list of people prepared to launch nuclear weapons consists of Trump and Kim Jong Un. You happy with this?"
The list of people happy to kill off millions also includes Theresa May
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-nuclear-weapons-f...
"Look at it this way, the current list of people prepared to launch nuclear weapons consists of Trump and Kim Jong Un. You happy with this?"
The list of people happy to kill off millions also includes Theresa May
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-nuclear-weapons-f...
In reply to andyfallsoff:
Perhaps you'd like to elaborate?
> I find it fascinating you've posted this as one of the forum's vocal Brexit advocates, given how frequently the nirvana approach has been adopted by brexiteers (see the sovereignty debate as a prime example)!
Perhaps you'd like to elaborate?
2
1
In reply to Gareth:
Well, that article quotes Michael Fallon talking *about* May. Besides, May is deeply religious. Surely no Christian would be so hypocritical as to kill vast numbers of innocent peo.....ah never mind.
> The list of people happy to kill off millions also includes Theresa May
Well, that article quotes Michael Fallon talking *about* May. Besides, May is deeply religious. Surely no Christian would be so hypocritical as to kill vast numbers of innocent peo.....ah never mind.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
I hardly think that's necessary... as you wrote
A politician who uses the nirvana fallacy gains an easy rhetorical advantage. He can paint inspiring pictures of his perfect world, and attack the existing state of affairs for not living up to it. He can accuse anyone who doesn’t accept its plausibility as cynical, lacking in vision, or principle.
Fits most of the Brexiteers to a tee.
> Perhaps you'd like to elaborate?
I hardly think that's necessary... as you wrote
A politician who uses the nirvana fallacy gains an easy rhetorical advantage. He can paint inspiring pictures of his perfect world, and attack the existing state of affairs for not living up to it. He can accuse anyone who doesn’t accept its plausibility as cynical, lacking in vision, or principle.
Fits most of the Brexiteers to a tee.
Post edited at 14:17
7
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Would you like to elaborate?
> I hardly think that's necessary... as you wrote
> A politician who uses the nirvana fallacy gains an easy rhetorical advantage. He can paint inspiring pictures of his perfect world, and attack the existing state of affairs for not living up to it. He can accuse anyone who doesn’t accept its plausibility as cynical, lacking in vision, or principle.
> Fits most of the Brexiteers to a tee.
Would you like to elaborate?
In reply to Postmanpat:
Like I said, there's no need, you nailed it Pat!
Friday afternoon treat
youtube.com/watch?v=LtlGN8wVnis&
Like I said, there's no need, you nailed it Pat!
Friday afternoon treat
youtube.com/watch?v=LtlGN8wVnis&
Post edited at 14:50
5
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Not bad, at least it's positive I find depressing lies more irritating (every family £4300 worse off)
<sticks tongue out>
Not bad, at least it's positive I find depressing lies more irritating (every family £4300 worse off)
<sticks tongue out>
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Yes that was a suspiciously precise figure from Osborne. Bad Tories.
Seamus's new Ministry will tell no lies.
> I find depressing lies more irritating (every family £4300 worse off)
Yes that was a suspiciously precise figure from Osborne. Bad Tories.
Seamus's new Ministry will tell no lies.
Post edited at 16:02
In reply to Mike Stretford:
For a Friday afternoon treat this made me smile
Fantasising about a Rees Mogg PM speech at the Tory party conference
"We shall build more hovels for the poor . . . increase opium exports to our trading partners in the Far East . . . reoccupy the rebel colonies in the new world . . . do all in our power to re-unite the Habsburg empire and restrict the immigration of Frenchmen selling onions . . . divorce will be punishable by transportation to our Antipodean dependencies, to where we will also send highwaymen,'sturdy beggars' and the 'undeserving poor'."
For a Friday afternoon treat this made me smile
Fantasising about a Rees Mogg PM speech at the Tory party conference
"We shall build more hovels for the poor . . . increase opium exports to our trading partners in the Far East . . . reoccupy the rebel colonies in the new world . . . do all in our power to re-unite the Habsburg empire and restrict the immigration of Frenchmen selling onions . . . divorce will be punishable by transportation to our Antipodean dependencies, to where we will also send highwaymen,'sturdy beggars' and the 'undeserving poor'."
2
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Agree. remainer Tories are the most despicable. That's Corbyns saving grace, he hates Europe and is a silent Brexiteer. Man of principle, so he will see it through
Agree. remainer Tories are the most despicable. That's Corbyns saving grace, he hates Europe and is a silent Brexiteer. Man of principle, so he will see it through
2
3
In reply to Mike Stretford:
> Like I said, there's no need, you nailed it Pat!
>
Are, is that the sound of scuttling backwards makes....? Post edited at 17:31
3
4
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...