# Rochester & Strood by-election



## brogdale (Oct 13, 2014)

Writ likely to be issued within next couple of days and November 6th is favourite. Time for it's own thread.

The tories have decided upon their two candidates for the open primary, and the candidate to contest Reckless will be announced on Oct 23rd.



> The Conservatives have shortlisted two Kent councillors in the battle to be the party’s candidate in the forthcoming Rochester and Strood by-election.
> 
> *Kelly Tolhurst*, a Medway councillor who represents the Rochester West ward and is cabinet member for education, will vie with Sevenoaks councillor* Anna Firth* in the selection battle.
> 
> ...


----------



## chilango (Oct 13, 2014)

UKIP win?


----------



## lizzieloo (Oct 13, 2014)

Knowing the people I know there UKIP will win it.


----------



## chilango (Oct 13, 2014)

LibDem lost deposit?


----------



## killer b (Oct 13, 2014)

yes, and yes.


----------



## tony heath (Oct 13, 2014)

Reckless took a couple of Kent councillors with him  http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/medway-tory-ukip-defection-24607/


----------



## brogdale (Oct 13, 2014)

chilango said:


> UKIP win?


 The only poll published so far...(*excluding the 2010 no-shows*)...


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 14, 2014)

Don't think it will be such a walkover for UKIP this time. Tories could just squeak a survival even.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 14, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Don't think it will be such a walkover for UKIP this time. Tories could just squeak a survival even.


 
I'm amazed you could look at the poll above and think that


----------



## chilango (Oct 14, 2014)

Class War are standing in this one aren't they?


----------



## newbie (Oct 14, 2014)

would a Labour tactical voter prefer to weaken Cameron or damage Farage?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 14, 2014)

chilango said:


> Class War are standing in this one aren't they?


 Yes, according to the great osseous one...





> Holly said after being selected………*‘I fucking hate Marc Reckless – the useless twat’*


----------



## rioted (Oct 14, 2014)

Russian submarine


----------



## andysays (Oct 14, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I'm amazed you could look at the poll above and think that



At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious, that poll does suggest it's currently far closer in Rochester than it was in Clacton (if I remember correctly, polls there were giving UKIP/Carswell a clear lead right from the beginning).

I suspect this one will be more closely fought than Clacton, but that Farage and Reckless will have been expecting to win when they announced the switch/resignation plan (they also *need* to win to keep the momentum going in preparation for the GE).

The Tories will also be aware that they need to stop UKIP here, so they are likely to put far more energy into fighting this by-election than the previous one, where I suspect they realised that they actually had no realistic chance of pulling it back.


----------



## tony heath (Oct 14, 2014)

andysays said:


> The Tories will also be aware that they need to stop UKIP here, so they are likely to put far more energy into fighting this by-election than the previous one, where I suspect they realised that they actually had no realistic chance of pulling it back.


Which makes me wonder why they are waiting until 23rd October to announce a candidate, hardly energetic behaviour.


----------



## belboid (Oct 14, 2014)

tony heath said:


> Which makes me wonder why they are waiting until 23rd October to announce a candidate, hardly energetic behaviour.


because they aren't restricting it to Tory members, they're going for a yank style process. James Cracknell now the favourite, apparently.

To be held on November 20th


----------



## marty21 (Oct 14, 2014)

belboid said:


> because they aren't restricting it to Tory members, they're going for a yank style process. James Cracknell now the favourite, apparently.
> 
> To be held on November 20th


 they need a big name to have any chance - mind you at Clacton, their candidate was an actor who appeared in Bread - didn't help him though


----------



## andysays (Oct 14, 2014)

belboid said:


> because they aren't restricting it to Tory members, they're going for a yank style process. James Cracknell now the favourite, apparently.
> 
> To be held on November 20th



where you getting that from?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 14, 2014)

belboid said:


> because they aren't restricting it to Tory members, they're going for a yank style process. James Cracknell now the favourite, apparently.
> 
> To be held on November 20th


Yes and no.
Yeah, the open primary theory is that the process itself raises the profile of the winner...giving the electorate "ownership" and all that crap. No, (arse)Cracknell is not one of the two candidates involved in the primary...see above.


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 14, 2014)

belboid said:


> because they aren't restricting it to Tory members, they're going for a yank style process. James Cracknell now the favourite, apparently.
> 
> To be held on November 20th



Is there potential for mischief with such a process?  Candidates are still being vetted (according to the article above with 'shortlisted' candidates), but there must be a chance for people to vote for the most weird or hopeless candidate to hinder their chances a bit?


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 14, 2014)

Unsure who I'd want to win this - UKIP winning would weaken Cameron, but at the same time the Tories winning might make UKIP try harder to target the tory vote, and take their momentum away a bit.  I hope it's messy whichever way it goes.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 14, 2014)

brogdale said:


> The only poll published so far...(*excluding the 2010 no-shows*)...



UKIP plus Labour...looks like an uphill struggle for the Tories.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## belboid (Oct 14, 2014)

andysays said:


> where you getting that from?


Kent online - shorely an unimpeachable sauce!!

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/is-cracknell-set-to-stick-25129/

If it is an open primary, surely there can be write in candidates.


----------



## hot air baboon (Oct 14, 2014)

....of no possible interest to anyone but its been bugging the hell out of me who Reckless reminds me off....Andrew Gilligan...


----------



## treelover (Oct 14, 2014)

James Cracknell post on Guardian CIF with all sorts of anti-capitalist views, this can't be the same one can it?


----------



## andysays (Oct 14, 2014)

belboid said:


> Kent online - shorely an unimpeachable sauce!!
> 
> http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/is-cracknell-set-to-stick-25129/
> 
> If it is an open primary, surely there can be write in candidates.



Thanks, though I see the date on that is the 12th, and the (now-updated) article from the same source linked to above says


> There had been speculation that former Olympic rower James Crackell could be in contention but the party has opted instead for local people.


----------



## marty21 (Oct 14, 2014)

treelover said:


> James Cracknell post on Guardian CIF with all sorts of anti-capitalist views, this can't be the same one can it?


 maybe he has an evil plan


----------



## belboid (Oct 14, 2014)

andysays said:


> Thanks, though I see the date on that is the 12th, and the (now-updated) article from the same source linked to above says


local people for local...mmm, hang on a mo...


----------



## brogdale (Oct 14, 2014)

belboid said:


> Kent online - shorely an unimpeachable sauce!!
> 
> http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/is-cracknell-set-to-stick-25129/
> 
> If it is an open primary, surely there can be write in candidates.


 No, the 'open' part of the term 'open primary' merely means that the process is open to any voter, not just those belonging to the party choosing a candidate. Has its risks...obviously, but controlling the choice to two (presumably well vetted party hacks) minimises any real danger of democracy breaking out.


----------



## andysays (Oct 14, 2014)

belboid said:


> local people for local...mmm, hang on a mo...



Maybe (just maybe) they're actually beginning to wise up and recognise that bringing in a big name over the heads of local councillors is part of what leads people to be fucked off with their remoteness. Whether it will make any difference in this case remains to be seen.


----------



## belboid (Oct 14, 2014)

andysays said:


> Maybe (just maybe) they're actually beginning to wise up and recognise that bringing in a big name over the heads of local councillors is part of what leads people to be fucked off with their remoteness. Whether it will make any difference in this case remains to be seen.


depends how popular those councillors are, really.  It can be a good move, but it's no guarantee


----------



## brogdale (Oct 14, 2014)

andysays said:


> Maybe (just maybe) they're actually beginning to wise up and recognise that bringing in a big name over the heads of local councillors is part of what leads people to be fucked off with their remoteness. Whether it will make any difference in this case remains to be seen.


Or...maybe having a "nobody" helps the potential post-mortem...saving the big name(s) for better prospects?


----------



## andysays (Oct 14, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Or...maybe having a "nobody" helps the potential post-mortem...saving the big name(s) for better prospects?



My take on this is that the Tories *really *need to win this by-election to stop the UKIP surge, rather than lose and then come out with some convincing and persuasive arguments *why* they lost in the post-mortem.

Plus, we don't know if there will actually be another defection and by-election (I suggest that depends in part in what happens in this one), and the polls suggest that this one is potentially winnable for the Tories in a way that Clacton appeared not to be.

If someone from Tory HQ has decided that what they should do is "throw" this by-election for tactical reasons, I'd be very surprised...


----------



## brogdale (Oct 14, 2014)

It's going to be on the 20th btw.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 14, 2014)

This could produce some good Youtube material...any Urbanites down there in Medway?



> Voters this time are being *invited to quiz the Conservative candidates* shortlisted to contest the forthcoming Rochester and Strood by-election at an open hustings meeting.
> 
> The *public meeting on Wednesday will be held at Rochester’s Corn Exchange and will get underway at 7.30pm.
> 
> Admission is free. *


----------



## brogdale (Oct 14, 2014)

andysays said:


> At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious, that poll does suggest it's currently far closer in Rochester than it was in Clacton (if I remember correctly, polls there were giving UKIP/Carswell a clear lead right from the beginning).
> 
> I suspect this one will be more closely fought than Clacton, but that Farage and Reckless will have been expecting to win when they announced the switch/resignation plan (they also *need* to win to keep the momentum going in preparation for the GE).
> 
> The Tories will also be aware that they need to stop UKIP here, so they are likely to put far more energy into fighting this by-election than the previous one, where I suspect they realised that they actually had no realistic chance of pulling it back.


Yes, but do remember that what i was posting there was data that excluded the 2010 non-voters. With all respondents included the 'raw' data for the only Rochester poll, thus far, was:-

*CON 31% (-18), LAB 25% (-3), LD 2% (-14), UKIP 40% (+40), OTHER 1% (-5)*
*.*..showing that UKIP are appealing to a significant number of previous non-voters....and do bare in mind that the fieldwork for this poll was undertaken well before the Clacton/Heywood results and publicity.

e2a: obvious need for another constituency poll...can't be long now?


----------



## marty21 (Oct 14, 2014)

andysays said:


> Maybe (just maybe) they're actually beginning to wise up and recognise that bringing in a big name over the heads of local councillors is part of what leads people to be fucked off with their remoteness. Whether it will make any difference in this case remains to be seen.


 UKIP seem to get away with that sort of thing


----------



## andysays (Oct 14, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Yes, but do remember that what i was posting there was data that excluded the 2010 non-voters. With all respondents included the 'raw' data for the only Rochester poll, thus far, was:-
> 
> *CON 31% (-18), LAB 25% (-3), LD 2% (-14), UKIP 40% (+40), OTHER 1% (-5)*
> *.*..showing that UKIP are appealing to a significant number of previous non-voters....and do bare in mind that the fieldwork for this poll was undertaken well before the Clacton/Heywood results and publicity.
> ...



Two very good points


----------



## brogdale (Oct 14, 2014)

Smithson reckons the money is on Kelly Tolurst winning the open primary.

I suppose that all woman open might well reflect the tories analysis of the gender cross-breaks for UKIP; M > F.


----------



## andysays (Oct 14, 2014)

marty21 said:


> UKIP seem to get away with that sort of thing



They also get away with pretending to be anti-establishment


----------



## marty21 (Oct 14, 2014)

andysays said:


> They also get away with pretending to be anti-establishment


 aye, by poaching members of the establishment


----------



## brogdale (Oct 14, 2014)

andysays said:


> They also get away with pretending to be anti-establishment



Easy to portray "outsider" status when they had no formal representation in Parliament, but now we'll all be able to see just how pro working-class and anti-capitalist Carswell's voting record is...


----------



## andysays (Oct 14, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Easy to portray "outsider" status when they had no formal representation in Parliament, but now we'll all be able to see just how pro working-class and anti-capitalist Carswell's voting record is...



Like everyone already does with Labour, you mean?

I think the outsider/anti-establishment business will continue, and continue to be effective, for a while yet, including at the GE, though hopefully not forever.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 14, 2014)

andysays said:


> Like everyone already does with Labour, you mean?
> 
> I think the outsider/anti-establishment business will continue, and continue to be effective, for a while yet, including at the GE, though hopefully not forever.


He's easy to keep an eye on, though....



> Michael Deacon ✔ @MichaelPDeacon
> Follow
> MPs are debating devolution and English Votes on English Laws. For some reason I can't see Douglas Carswell. Perhaps not a big Ukip issue
> 
> 1:58 PM - 14 Oct 2014


----------



## brogdale (Oct 14, 2014)

Dave writes to the burghers....



> Cameron writes: “We’re inviting you – regardless of which party you support – to help us make that decision through a postal primary election. This is a unique and exciting opportunity that the other parties aren’t offering. In fact, it’s only happened a few times before in British history.
> 
> “Nigel Farage and Mark Reckless want to turn this election into a national media circus – we want it to be about you and what you want for the future of this area.
> 
> “The decision is in your hands. There’s *no stunts *or backroom deals, just a strong local candidate you can trust.”



cunning


----------



## brogdale (Oct 14, 2014)

...and Dave says...



> ....Kelly understands the benefits new investment can provide for local people. But she has also seen the strain that excessive immigration has put on housing and our local services.
> 
> “So if she’s elected, *Kelly will work hard to secure a better future for our area by pushing for more serious action to get immigration under control....*



Gotta be question 1 at the 'hustings", surely?


----------



## marty21 (Oct 14, 2014)

andysays said:


> My take on this is that the Tories *really *need to win this by-election to stop the UKIP surge, rather than lose and then come out with some convincing and persuasive arguments *why* they lost in the post-mortem.
> 
> Plus, we don't know if there will actually be another defection and by-election (I suggest that depends in part in what happens in this one), and the polls suggest that this one is potentially winnable for the Tories in a way that Clacton appeared not to be.
> 
> If someone from Tory HQ has decided that what they should do is "throw" this by-election for tactical reasons, I'd be very surprised...


They have to throw the kitchen sink at it, they seemed to give up on Clacton very quickly. Losing 2 in a row to UKIP would be a problem and a fair few Tories might get worried about their seats and might be tempted by loving Farage arms. Even though UKIP do not do well at General Elections and I don't expect them to do well in 2015


----------



## Quartz (Oct 14, 2014)

How was Reckless rated as a constituency MP?


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 14, 2014)

The Primary hustings will be totally fake, stuffed with party members asking carefully vetted questions. Dave knows what he's doing with this. 'No stunts' my arse. The whole thing's a PR stunt.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 14, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Smithson reckons the money is on Kelly Tolurst winning the open primary.
> 
> I suppose that all woman open might well reflect the tories analysis of the gender cross-breaks for UKIP; M > F.



It's all about the *28% of DK women* (shown by the Survation poll) according to Smithson..


----------



## tony heath (Oct 14, 2014)

hot air baboon said:


> ....of no possible interest to anyone but its been bugging the hell out of me who Reckless reminds me off....Andrew Gilligan...


  he reminds me of Clifford Rose, not sure why


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 14, 2014)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Don't think it will be such a walkover for UKIP this time. Tories could just squeak a survival even.





Spanky Longhorn said:


> I'm amazed you could look at the poll above and think that



Fair dig  but it wasn't _just_ the poll ...


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2014)

Crick on primaries and expenditure...

http://blogs.channel4.com/michael-crick-on-politics/tory-primary-rochester-breach-spirit-legal-spending-limits/4519


----------



## Quartz (Oct 15, 2014)

tony heath said:


> View attachment 62439  he reminds me of Clifford Rose, not sure why



IMHO it's Farage who bears more of a resemblance.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 16, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> The Primary hustings will be totally fake, stuffed with party members asking carefully vetted questions. Dave knows what he's doing with this. 'No stunts' my arse. The whole thing's a PR stunt.


Sounds like Lab had someone recording though...



> One of the two Conservative candidates hoping to stand in the Rochester and Strood byelection says she supports a points-based system of EU immigration that would exclude unskilled workers like “a fruit picker in Romania”.
> 
> Anna Firth, a Tory councillor in nearby Sevenoaks, Kent, told a hustings on Wednesday night that Britain was a small island and needed a “sensible immigration system” modelled on the Australian-style system proposed by Ukip, which would only allow in people with a certain level of skills.
> 
> ...



That's a good one...arguing for an opponent's policy at the primary 'hustings'

Maybe she's smarter than she seems?

e2a :


> National media, including the Guardian, Telegraph and BBC, were banned by Conservative officials from reporting on the hustings – a move described as wrong by Sarah Wollaston, the Tory MP for Totnes, who was also selected via open primary. However, the Guardian since has obtained a recording of the event.


Lol


----------



## brogdale (Oct 22, 2014)

Another poll, (UKIP donor funded), for Rochester & Strood....



> *UKIP 43: CON 30: LAB 21: LD 3: GRN 2*
> 
> Th big by-election news tonight which has already been anticipated by the betting markets is a new UKIP donor funded poll of Rochester & Strood in the Daily Express.
> 
> ...



Pleasant to imagine the angst/panic at tory HQ


----------



## brogdale (Oct 23, 2014)

The Vermin's primary fail....after hearing that their expenditure might fall foul of election law, they get a pathetically low response to their freepost primary..

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/in...rimary-which-looks-like-an-expensive-mistake/

(nb. 3 different figures in that piece)



> I said beforehand that a 15% participation rate would be good given the time pressure. So to fall short of that by such a margin does not bode well for the Blue Team.
> 
> It really shows the lack of interest that voters there have in the party and doesn’t bode well for CON prospects in the election proper on November 20th.



Just as well they're not balloting for strike action.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 23, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Just as well they're not balloting for strike action.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 23, 2014)

Anna Firth must be so pissed off...if only 12 people had voted differently....


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 24, 2014)




----------



## JTG (Oct 24, 2014)

Kelly Tolhurst seems to be quite pro-Palestine going by her tweets.

I hate Steve Bell's cartoons btw


----------



## brogdale (Oct 24, 2014)

Smithson thinks the primary data is smelly....

Looks like some 1600 burghers of R&S took the opportunity of the freepost reply to tell the vermin what they are.
So, instead of 'trumpeted' "victory of democracy" represented by the 7.5% returns figure, the actual turnout to engage with the process was 5.3% of the electorate.

The scum need to STFU about union ballots being undemocratic on 30 to 40%.



> That was an odd way to present the figures. Why not , as in the 2009 primaries, give the full numbers with the total of spoilt papers? The fact that we are not getting this detail raises my suspicions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 24, 2014)

I hope they got sent lots of turds and wasps.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 24, 2014)

JTG said:


> Kelly Tolhurst seems to be quite pro-Palestine going by her tweets.
> 
> I hate Steve Bell's cartoons btw


She must have made a judgement, back in the summer, that such a position would be popular with the residents of the ward she represents. Little did she know that circumstances would propel her into a position of standing as a candidate to become an MP of the pro-Israeli government.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 24, 2014)

...and another few % points for Reckless...



> Nigel Farage has claimed that David Cameron will be forced to pay out an extra £1.7 billion into the EU budget by the end of next month despite the government saying the extra demand was not acceptable....
> Farage said that Cameron will have little chance but to go along with the demand, which will have to be paid in December.
> 
> “Of course he will pay up. These are the rules, the contributions to the European Union was a very complex formula and part of it is a measurement of your GDP against everybody else’s. There’s nothing he can do,” he said.


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/24/eu-contribution-cameron-pay-extra-funds-farage


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 24, 2014)

JTG said:


> Kelly Tolhurst seems to be quite pro-Palestine going by her tweets.
> 
> *I hate Steve Bell's cartoons btw*



You're nothing to me now ...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2014)

Another UKIP win here, huge labour-->shift to fuck cameron. And all the labour panickers will jump on the _OMG we're going to lose the general election! _and underestimating labour (and other) voters political savvy.


----------



## andysays (Oct 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Another UKIP win here, *huge labour-->shift to fuck cameron*. And all the labour panickers will jump on the _OMG we're going to lose the general election! _and underestimating labour (and other) voters political savvy.



Can you expand/explain what you mean by this?

It appears to mean* that if UKIP win in Rochester, previous Labour voters elsewhere will think UKIP is a better bet than Labour to fuck up Cameron, and therefore switch their voting intentions in significant numbers.

* but we all know how I sometimes struggle to understand your posts


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 24, 2014)

Labour should possibly be more worried by the apparent rise of the greens, which is where some of the former lib dem votes are heading, though that probably isn't an issue in the heartlands.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2014)

andysays said:


> Can you expand/explain what you mean by this?
> 
> It appears to mean* that if UKIP win in Rochester, previous Labour voters elsewhere will think UKIP is a better bet than Labour to fuck up Cameron, and therefore switch their voting intentions in significant numbers.
> 
> * but we all know how I sometimes struggle to understand your posts


It means that trad labour voters will switch to UKIP _this time _to put further pressure on cameron - there are already suggestions of forcing a vote of no confidence if he loses another seat to UKIP, and other tory Mps in similar seats willbe further emboldened to jump ship. Labour voters know they're not going to win this one - the leadership have also recognised this and put in very few resources, almost as nod and wink to vote UKIP. So what's best next - damage the tories. This i expect to be done without any ideological commitment to UKIP and a recognition of the use that can be made of UKIPs current momentum. This is not going to mean labour voters everywhere flocking to UKIP come the GE - there's a reason they are labour voters after all - beyond not being tories.


----------



## andysays (Oct 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It means that trad labour voters will switch to UKIP _this time _to put further pressure on cameron - there are already suggestions of forcing a vote of no confidence if he loses another seat to UKIP, and other tory Mps in similar seats willbe further emboldened to jump ship. Labour voters know they're not going to win this one - the leadership have also recognised this and put in very few resources, almost as nod and wink to vote UKIP. So what's best next - damage the tories. This i expect to be done without any ideological commitment to UKIP and a recognition of the use that can be made of UKIPs current momentum. This is not going to mean labour voters everywhere flocking to UKIP come the GE - there's a reason they are labour voters after all - beyond not being tories.



By _this time_ you mean in this by-election in Rochester?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2014)

Yep.


----------



## andysays (Oct 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yep.



Right, that makes sense now, and I agree.

I read your previous as probably meaning 

"Another UKIP win here, *will result in a future* huge labour-->shift to fuck cameron *beyond Rochester*"

rather than 

"Another UKIP win here, *as a result of a* huge labour-->shift to fuck cameron *in Rochester*"

So it's just as well I checked before misrepresenting you again


----------



## belboid (Oct 24, 2014)

well, apparently nick Long of Lewisham People Before Profit will be standing


----------



## brogdale (Oct 24, 2014)

belboid said:


> well, apparently nick Long of Lewisham People Before Profit will be standing



Better get a move on if wants to; deadline for candidature is 4.00pm according to Medway.

Fair play and all that, but that'll split the 52 votes for TUSC.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 24, 2014)

belboid said:


> well, apparently nick Long of Lewisham People Before Profit will be standing




Ideal candidate for those lefties who might find the Class War candidate** too bolshy and sweary? 

**Is she still standing btw?


----------



## belboid (Oct 24, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Ideal candidate for those lefties who might find the Class War candidate** too bolshy and sweary?
> 
> **Is she still standing btw?


still got an hour to get it in!

The Green is apparently a bit of a conspiraloon, and has done nowt to oppose cuts.


----------



## newbie (Oct 25, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It means that trad labour voters will switch to UKIP _this time _to put further pressure on cameron - there are already suggestions of forcing a vote of no confidence if he loses another seat to UKIP, and other tory Mps in similar seats willbe further emboldened to jump ship. Labour voters know they're not going to win this one - the leadership have also recognised this and put in very few resources, almost as nod and wink to vote UKIP. So what's best next - damage the tories. This i expect to be done without any ideological commitment to UKIP and a recognition of the use that can be made of UKIPs current momentum. This is not going to mean labour voters everywhere flocking to UKIP come the GE - there's a reason they are labour voters after all - beyond not being tories.


Up at the top of the thread I asked where the Labour tactical vote would go, because I don't think it's simple.

A UKIP scrape-through by-election win will have some impact but nothing like as much as a resounding win, like in Clacton where there was a major collapse of the Labour vote, down from 11,000 to 4,000.

There won't be a vote of no confidence in Cameron this side of the GE, and afterwards he's toast unless he gets a decent or outright majority.  Which is most unlikely, based on the polls. So it doesn't look like voting UKIP will achieve that much except extra nails in coffin.

However, no Labour tactical voter will want to promote UKIP so much they can cause real damage to Labour in the GE. Currently there is UKIP momentum which is encouraging belief that they can defeat sitting MPs in heartlands, including Labour.  That may not be fully realistic right now, but in a few months time with additional boosts from another big by-election win, including another collapsed Labour vote, and possible defections encouraged by the win, that belief might really come to pass (especially if Tories vote tactically). Meanwhile UKIP victory will push Cameron further into their policy corner. So tactical voting for UKIP has its dangers as well.

Labour tactical voters won't vote Tory, whatever happens, but I'm not sure they'll see actively promoting UKIP as in their best interests. Their party will argue that a close result with the Labour vote holding up sends better signals and they may be right.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2014)

newbie said:


> Up at the top of the thread I asked where the Labour tactical vote would go, because I don't think it's simple.
> 
> A UKIP scrape-through by-election win will have some impact but nothing like as much as a resounding win, like in Clacton where there was a major collapse of the Labour vote, down from 11,000 to 4,000.
> 
> ...


Tactical voting has always carried an element of risk, (I'd imagine there'd be a fair few folk who voted LD tactically in 2010 who might concur), but NuLab's concerns should not be primarily focussed on those of their supporters who choose to vote tactically, but rather on those that they've lost outright to UKIP/apathy.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2014)

newbie said:


> Up at the top of the thread I asked where the Labour tactical vote would go, because I don't think it's simple.
> 
> A UKIP scrape-through by-election win will have some impact but nothing like as much as a resounding win, like in Clacton where there was a major collapse of the Labour vote, down from 11,000 to 4,000.
> 
> ...



I was waiting to see what on the ground research turned up before answering that question. Last week Mathhew Goodwin reported on what labour voters in the seat were thinking (can't find the series of tweets now, will look more shortly) and it pretty much mirrored what my first instincts were - and that's vote UKIP to harm cameron and the tories. It doesn't matter if it's highly unlikely another UKIP win will bring about a vote of confidence in Cameron or not - it matters if these voters think it will damage him and open him/them up to further damage - which it unquestionably would do. Also, if some labour voters are switching UKIP in the mistaken belief a UKIP win would force a tory vote of conference it doesn't matter - _their vote still counts_.

I think you're well off on labour tactical voters being concerned about inflating UKIP nationally - that just doesn't enter into local contests, esp by-elections. That's the sort of concern a tactically voting labour _member _might have - not a voter. And i think you may be dismissive of/ignoring the fact that UKIP have a number of issues they focus on which trad labour voters agree with them on and would be happy to use their vote at a tactically appropriate time to highlight.

Where else is the tactical labour vote to stop the the tories going to go? Is it just not going to happen? I see no reason why there will not be the same loss of 50% of the labour vote (as a %) and that largely going to UKIP as we saw in Clacton.


----------



## treelover (Oct 25, 2014)

What about a substantial UKIP win pushing the Tories even further to the right as they respond to the threat, is that a possibility?


----------



## chilango (Oct 25, 2014)

treelover said:


> What about a substantial UKIP win pushing the Tories even further to the right as they respond to the threat, is that a possibility?



...if so, so what?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2014)

treelover said:


> What about a substantial UKIP win pushing the Tories even further to the right as they respond to the threat, is that a possibility?


What of it? Do you have an opinion on your suggested possible outcome? That labour voters shouldn't vote UKIP in this by-election? That they should? That a rightward moving tory party will isolate itself and cut off those it needs to have even a sniff of chance? What?


----------



## andysays (Oct 25, 2014)

treelover said:


> What about a substantial UKIP win pushing the Tories even further to the right as they respond to the threat, is that a possibility?



If that did happen, what do you think would be the specific consequences (electorally and otherwise) of that?


----------



## treelover (Oct 25, 2014)

I'm asking the experts the question, that why I asked it.

I'm limited in how/how much I can post, that's why I ask questions, etc.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 25, 2014)

newbie said:


> Up at the top of the thread I asked where the Labour tactical vote would go, because I don't think it's simple.
> 
> A UKIP scrape-through by-election win will have some impact but nothing like as much as a resounding win, like in Clacton where there was a major collapse of the Labour vote, down from 11,000 to 4,000.
> 
> ...


The Tories want to repeal their Fixed Term Act if they win an outright majority. They don't know shit from shinola but they also despise democracy.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...parliamentary-terms-law-repealed-9814508.html

Two days ago, my favourite parliamentarians (sarcasm) Frank Field and Edward Leigh tabled a motion to have the act repealed. It failed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29736934


----------



## newbie (Oct 25, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I think you're well off on labour tactical voters being concerned about inflating UKIP nationally - that just doesn't enter into local contests, esp by-elections. That's the sort of concern a tactically voting labour _member _might have - not a voter. And i think you may be dismissive of/ignoring the fact that UKIP have a number of issues they focus on which trad labour voters agree with them on and would be happy to use their vote at a tactically appropriate time to highlight.


fair points, although anyone thinking about tactical voting will run through everything posted here and more before making up their mind, and some of that will be strategic.  One of the biggest questions in domestic politics is the proportion of core Labour voters who have real sympathies with UKIP positions.   'some' perhaps, but an awful lot find them repellant.


----------



## newbie (Oct 25, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> The Tories want to repeal their Fixed Term Act if they win an outright majority. They don't know shit from shinola but they also despise democracy.
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...parliamentary-terms-law-repealed-9814508.html
> 
> Two days ago, my favourite parliamentarians (sarcasm) Frank Field and Edward Leigh tabled a motion to have the act repealed. It failed.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29736934


an expedient insisted on by Clegg to shore up his personal position will be gone after the next couple of elections, whoever wins.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 25, 2014)

treelover said:


> I'm limited in how/how much I can post, that's why I ask questions, etc.



If you asked half as many questions you would have some time to provide answers when people ask questions of you


----------



## juice_terry (Oct 25, 2014)

Out in force today in Rochester Britain First out in numbers as well me and my oh were approached by BF campaigners and the poor sod trying to give as a leaflet was left nursing a very sore jaw [emoji13]


----------



## juice_terry (Oct 25, 2014)

UKIP have commandeered a shop down there too


----------



## treelover (Oct 25, 2014)

You punched him in the face?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2014)

juice_terry said:


> UKIP have commandeered a shop down there too


they've probably rented it, tbf


----------



## tbtommyb (Oct 25, 2014)

JTG said:


> I hate Steve Bell's cartoons btw


I've never sound any of them remotely amusing or clever


----------



## juice_terry (Oct 25, 2014)

treelover said:


> You punched him in the face?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 25, 2014)

treelover said:


> You punched him in the face?


No he's got a really bad mouth ulcer and snogged him


----------



## Kalfindin (Oct 25, 2014)

UKIP 1/3 on £900 makes an easy £300 quid, they are dead certs, 42% in the polls.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 25, 2014)

juice_terry said:


> UKIP have commandeered a shop down there too



Any more info about that?


----------



## juice_terry (Oct 25, 2014)

Just that they had a shop at the start of the high street in Rochester not sure how long they've had it will try and find out


----------



## juice_terry (Oct 25, 2014)




----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2014)

juice_terry said:


> Just that they had a shop at the start of the high street in Rochester not sure how long they've had it will try and find out



Seriously, this is not uncommon in by-elections; don't waste your time.


----------



## juice_terry (Oct 25, 2014)

The UKIPPERS cosied up to BF  candidate in Rochester today


----------



## tbtommyb (Oct 25, 2014)

juice_terry said:


> Just that they had a shop at the start of the high street in Rochester not sure how long they've had it will try and find out


so?


----------



## juice_terry (Oct 25, 2014)

tbtommyb said:


> so?


So what ? [emoji13]


----------



## tbtommyb (Oct 26, 2014)

juice_terry said:


> So what ? [emoji13]


'Party trying to win by-election opens office in constituency'.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 26, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Seriously, this is not uncommon in by-elections; don't waste your time.



Err shut the fuck up you nobhead.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 26, 2014)

tbtommyb said:


> 'Party trying to win by-election opens office in constituency'.



Far right party has sitting duck target you plonker


----------



## brogdale (Oct 26, 2014)

DrRingDing said:


> Err shut the fuck up you nobhead.



'spoons?


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 26, 2014)

brogdale said:


> 'spoons?



Strood?


----------



## rioted (Oct 26, 2014)

DrRingDing said:


> Strood?


Is there a spoons in strood?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 26, 2014)

DrRingDing said:


> Err shut the fuck up you nobhead.


It's true are you thick?

They had one in Eastleigh as well they're really common


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 26, 2014)

Yes you'd have to live in your own silly little world to think that this is some sort of radical new development


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 26, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's true are you thick?



You what?


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 26, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Yes you'd have to live in your own silly little world to think that this is some sort of radical new development



Is everyone here pissed but me?

Someone states ukip have an office in town. Someone else asks for more details. World loses shit.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 26, 2014)

It might be irrelevant for you lot as all you do is sit on the internet. But there are people that want to do shit against these cunts.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 26, 2014)

So you planning a raid on their shop are you? That's really going to go well.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 26, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> So you planning a raid on their shop are you? That's really going to go well.



Fuck off.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 26, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> So you planning a raid on their shop are you? That's really going to go well.


Perhaps he's going to organise the shop workers?


----------



## killer b (Oct 26, 2014)




----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 26, 2014)

newbie said:


> an expedient insisted on by Clegg to shore up his personal position will be gone after the next couple of elections, whoever wins.


The threshold for a vote of no confidence was also raised to 55%.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2014)

DrRingDing said:


> Is everyone here pissed but me?
> 
> Someone states ukip have an office in town. Someone else asks for more details. World loses shit.


Yankism thread--->


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Perhaps he's going to organise the shop workers?


He's going to go all harry roberts on them - they're _fair game_.


----------



## newbie (Oct 26, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> The threshold for a vote of no confidence was also raised to 55%.


that serves the interests of power so there's less incentive for a future pm to get rid


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 26, 2014)

newbie said:


> that serves the interests of power so there's less incentive for a future pm to get rid


Well, that's undeniable. My point is that this was done precisely because the Tories knew they were a) going to be unpopular and b) they had no mandate.


----------



## newbie (Oct 26, 2014)

no, don't agree.  it was done so that Cameron couldn't maneuver then call a snap election when he'd isolated Clegg.

btw are you sure about 55%?  I can't find any mention in this HoC Library commentary. (pdf)


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 26, 2014)

55% is reported right across the media. Google it. There was no chance of Cameron calling a snap election. The Tories knew they didn't have a mandate and did all they could to ensure they stayed in power.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He's going to go all harry roberts on them - they're _fair game_.



More like Harry Corbett


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> More like Harry Corbett



Harry H or the bloke who liked to stick his hand up the arses of bears?


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 26, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> More like Harry Corbett



What are you doing against this surge to the right?

Bemoaning you're not at the top of the Troterati?


----------



## chilango (Oct 26, 2014)

DrRingDing said:


> What are you doing against this surge to the right?
> 
> Bemoaning you're not at the top of the Troterati?



I'm going to put some superglue in the locks of a shop on a short-term let. 

If only the KPD had though of that.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 26, 2014)

"It wouldn't have happened on my watch"


----------



## newbie (Oct 26, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> 55% is reported right across the media. Google it.


you don't need to be tiresome, it's your claim.

There's no mention of 55% in the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. The no confidence provision reads



> (3) An early parliamentary general election is also to take place if—
> (a) the House of Commons passes
> a motion in the form set out in
> subsection (4), and
> ...



so what is this 55%?



> There was no chance of Cameron calling a snap election. The Tories knew they didn't have a mandate and did all they could to ensure they stayed in power.



What actually happened was that Clegg/LD credibility collapsed after tuition fees and the tories had a majority of voting intentions until the end of 2011. That's without any maneuvering by Cameron to attempt to position his party for a snap election.  If Clegg hadn't made fixed term parliaments a condition of the coalition agreement he knew he's be out on his ear as soon as Cameron saw the opportunity.
(see http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~tquinn/Quinn_Coalition_Agreement_JEPOP_2011.pdf and plenty of journalistic sources)


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Harry H or the bloke who liked to stick his hand up the arses of bears?


It's both the same person


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 26, 2014)

DrRingDing said:


> What are you doing against this surge to the right?
> 
> Bemoaning you're not at the top of the Troterati?



It's so funny you think I'm a trot lol


----------



## JTG (Oct 26, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's so funny you think I'm a trot lol


You're just in denial tbf


----------



## Wilf (Oct 26, 2014)

Michael Fallon uses the 'S' word:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/26/british-towns-swamped-immigrants-michael-fallon-eu


----------



## andysays (Oct 26, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's both the same person



Not unless you know something about the leisure activities of Harry H Corbett, best known for his role in _Steptoe and Son_, which isn't generally public knowledge


----------



## brogdale (Oct 26, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> 55% is reported right across the media. Google it. There was no chance of Cameron calling a snap election. The Tories knew they didn't have a mandate and did all they could to ensure they stayed in power.



Not quite right, it was a bit more subtle than that. The provision for a VoNC was not actually altered; that remains, as it always was, a simple majority, (as in the fall of Callaghan etc.). What was changed, within the the context of fixed terms, was the provision for Parliament to decide upon a motion for an early GE, short of the fixed 5 year term. The threshold chosen was actually 2/3, (66%), of _the total number of seats in the Commons_ (434 out of a House of 650). The idea being that a VoNC in the Govt. within the fixed term would 'normally'* lead to the formation of a new Govt. (coalition?) within the elected house, and only very extraordinary circumstances would see a GE called before term.

*within 14 days of the VoNC; if no other administration could be formed that would = a VoNC in any Govt. within the parliament.


----------



## newbie (Oct 26, 2014)

wiki points to this NS article as evidence that there was initially a proposal that a VoNC should have a 55% majority.  But it wasn't passed like that, despite the bluster that  "55% is reported right across the media".


----------



## brogdale (Oct 26, 2014)

newbie said:


> wiki points to this NS article as evidence that there was initially a proposal that a VoNC should have a 55% majority.  But it wasn't passed like that, despite the bluster that  "55% is reported right across the media".


Yeah, yeah...but the substantive point that Nino was making was a valid one; namely that, in addition to the fixed term, the chances of a VoNC precipitating a GE was also interfered with. No need to quibble over a few %.


----------



## newbie (Oct 26, 2014)

no it wasn't.  I posted the law above, nothing about a VoNC changed except it was put on a statutory footing.

What did change was another provision for a motion to be passed “That there shall be an early parliamentary general election.”, but that's not the same as a VoNC, despite you merging the two in #138

it's all irrelevant anyway, especially as MoTD is on


----------



## brogdale (Oct 26, 2014)

newbie said:


> no it wasn't.  I posted the law above, nothing about a VoNC changed except it was put on a statutory footing.
> 
> What did change was another provision for a motion to be passed “That there shall be an early parliamentary general election.”, but that's not the same as a VoNC, despite you merging the two in #138
> 
> it's all irrelevant anyway, especially as MoTD is on


 No, it really was substantially changed from a position in which a VoNC would 'normally' precipitate a GE to a situation in which a VoNC will herald a two-week window of 'horse-trading' to build a new coalition, and only give the electorate the chance to elect a new government if that process dissolves.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 27, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Michael Fallon uses the 'S' word:
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/26/british-towns-swamped-immigrants-michael-fallon-eu


Welcome to 1979.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 27, 2014)

newbie said:


> you don't need to be tiresome, it's your claim.
> 
> There's no mention of 55% in the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. The no confidence provision reads
> 
> ...


I'm not being "tiresome".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8682959.stm
And
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8678222.stm
And
http://www.demsoc.org/2010/05/13/no-confidence-in-55-percent/
And
http://www.channel4.com/news/articl...term+parliaments+and+the+55+rule/3648492.html


----------



## belboid (Oct 27, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> I'm not being "tiresome".
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8682959.stm
> And
> ...



Yes you are.  The change was proposed but never enacted. 
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/jul/05/nick-clegg-no-confidence-vote


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 27, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Michael Fallon uses the 'S' word:
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/26/british-towns-swamped-immigrants-michael-fallon-eu



I'm more bothered that he repeatedly linked immigration to 'an increase in benefit claimants' which as well as being demonstrably untrue is again an attack on those receiving benefits.  I suspect Crosby gave them the nod to say this, whilst the party can publicly distance itself from his comments. Disingenuous shits.

I've noticed that they've started to include child benefit claimants as a subset of 'bad people', especially if there is a need to play the 'thieving immigrants' line, saying x amount are 'in receipt of benefits' and include this, suggesting they're not paying in.  You could attack many sections of society on the basis a certain percent receive child benefit.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 27, 2014)

belboid said:


> Yes you are.  The change was proposed but never enacted.
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/jul/05/nick-clegg-no-confidence-vote


No, I'm not. I was basing my position on the information that I found. I didn't realise that it hadn't been enacted. As far as I was aware, it was practically impossible to remove this government through a vote of no confidence. Okay?


----------



## belboid (Oct 27, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> No, I'm not. I was basing my position on the information that I found. I didn't realise that it hadn't been enacted. As far as I was aware, it was practically impossible to remove this government through a vote of no confidence. Okay?


Tiresome


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 27, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> I'm more bothered that he repeatedly linked immigration to 'an increase in benefit claimants' which as well as being demonstrably untrue is again an attack on those receiving benefits.  I suspect Crosby gave them the nod to say this, whilst the party can publicly distance itself from his comments. Disingenuous shits.
> 
> I've noticed that they've started to include child benefit claimants as a subset of 'bad people', especially if there is a need to play the 'thieving immigrants' line, saying x amount are 'in receipt of benefits' and include this, suggesting they're not paying in.  You could attack many sections of society on the basis a certain percent receive child benefit.


thats what happens when you remove the universality, it becomes a tool for division


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 27, 2014)

belboid said:


> Tiresome


Do fuck off.


----------



## belboid (Oct 27, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Do fuck off.


Tedious


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's both the same person



No it isn't. Harry H was the "and Son" in "Steptoe & Son", and didn't assault dog and bear puppets rectally.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2014)

double post


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2014)

chilango said:


> I'm going to put some superglue in the locks of a shop on a short-term let.
> 
> If only the KPD had though of that.



Pah. The KPD were more interested in workers' education and other _bourgeois_ pursuits. They would never have gone for something as revolutionary as gluing up locks, and as for the SPD, they'd have run home crying at the thought of something so violently anti-fascist!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's so funny you think I'm a trot lol



TBF, it is *quite* funny that he thinks you're a Trot, but not *"so"* funny as to be...you know...side-splittingly hilarious.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Michael Fallon uses the 'S' word:
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/26/british-towns-swamped-immigrants-michael-fallon-eu



I listened to what he had to say on the radio 4 news yesterday. Came across as real "Spirit of '79" bullshit, trying to play the same card Thatcher did to try and deprive the non-Tory right of electoral credibility. They're getting desperate, playing it this early, though.


----------



## treelover (Oct 27, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Pah. The KPD were more interested in workers' education and other _bourgeois_ pursuits. They would never have gone for something as revolutionary as gluing up locks, and as for the SPD, they'd have run home crying at the thought of something so violently anti-fascist!




Eh, what about the 'Battle of Coburg?, I'm also reading(first book for a while), 'Berlin Ghetto: Herbert Baum and the Anti-Fascist Resistance' its not a very good book, but it does detail the physical battles the KPD youths had from the 1920's on with the Brownshirts, as well as their intellectual responses..


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2014)

treelover said:


> Eh, what about the 'Battle of Coburg?, I'm also reading(first book for a while), 'Berlin Ghetto: Herbert Baum and the Anti-Fascist Resistance' its not a very good book, but it does detail the physical battles the KPD youths had from the 1920's on with the Brownshirts, as well as their intellectual responses..



Your irony detector appears to be malfunctioning again. My post is a pisstake of DrRingDing, making a sarcastic comparison between the idea of supergluing locks or similar ephemeral "criminal damage" type actions as revolutionary action to what *real* revolutionaries did.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 27, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> No it isn't. Harry H was the "and Son" in "Steptoe & Son", and didn't assault dog and bear puppets rectally.


 
No it's the same person, check the Wikipedia article.


----------



## Margaret smith (Oct 29, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Writ likely to be issued within next couple of days and November 6th is favourite. Time for it's own thread.
> 
> The tories have decided upon their two candidates for the open primary, and the candidate to contest Reckless will be announced on Oct 23rd.


I Would urge people who care about Social justice and hate bigotry  and ignorence to Vote .Help, Donate, Tweet .Follow on twitter
www.peoplebeforeprofit.org.uk candidate Nick Long. a live long Union and housing activist he and his party are strong in South London getting shed loads of votes in Lewisham, in Ireland they have MPs and Councillors, Its a small party growing, but we must get people of the sofa to challenge the right wing agenda and end the Secterianism of the left. Please Do what you can to support these amazing activists anmd if you live and can vote in this election.. Please VOTE People Before Profit..


----------



## Margaret smith (Oct 29, 2014)

belboid said:


> local people for local...mmm, hang on a mo...


Check out www.peoplebeforeprofit.org.uk and facebook page.. they are worth every vote and every £1 we can give them.


----------



## Margaret smith (Oct 29, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> UKIP plus Labour...looks like an uphill struggle for the Tories.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Check out www.peoplebeforeprofit.org.uk doing amazing stuff also great facebook page . Lov candidate NICK LONG @nichopbp


----------



## brogdale (Nov 2, 2014)

The BF march in Rochester yesterday. 






BF candidate (& deputy leader) Jayda Fransen bottom right with mic.



> ..... Jayda Fransen..... praised Mr Reckless's defection saying her party and Ukip had “almost everything” in common and were “almost identical in policies”.



Tories have gotta be happy with that.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

New survation poll - looks to me like the labour tactical vote is doing exactly what i suggested they would:

UKIP 48%(+8)
CON 33%(+2)
LAB 16%(-9)
GRN 2%.
LDEM 1%(-1)


----------



## chilango (Nov 2, 2014)

LibDems 1%.

1%????






butchersapron said:


> New survation poll - looks to me like the labour tactical vote is doing exactly what i suggested they would:
> 
> UKIP 48%(+8)
> CON 33%(+2)
> ...


----------



## brogdale (Nov 3, 2014)

chilango said:


> LibDems 1%.
> 
> 1%????


The tables show that's been rounded up.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 3, 2014)

brogdale said:


> The tables show that's been rounded up.



Oh dear.  Expect a merger call from the Monster Raving Loony Party immediately after the by-election.


----------



## Celyn (Nov 3, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Harry H or the bloke who liked to stick his hand up the arses of bears?



Now if only you'd said "arm" instead of "hand", I would have been tempted to make a convoluted joke about the US. Second Amendment.  But you didn't, so I wouldn't dream of doing so.  Of course not.

(_fetching coat right now)_


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 3, 2014)

brogdale said:


> The tables show that's been rounded up.


 
Let's not forget the real result of this by election that matters will be how low can they go?

Are we taking bets on triple digit figures for the Libs?


----------



## Celyn (Nov 3, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Oh dear.  Expect a merger call from the Monster Raving Loony Party immediately after the by-election.



Nah, they would do things like let us vote at 18, allow pubs to open all day - really mad shit like that.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 11, 2014)

Latest (Ashcroft) polling for the by-election...







> The detail of the Ashcroft Rochester poll are jjust out and feature in the chart above. The 12% UKIP lead is very much in line with other recent Rochester polling from Survation and ComRes and unless there’s a sharp turnaround in the the next week Mark Reckless looks to set return to Westminster.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## brogdale (Nov 11, 2014)

It's Liddle...I know... but he can paint a picture of the hustings...



> The best, by a million miles, was Labour’s Naushabah Khan – unruffled, articulate, competent. Mark Reckless – Ukip’s lauded defectee – was disingenuous and evasive and possessed of all of the charisma and warmth of a caravan site on the Isle of Sheppey in late February. But at least he made sense when he spoke.
> 
> The Tory candidate, Kelly Tollhurst, was utterly useless on a rather epic level, unable to string a single sentence together. The Lib Dem bloke look like he’d been constructed out of flour and water by a class of remedial six year olds and made no sense at all.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 11, 2014)

Dave's desperately asking the burghers of Rochester to vote tactically...



> I would say to people who have previously voted Labour, Liberal, Green or anything, that if you want a strong local candidate and don’t want some Ukip boost and all the uncertainty and instability that leads to, then Kelly is the choice ...
> 
> There is a real opportunity for people of different political parties to unite behind the local candidate and to say to the MP ‘we don’t like the way you behave; we don’t like this sort of politics we want to vote for the person who stands up for the area’.



FS


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 11, 2014)

brogdale said:


> It's Liddle...I know... but he can paint a picture of the hustings...


Khan is the perfect middle class apolitical Labour candidate, not surprised he liked her, not sure she is right for Rochester and Strood though


----------



## brogdale (Nov 11, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Khan is the perfect middle class apolitical Labour candidate, not surprised he liked her, not sure she is right for Rochester and Strood though


Hustings here...starts at about 4.00.

As Liddle said...





> Christ help us, what a shower.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 12, 2014)

> After leafleting the leafy area around Restoration House, where King Charles II stayed on the eve of the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, one Tory MP reflected on the rebellion of 2014, which is centred across the River Medway in the more deprived Strood area of the constituency.
> 
> *The MP said: “Rochester is only one part of the constituency. There is Strood which is the Benefits Street of the south east. They are really angry over there. They are ready to punish us.”*
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...r-byelection-gets-personal-ukip-versus-tories



Lower than vermin.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 13, 2014)

Yeah I saw that earlier today, not really a vote winner you'd think


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 13, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> No it's the same person, check the Wikipedia article.


what's your wiki username?


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Nov 13, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Let's not forget the real result of this by election that matters will be how low can they go?
> 
> Are we taking bets on triple digit figures for the Libs?



How low can this "democracy" sink will be the only result.
This is a sick country, full of sick people voting for sick politicians that puke poison in parliament in the name of the people.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 13, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Lower than vermin.



It must be very difficult to keep this sort of bigotry to yourself.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2014)

J Ed said:


> It must be very difficult to keep this sort of bigotry to yourself.


One telling aspect of that 'slipped mask' comment is that Stood is singularly unexceptional wrt to many parts of the "properous' SE.


----------



## JTG (Nov 13, 2014)

I am growing hopeful that Class War can poll higher than the Lib Dems


----------



## Wilf (Nov 13, 2014)

JTG said:


> I am growing hopeful that Class War can poll higher than the Lib Dems


 I quite like the idea that all the candidates get to do a thank you speech at the count after the result has been announced. Whatever libdem shitblanket is standing patiently standing in line behind the Class War-ist is most excellent.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 14, 2014)

JTG said:


> I am growing hopeful that Class War can poll higher than the Lib Dems


Unfortunately I doubt the Libdems will drop below triple figures, while I doubt CW will get up to triple figures as much as I would like it to


----------



## brogdale (Nov 16, 2014)

Full-on expectation management from the vermin...



> The Tories have written off their chances of winning – or even coming close to winning – in this week’s crucial Rochester and Strood byelection, saying the best they could now hope for is to cut Ukip’s victory margin to less than 10 points.
> 
> The source added: “Our vote is holding up OK. We are at 30%, maybe even 33%. It is not bad. Ukip are in the 40s. But Labour have absolutely capitulated and collapsed in a seat that they held until 2010. There are at least as many questions for Ed Miliband as for us.
> 
> The Conservatives are taking comfort from a poll last week by former Tory vice-chairman Lord Ashcroft that suggested that voters were likely to use the byelection to voice a protest and then return to them in the general election, ousting the defector Mark Reckless after just six months as a Ukip MP. etc etc


----------



## brogdale (Nov 16, 2014)

Sweet shop window in Rochester...owner asks customers, then drops in sweetie in the relevant jar...







Lol @ the yellows.


----------



## tonysingh (Nov 16, 2014)

That sweet shop display would be funnier if Britain First had a jar filled with...chocolate bonbons.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 16, 2014)

tonysingh said:


> That sweet shop display would be funnier if Britain First had a jar filled with...chocolate bonbons.


----------



## andysays (Nov 16, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Sweet shop window in Rochester...owner asks customers, then drops in sweetie in the relevant jar...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Green vote looks a lot better there than the 5% in the most recent poll

Maybe Lord Ashcroft needs to re-think his methodology


----------



## brogdale (Nov 16, 2014)

andysays said:


> The Green vote looks a lot better there than the 5% in the most recent poll
> 
> Maybe Lord Ashcroft needs to re-think his methodology


Self selecting, sweet-toothed sample.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 16, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Self selecting, sweet-toothed sample.




Can't for the life of me find the link, but there was some reference to that sweetshop selling entirely vegetarian products, in today's Observer


----------



## tonysingh (Nov 16, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Can't for the life of me find the link, but there was some reference to that sweetshop selling entirely vegetarian products, in today's Observer



Hiya.

I have the misfortune to live in Medway. That sweetshop does indeed sell veggie sweets. It's also not as good as the sweetshop opposite.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 16, 2014)

tonysingh  : Cool, thanks for the confirmation. That does provide a possible reason for the higher than expected Green 'vote' ...


----------



## brogdale (Nov 16, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> tonysingh  : Cool, thanks for the confirmation. That does provide a possible reason for the higher than expected Green 'vote' ...


...but....but they might not be organic


----------



## tonysingh (Nov 16, 2014)

The other week I was on Rochester high st with my sketchbooks and pencils.

I had timed my visit for the same time as a shedload of television cameras and crews and politicians. I saw the Green Party candidate act like a total prick towards one crew (from ITV I think). Instantly decided I wouldn't vote for him.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 16, 2014)

Alright Tony are you an itinerant artist?


----------



## andysays (Nov 16, 2014)

tonysingh said:


> Hiya.
> 
> I have the misfortune to live in Medway. That sweetshop does indeed sell veggie sweets. It's also not as good as the sweetshop opposite.



Maybe I'm guilty of terrible stereotyping here, but I'm surprised that there's an all-vegetarian sweet shop in Rochester. Never can tell, I suppose


----------



## brogdale (Nov 16, 2014)

andysays said:


> Maybe I'm guilty of terrible stereotyping here, but I'm surprised that there's an all-vegetarian sweet shop in Rochester. Never can tell, I suppose


Get's quite alot of tourism...Castle/Cathedral & Dickens...with Chatham Dockyard on hand.


----------



## tonysingh (Nov 16, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Alright Tony are you an itinerant artist?



I'm only an artist when someone else sees or owns what I have created  I'm just an enthusiastic amateur, i feel naked without my art supplies, though sometimes i feel intimidated by a blank canvas. One of my biggest regrets in life is not studying art at school, bit late now really.

Realise that is totally off topic by the way! 



brogdale said:


> Get's quite alot of tourism...Castle/Cathedral & Dickens...with Chatham Dockyard on hand.



I live  on Chatham High St, and not even the good end. Right now I'm gazing upon Luton Arches. The council here have an erection for Dickens and it's infuriating. We have a really good art scene, there's tons of military history too and for fucks sake Charles II was restored to the throne here!

Again though, all of this off topic!


----------



## brogdale (Nov 16, 2014)

tonysingh said:


> The council here have an erection for Dickens and it's infuriating. We have a really good art scene, there's tons of military history too and for fucks sake Charles II was restored to the throne here!



Not sure the restoration's much to crow about tbh...but, hey Tony, what you got against Dickens' erection?


----------



## Sue (Nov 16, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Alright Tony are you an itinerant artist?


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 17, 2014)

brogdale said:


> .but, hey Tony, what you got against Dickens' erection?



Can't resist an ancient,  cobwebbed one here ...

"Do you like Dickens?"
"I don't know, I've never been to one ... "


----------



## prunus (Nov 17, 2014)

tonysingh said:


> One of my biggest regrets in life is not studying art at school, bit late now really.
> 
> Realise that is totally off topic by the way!



Never too late. Sounds pithy, is true.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 17, 2014)

> *Voting for the UK Independence Party could knock thousands of pounds off house prices, the Conservatives have said.*
> 
> Tory strategists believe they could be spared a humiliating landslide at the hands of Ukip on Thursday's Rochester and Strood by-election, as homeowners fear a Ukip MP would indelibly tarnish the area's reputation as a hotbed of anger at immigration.



The very definition of political desperation? 

Lol @ the vermin.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2014)

That is fantastic.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2014)

It's an effective weapon if wielded with credibility. Here? Locals?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It's an effective weapon if wielded with credibility. Here? Locals?



No, I don't think so (I'm originally from N.Kent btw)...

The whole article is a veritable treasure-trove....



> William Hague, the Leader of the Commons, who was campaigning with Miss Tolhurst, was forced to defend a Tory leaflet highlighting the fact Mr Reckless studied at Oxford University and worked at Conservative Central Office and in the City before becoming an MP.
> 
> The leaflet says it is a "straight choice" between Miss Tolhurst, a marine surveyor who was "born and raised" in the constituency, and Mr Reckless who "studied politics at Oxford" and "only moved here to be an MP".
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2014)

brogdale said:


> No, I don't think so (I'm originally from N.Kent btw)...
> 
> The whole article is a veritable treasure-trove....


They have lost stalingrad. And are making it funnily worse in the retreat. Thursday/friday should be fun.


----------



## killer b (Nov 17, 2014)

It sometimes amazes me that these people apparently studies politics, philosophy and economics at one of the worlds finest universities. And yet they're completely clueless about politics, philosophy and economics.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 17, 2014)

killer b said:


> It sometimes amazes me that these people apparently studies politics, philosophy and economics at one of the worlds finest universities. And yet they're completely clueless about politics, philosophy and economics.


 They're not. It's just that the £ persuade to speak, act and behave otherwise.


----------



## killer b (Nov 17, 2014)

£ doesn't persuade them to be politically utterly inept does it? The floundering isn't part of a machiavellian plan, it's genuine incompetence.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 17, 2014)

killer b said:


> £ doesn't persuade them to be politically utterly inept does it? The floundering isn't part of a machiavellian plan, it's genuine incompetence.


Yeah OK, some of them are well along the hard of thinking spectrum, (OPatz), but Hague ain't dim/incompetent, and to argue otherwise throws the vermin an excuse for being so venal.


----------



## andysays (Nov 17, 2014)

Amusing though the house prices thing is, maybe this in the same article is more significant to the bigger picture


> Ukip believe they can trigger a further wave of defections among Tory MPs in Kent and Essex worried about their seats if they win by more than 15 points in Rochester.
> 
> However, Mr Hague, the Leader of the House, indicated there could be no more by-elections under an unwritten convention that vacant seats are left unfilled within months of a general election.





> He said there is no "fixed rule", but the seat of Speaker Michael Martin was left unfilled for five and a half months prior to the 2010 general election.
> 
> "It is up to the majority of the House of Commons. Normally by-elections haven't been held within three months of a general election. I can't give a definite ruling."





> That would suit the Conservatives and Labour, as the Clacton and Rochester contests have built Ukip's momentum and drained the party of funds and energy ahead of the general election.
> 
> However, Ukip believes the convention could also work to their advantage, as some potential defectors have been put off by the prospect of a by-election. They believe more MPs can be wooed if they are allowed to cross the floor and campaign for months in their constituency as a sitting Ukip MP.


----------



## killer b (Nov 17, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Yeah OK, some of them are well along the hard of thinking spectrum, (OPatz), but Hague ain't dim/incompetent, and to argue otherwise throws the vermin an excuse for being so venal.


I suppose I'm thinking of whoever is making all these daft fuck ups rather than the likes of Hague who really just have to react to them.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 17, 2014)

killer b said:


> I suppose I'm thinking of whoever is making all these daft fuck ups rather than the likes of Hague who really just have to react to them.


Perhaps we're overlooking the good sense of the 4000 odd Rochester & Strood residents who took place in the primary and landed the vermin with a fucking half-wit candidate?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 17, 2014)

andysays said:


> Amusing though the house prices thing is, maybe this in the same article is more significant to the bigger picture



Yes; interesting, in itself, that they're even backed into a position where that's a strategic consideration.

e2a: http://politicalbookie.com/2014/11/17/whos-the-next-tory-defector-going-to-be-the-latest-betting/



> Favourite for a while now has been the MP for Kettering, Philip Hollobone. Interestingly, he is an old boy of Dulwich College, along with Nigel Farage. Some shrewdies have been backing UKIP to win his seat at the general election, now 6/1. I guess that might be better value than the 2/1 about him being next out.


----------



## killer b (Nov 17, 2014)

> However, Ukip believes the convention could also work to their advantage, as some potential defectors have been put off by the prospect of a by-election. They believe more MPs can be wooed if they are allowed to cross the floor and campaign for months in their constituency as a sitting Ukip MP.


re this, they already can do this can't they? The by elections have been purely theatre / UKIP PR rather than an essential part of the process of defection.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 17, 2014)

This site seems to apply average poll figures to individual constituencies. I haven't looked at their methodology, but I do like their libdem prediction.   Do wonder about the ukip 0 seat prediciton.  You'd expect they might hold onto at least 1 of the 2 they will have by the end of the week.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html


----------



## andysays (Nov 17, 2014)

killer b said:


> re this, they already can do this can't they? The by elections have been purely theatre / UKIP PR rather than an essential part of the process of defection.



Yeah, the by elections have been a UKIP tactic rather than an electoral necessity after defection. They are in effect using it to begin their campaigning for the GE and get plenty of media coverage etc across the country, not just in the couple of constituencies affected.

It seems to have worked pretty well for them, and I would guess they'd like to be able to continue it if possible, because while an MP defecting in the dying months of the parliament but waiting until the GE to try for re-election will get *some* publicity for UKIP, it won't be as much or as sustained as what Carswell and Reckless have got them.

Maybe if they have a defector already lined up, there will be time to do it one more time before the GE, though Xmas etc is likely to interfere with that as well, I guess.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 17, 2014)

andysays said:


> Maybe if they have a defector already lined up, there will be time to do it one more time before the GE, though Xmas etc is likely to interfere with that as well, I guess.


 Yes, at best one more. If they start doing it beyond January they'll run the risk of being accused of wasting public money (in not hanging on till the GE).


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 17, 2014)

Much as a lot of it is motivated by PR and theatre, having a by-election when switching parties is quite an honest thing to do and does fit with the plain-talking straight-upness that UKIP like to project.


----------



## killer b (Nov 17, 2014)

It's entirely motivated by theatre and PR. You think they give a fuck about honesty, apart from the political advantages seeming to be so gives them?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2014)

It's pr about being honest.


----------



## killer b (Nov 17, 2014)

yeah, that's what I was saying.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 17, 2014)

killer b said:


> It's entirely motivated by theatre and PR. You think they give a fuck about honesty, apart from the political advantages seeming to be so gives them?


It's all about their chances of retention in May 2015, and the fact that they think they can win!


----------



## tbtommyb (Nov 17, 2014)

killer b said:


> I suppose I'm thinking of whoever is making all these daft fuck ups rather than the likes of Hague who really just have to react to them.


cchq seems to do a lot of them. look at the whole lurch to harder immigration stances. if you think you're losing ground to someone you don't focus on the thing they're strongest at...


----------



## prunus (Nov 17, 2014)

brogdale said:


> No, I don't think so (I'm originally from N.Kent btw)...
> 
> The whole article is a veritable treasure-trove....





> William Hague, the Leader of the Commons, who was campaigning with Miss Tolhurst, was forced to defend a Tory leaflet highlighting the fact Mr Reckless studied at Oxford University and worked at Conservative Central Office and in the City before becoming an MP.
> 
> The leaflet says it is a "straight choice" between Miss Tolhurst, a marine surveyor who was "born and raised" in the constituency, and Mr Reckless who "studied politics at Oxford" and "only moved here to be an MP".



Er hang on, wasn't he the conservative candidate for the seat at the last election...?  Hypocrisy so blatant it's almost beyond a joke.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 17, 2014)

prunus said:


> Er hang on, wasn't he the conservative candidate for the seat at the last election...?  Hypocrisy so blatant it's almost beyond a joke.


I've never seen the miserable fucking droid laugh, but I bet this caused Reckless to chortle.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 18, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Yes; interesting, in itself, that they're even backed into a position where that's a strategic consideration.
> 
> e2a: http://politicalbookie.com/2014/11/17/whos-the-next-tory-defector-going-to-be-the-latest-betting/


I can see the rather chimp-like Hollobone sliding over to the Kippers. Bone (the meanest boss in Britain) too. Aidan Burley is a non-starter because he isn't standing at the next General Election.


----------



## belboid (Nov 18, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Aidan Burley is a non-starter because he isn't standing at the next General Election.


that doesnt make him a non-starter, just not quite as god a catch as the others would be


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2014)

> David Cameron has been berated by his own candidate in the Rochester & Strood byelection over the “hurt” caused by immigration to her area and the need for “action, not just talk” on controlling the number of new arrivals.
> 
> In a leaflet distributed to voters, Kelly Tolhurst, the 36-year-old businesswoman standing for the Tories, s*aid she would go straight to the prime minister and “demand something is done” if she won the byelection.*



Hope, for her sake, she hasn't pre-booked the rail-ticket up to town.


----------



## tonysingh (Nov 18, 2014)

If Ukip do win Rochester and Strood then I think Medway will start to look a little cuntish to people.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2014)

tonysingh said:


> If Ukip do win Rochester and Strood then I think Medway will start to look a little cuntish to people.


Have you never stood on the Rainham Road end and heard the oppo sing exactly what they already think about the Medway towns?


----------



## tonysingh (Nov 18, 2014)

Mind you I write that as I sit my flat, located above a shop. I've been here near enough 6 years now and on 5 different occasion I have found people shitting in the doorway. Medway is already cuntish, UKIP getting Rochester and Strood will just cement that image nationally!


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2014)

tonysingh said:


> Mind you I write that as I sit my flat, located above a shop. I've been here near enough 6 years now and on 5 different occasion I have found people shitting in the doorway. Medway is already cuntish, UKIP getting Rochester and Strood will just cement that image nationally!


Yeah, it was so much better when there was a tory MP.


----------



## tonysingh (Nov 18, 2014)

I'd do away with democracy altogether and start a benevolent dictatorship.

With me at the helm.

First law? I'd make shitting in public punishable by death.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 19, 2014)

tonysingh said:


> If Ukip do win Rochester and Strood then I think Medway will start to look a little cuntish to people.



A bit late for that I'm afraid.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2014)

tonysingh said:


> If Ukip do win Rochester and Strood then I think Medway will start to look a little cuntish to people.



"Start to"?


----------



## JTG (Nov 19, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Have you never stood on the Rainham Road end and heard the oppo sing exactly what they already think about the Medway towns?


I've stood on the Priestfield Road/Town End corner and sung those very songs


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2014)

tonysingh said:


> I'd do away with democracy altogether and start a benevolent dictatorship.
> 
> With me at the helm.
> 
> First law? I'd make shitting in public punishable by death.


and your second law? perhaps the sort of thing which might provoke offences against your first law.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 19, 2014)

JTG said:


> I've stood on the Priestfield Road/Town End corner and sung those very songs


----------



## brogdale (Nov 19, 2014)

without irony...



comments disabled.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 20, 2014)

Hilarious.


----------



## andysays (Nov 20, 2014)

brogdale said:


> without irony...
> 
> comments disabled.



"Don't let UKIP privatise the NHS"

The subtext appears to be "make sure it's the Conservatives who privatise the NHS, rather than those nasty UKIP johnnie-come-latelys"


----------



## brogdale (Nov 20, 2014)

andysays said:


> "Don't let UKIP privatise the NHS"
> 
> The subtext appears to be "make sure it's the Conservatives who privatise the NHS, rather than those nasty UKIP johnnie-come-latelys"


 There is only one subtext Andy...complete desperation. Remember that this was _the one _that they were going to win by throwing the kitchen sink at it.


----------



## andysays (Nov 20, 2014)

brogdale said:


> There is only one subtext Andy...complete desperation. Remember that *this was the one that they were going to win by throwing the kitchen sink at it*.



It was, wasn't it...

I'll leave you to make up your own joke about throwing the washing up out with the washing up water


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2014)

andysays said:


> It was, wasn't it...
> 
> I'll leave you to make up your own joke about throwing the washing up out with the washing up water


traditionally the baby out with the bathwater


----------



## andysays (Nov 20, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> traditionally the baby out with the bathwater



Down with traditional idiomatic expressions!! - forward with their subversion into new and exciting linguistic concepts!!1!

Shakes fist in Pickman's model's traditionalist face


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2014)

andysays said:


> their subversion into new and exciting linguistic concepts!!1!


tbh you're not subverting anything into anything new or exciting


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

I was going to post about the Emily Thornberry tweet earlier but lost the will to live.


----------



## Roadkill (Nov 20, 2014)

Michael Gove is apparently 100% confident that there will be no more defections to the Kippers, whatever happens in Rochester and Strood.

So, who do we reckon the next one will be then?


----------



## treelover (Nov 20, 2014)

What has she done?, ffs...


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 20, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> Michael Gove is apparently 100% confident that there will be no more defections to the Kippers, whatever happens in Rochester and Strood.
> 
> So, who do we reckon the next one will be then?


It could any one of those who see their seat being lost ,more an act of desperation


----------



## Roadkill (Nov 20, 2014)

shagnasty said:


> It could any one of those who see their seat being lost ,more an act of desperation



True.  Peter Bone, John Baron and Mark Pritchard have all been mentioned, though, and Baron has refused to rule out the possibility.

Until recently I was of the view that the Kippers were something to be encouraged as they were damaging the Tories more than anyone else.  The local and Euro election results earlier this year had me rethinking that, but I'm all in favour of Reckless winning tonight, because if that triggers more defections it could mean serious trouble for Cameron.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 20, 2014)

shagnasty said:


> It could any one of those who see their seat being lost ,more an act of desperation



How many knighthoods and peerages has Cameron had to pledge?


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 20, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> Peter Bone, John


Won't someone think of the children!


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

Hmmm...ukip only got slight lead in postal vote according to usual reliable people.

edit: immediately deleted after a warning from others it will get poster in legal trouble - which it could.


----------



## tonysingh (Nov 20, 2014)

really? Posting about whom is in the lead or not is not allowed? How do t.v shows get away with it then?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

tonysingh said:


> really? Posting about whom is in the lead or not is not allowed? How do t.v shows get away with it then?


You're not allowed give out info about how the vote is going whilst the vote is going on no - and most certainly not not official info. And tv shows don't -  hence the blackout until 10 tonight.


----------



## Theisticle (Nov 20, 2014)

Buzzfeed is full of cunts:

*BuzzFeed News will stand outside the house until the man finishes talking with his barrister.*






He's bloody live tweeting outside his house!


----------



## treelover (Nov 20, 2014)

The house owner is speaking to The Sun tomorrow, apparently according to the BBC Ed is the angriest that his team have ever seen him, not surprised.

btw, its amazing how many Guardian Cif'ers see this as a storm in a teacup.


----------



## killer b (Nov 20, 2014)

what do you think the lasting repercussions might be?


----------



## tonysingh (Nov 20, 2014)

Please enlighten me, but could someone explain the significance of the white van parked outside the house? unless its really obvious and im having a bald moment!


----------



## killer b (Nov 20, 2014)

Some idiot MP tweeted some blatant class-hatred in the form of the above photo this afternoon, apparently.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

tonysingh said:


> Please enlighten me, but could someone explain the significance of the white van parked outside the house? unless its really obvious and im having a bald moment!


It means, in conjunction with england flags, west ham cunts flag and a normal house that some _ghastly creature_ who labour can't and shouldn't try to reach who is probably UKIP and full of social prejudice _lurks _here.


----------



## tonysingh (Nov 20, 2014)

Thanks.

It would seem that there are some real fucknuts as MPs innit.


----------



## Theisticle (Nov 20, 2014)

It's not quite bigotgate 2.0 but how thick are some Labour MPs?


----------



## Theisticle (Nov 20, 2014)

Then again, didn't The Sun internally call all their readers plebs?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 20, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> Michael Gove is apparently 100% confident that there will be no more defections to the Kippers, whatever happens in Rochester and Strood.
> 
> So, who do we reckon the next one will be then?



Micheal Gove probably.


----------



## Theisticle (Nov 20, 2014)

Thornberry resigns from Shadow Cabinet.


----------



## killer b (Nov 20, 2014)

'resigns'


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

Theisticle said:


> Thornberry resigns from Shadow Cabinet.


She actually was one the lefter people around Milibands team. Tough shit. 2 million quid house and such arrogance.


----------



## Theisticle (Nov 20, 2014)

Hilarious really, I've got zero sympathy for her.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

That was required from on high i reckon.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

Tories about to unravel and she does this fucking idiocy - the rest of them prob think the same but know not to do this.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 20, 2014)

treelover said:


> ...


I'm more worried that they seem to have 2 bins of the same colour. Must be breaching at least 30 municipal-ecofash rules.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Tories about to unravel and she does this fucking idiocy - the rest of them prob think the same but know not to do this.



That's it.


----------



## Theisticle (Nov 20, 2014)

Apparently, the property is actually in Strood and not Rochester. An oversight missed by her class-based arrogance. Commentariat calling it an overreaction.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

Wilf said:


> I'm more worried that they seem to have 2 bins of the same colour. Must be breaching at least 30 municipal-ecofash rules.


One is for 41 one for next door. Stored in the corner of one house for collective ease. Little bit ukip-communism. Little bit sharing.


----------



## Theisticle (Nov 20, 2014)

It's not like Labour gave a shit about the byelection anyway:


----------



## Schmetterling (Nov 20, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Micheal Gove probably.


You are me!  That's what I was going to post. 
Love the internet!


----------



## agricola (Nov 20, 2014)

It is nothing short of amazing that Labour have managed to do this.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 20, 2014)

State of the Nation front page that.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

agricola said:


> It is nothing short of amazing that Labour have managed to do this.


It will be gone by morning - turn on news in bathroom, it'll be tories lose another seat to UKIP, turn on radio in car - the same.  Might as well make the lesson and make it now for labour i suppose. The embargo on reporting i think has allowed this to echo around a bit more.


----------



## Theisticle (Nov 20, 2014)

The UKIP wankathon will be on full flow tomorrow, lots of calls of another earthquake, Farage dunking pints, smoking. Reckless looking awkward.


----------



## killer b (Nov 20, 2014)

there isn't anywhere else for the snob story to go, so yeah. it'll be forgotten by lunch.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 20, 2014)

tonysingh said:


> Please enlighten me, but could someone explain the significance of the white van parked outside the house? unless its really obvious and im having a bald moment!



Another "that bigoted woman" moment. Basically, Emily Thornberry being an out-of-touch metropolitan liberal and photographing regular folk like they were zoo exhibits.


----------



## OneStrike (Nov 20, 2014)

Que se vayan todos (they all must go)


----------



## Wilf (Nov 20, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Another "that bigoted woman" moment. Basically, Emily Thornberry being an out-of-touch metropolitan liberal and photographing regular folk like they were zoo exhibits.


'Sorry Mylene, mansion's lovely - oh, but look at _this_ house with the funny flags'


----------



## Coolfonz (Nov 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It means, in conjunction with england flags, west ham cunts flag and a normal house that some _ghastly creature_ who labour can't and shouldn't try to reach who is probably UKIP and full of social prejudice _lurks _here.


And a badly paid low skilled one too, that does some kind of manual work. The van turns it from the flag/nationalist thing into a `look at these awful peasants` scene.

She should have captioned it `fuck west ham` and she might still be in the shadow-cabinet.


----------



## agricola (Nov 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It will be gone by morning - turn on news in bathroom, it'll be tories lose another seat to UKIP, turn on radio in car - the same.  Might as well make the lesson and make it now for labour i suppose. The embargo on reporting i think has allowed this to echo around a bit more.



The story perhaps, but the way this has been handled surely indicates that they arent even any good at anything any more - lets face it, as tweets go it is hardly the most offensive thing ever.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2014)

agricola said:


> The story perhaps, but the way this has been handled surely indicates that they arent even any good at anything any more - lets face it, as tweets go it is hardly the most offensive thing ever.


i think that's why she went, it was so bland.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 20, 2014)

It's a gift to the Tories if they have the sense to pick it up. The epitome of the 'hard-working' English. Maggie's 'white van man', etc. Subject to research, of course - it wouldn't do to have the subjects of the photo being outed as dolescum benefit cheats.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 20, 2014)

It's actually the worst episode of _Through the Keyhole_ ever.  Who lives in a house like _thiiissss_


----------



## killer b (Nov 20, 2014)

Quartz said:


> It's a gift to the Tories if they have the sense to pick it up. The epitome of the 'hard-working' English. Maggie's 'white van man', etc. Subject to research, of course - it wouldn't do to have the subjects of the photo being outed as dolescum benefit cheats.


confirmation, if any were needed, that it'll be gone by lunch tomorrow.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 20, 2014)

agricola said:


> The story perhaps, but the way this has been handled surely indicates that they arent even any good at anything any more - lets face it, as tweets go it is hardly the most offensive thing ever.


thing is, she'd actually been tweeting photos of anodyne things like that all day, so she could've just fronted it out. Resigning is just bizarre.


----------



## killer b (Nov 20, 2014)

she hasn't resigned, she's been booted.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

agricola said:


> The story perhaps, but the way this has been handled surely indicates that they arent even any good at anything any more - lets face it, as tweets go it is hardly the most offensive thing ever.


I think without the timing it could have been handled piece of piss- just gave bored right wing journos (all stuff full of the same prejudices and worse) on twitter time to run with. Watched it happen. A bit of piss-taking back and defused - but then, how can a multi-millionaire lawyer from islington do banter? And it was her individual responses that blew this up - maybe all the real humans were busy _today_. Busy not harming labour.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 20, 2014)

I think Thornberry could have just handed the GE to the Tories, this is a Gillian Duffy moment. Her resignation means very little given her proximity to Miliband.

ETA: as the tipping point of course not the sole reason obviously


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> thing is, she'd actually been tweeting photos of anodyne things like that all day, so she could've just fronted it out. Resigning is just bizarre.


Two, or one other pic. And they were tied to def people. This wasn't. The scorn was real - that's why it was picked up on so easily and why that flannel wouldn't work. Christ imagine these people actually defending you in court. Might as well write your will.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 20, 2014)

Be interesting to see how the incompetents in the Labour press office handle this - er oh they haven't


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Be interesting to see how the incompetents in the Labour press office handle this - er oh they haven't


Well, they first handled it by saying they see no problem with it = we agree with it.


----------



## killer b (Nov 20, 2014)

christ. in which case probably best to shut the fuck up. only got to tread water til the results are in...


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Two, or one other pic. And they were tied to def people. This wasn't. The scorn was real - that's why it was picked up on so easily and why that flannel wouldn't work. Christ imagine these people actually defending you in court. Might as well write your will.



I don't doubt the scorn was real. Still think they'd have been better off putting out the flannel and pretending.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

The beast speaks (sort of).

 Mr Ware, 36, a father of four who works in the motor trade and property maintenance, said the flags had been on his house since the World Cup.
He said that he had voted Conservative at the 2010 election but "I don't know why", and had no idea there was a by-election in Rochester and Strood that evening.

Asked about how he felt about Miss Thornberry's Tweet, he said: "She is a snob - what has she got a three storey townhouse in Islington?"

Mr Ware who has lived in Rochester for 15 years said he was upset that his van's licence plate had been put on the internet, saying it was a "privacy thing".
He said: "The picture shouldn't be took. She should ask first because the registration number is in the picture.

"I will continue to fly the flags - I don't care who it pisses off. I know there is a lot of ethnic minorities that don't like it. They have been up since the World Cup."
He said he did not like Labour's views, but was not political.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 20, 2014)

Don't think it was scorn. More, who drapes their house in England flags when there isn't even a major football tournament on? Maybe they were still celebrating the win over Slovenia though. Or Rooney's 100th cap. You never know.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 20, 2014)

hmm exactly the sort of response that will trigger more defensiveness and lack of understanding of why the tweet was wrong from some Labour quarters...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 20, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Don't think it was scorn. More, who drapes their house in England flags when there isn't even a major football tournament on? Maybe they were still celebrating the win over Slovenia though. Or Rooney's 100th cap. You never know.


shut up


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

So much prodding in that 'interview' it's ridiculous.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 20, 2014)

If the Tories have any sense Mr Ware will be their candidate next year


----------



## Coolfonz (Nov 20, 2014)

It's also, like haven't you seen a house like this before? I mean you fucking took a photo of it with your phone. 

Like I took a picture of a sabre tooth tiger the other day with mine. I don't see them hardly at all.

I was like 'yeah this is crazy, i'm going to photo this mad shit.'

That's what she thought. Then she thought 'yeah fuck this cuz let's tweet it as well people will crack up for real' #benefitsstreet


----------



## killer b (Nov 20, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> If the Tories have any sense Mr Ware will be their candidate next year


the tories can't run with this - they think the same.


----------



## Theisticle (Nov 20, 2014)

The right wing press made this into a big story. I agree with Butcher's about the scorn behind the tweet, but the way he's now just 'White Van Man' is fucking embarrassing. Prodding him for his political views and bad mouth Labour.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Asked about how he felt about Miss Thornberry's Tweet, he said: "She is a snob - what has she got a three storey townhouse in Islington?"



The realest quote.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> It's also, like haven't you seen a house like this before? I mean you fucking took a photo of it with your phone.
> 
> Like I took a picture of a sabre tooth tiger the other day with mine. I don't see them hardly at all.
> 
> ...


A better way of saying that, one that doesn't involve white people over 40 saying cuz, is that she has been so hidden from normality for 30 years that what is now normal appears alien to her and this understanding of normality is common across all parties at all levels.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 20, 2014)

killer b said:


> the tories can't run with this - they think the same.


why not? In the US, the Republicans run this year after year after year.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 20, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> shut up



is the advice Ed is giving to all Labour candidates for the next six months.


----------



## killer b (Nov 20, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> why not? In the US, the Republicans run this year after year after year.


because their own MPs are on record saying the same sort of shit. 



> The MP said: “Rochester is only one part of the constituency. There is Strood which is the Benefits Street of the south east. They are really angry over there. They are ready to punish us.”


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> why not? In the US, the Republicans run this year after year after year.


Because they have other issues to attend to and because it's over. They can try and make it a theme - in fact they always have, the aspirational class against snobby bollinger bolsheviks - but nothing new and nothing tied to this incident.


----------



## Coolfonz (Nov 20, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Don't think it was scorn. More, who drapes their house in England flags when there isn't even a major football tournament on? Maybe they were still celebrating the win over Slovenia though. Or Rooney's 100th cap. You never know.





butchersapron said:


> A better way of saying that, one that doesn't involve white people over 40 saying cuz is that she has been so hidden from normality for 30 years that what is now normal appears alien to her and this understanding of normality is common across all parties at all levels.


i like your fresh skillz


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 20, 2014)

killer b said:


> the tories can't run with this - they think the same.


They could hide it for this with media support though


----------



## brogdale (Nov 20, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> They could hide it for this with media support though








Yep.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 20, 2014)

That strap-line; "How to lose a by-election". FFS


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

I don't think they can - not beyond tonight. The labour MP is not key, it's not the immediate lead-up and there are other issues demanding political journos attention. They might be interested in floating the idea that they are this powerful though...


----------



## killer b (Nov 20, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> They could hide it for this with media support though


but they won't.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 20, 2014)

I'm completely new to this story (as of NOW!) and know less than anything of it except what's being posted here, and that Sun bollocks above.

So ... well done Emily Thornberry for helping the Sun make it more of a Labour problem** than a Tory one, this by-election ...... 

ETA : **Although it is anyway. That Corby by-election two years ago, would Labour win that now? Doubt it!


----------



## killer b (Nov 20, 2014)

Why do you think that?


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 20, 2014)

Things have moved on since then.


----------



## killer b (Nov 20, 2014)

In what way? Is Corby a ukip target?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

I think they would quite easily. Be like the wythenshawe one. Solid labour vote, not going anywhere. Not a 15-25% one that is forced to vote tactically.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 20, 2014)

killer b : Most honest answer, and fairest to you : not at all sure.

Beyond thinking that UKIP would target anywhere in a by-election at the moment.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

Just on this silly millianore lawyer- i expect her old stuff will be going through right now - can anyone confirm this is true - it is supposed to be from when the labour slimebag was trying to become mayor.

edit: it is.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

So she was in southmead in nov 2012 and had never seen a house with england flags on before today - and she's been to southmead?


----------



## ska invita (Nov 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Just on this silly millianore lawyer- i expect her old stuff will be going through right now - can anyone confirm this is true - it is supposed to be from when the labour slimebag was trying to become mayor.
> 
> edit: it is.


 who is that in the upstairs window?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

ska invita said:


> who is that in the upstairs window?


I believe that is the rightful king born of tupelo.


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 20, 2014)

Let's see Labour wriggle out of this


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 20, 2014)

Emily tried but misunderstood.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

There is a stalin avenue in rochester. I wonder what their canvass returns were like.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

The39thStep said:


> Emily tried but misunderstood.


Have you been on that funny smoke?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> There is a stalin avenue in rochester. I wonder what their canvass returns were like.


Is that where the white van man guard live?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Is that where the white van man guard live?


Stalin destroyed the white van(man)guard. Or was that the trot one?


----------



## killer b (Nov 20, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> killer b : Most honest answer, and fairest to you : not at all sure.
> 
> Beyond thinking that UKIP would target anywhere in a by-election at the moment.


Christ man, what's happened? You've been arguing for weeks that the polls have it wrong and its not as bad as everyone's making out for labour - and tonight they might have lost Corby? What's changed?


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> There is a stalin avenue in rochester.



You just MADE me check whether or not that was true, with that post. Amazingly, it is ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 21, 2014)

killer b said:


> Christ man, what's happened? You've been arguing for weeks that the polls have it wrong and its not as bad as everyone's making out for labour - and tonight they might have lost Corby? What's changed?




I was only thinking the _current_ polls were wrong. Not to be treated as projections of what could happen later. As in, current stuff exaggerates what in reality might/could/probably will happen next year in the GE.

Polls -- snapshots not predictions.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2014)

How many votes would we expect the lib-dems require  to make 1% tonight? Give it a 50% turnout. I'm not a numbers type. 400?


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Have you been on that funny smoke?


No been out watching Hunger Games 3 and came home philosophical


----------



## belboid (Nov 21, 2014)

sounds like about 400


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> How many votes would we expect the lib-dems require  to make 1% tonight? Give it a 50% turnout. I'm not a numbers type. 400?


375


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2014)

Turnout 53% apparently, so more like 400 for 1%


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2014)

...and that's after "the kitchen sink"!


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2014)

Cheers both - and mr steps, i've found late night thinking to be a very dangerous thing.

They could well do 0% here then.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2014)

Sparrow in the G's live feed...



> m ago00:36
> 
> *Ukip 'heading for a majority of over 3,000'*
> A new set of figures is doing the rounds.
> ...


----------



## belboid (Nov 21, 2014)

turnout 50.6% then.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2014)

Oh right, here is the actual turnout...



> The turnout is *50.67*%, the acting returning officer, Neil Davies, has announced.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2014)

snap!


----------



## belboid (Nov 21, 2014)

so that is about 373, give or take ten for changes in the total electorate since 2010

ignore that, turnout 40,113, so 401 or below then


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2014)

belboid said:


> so that is about 373, give or take ten for changes in the total electorate since 2010


Also, i've seen news people round up 5.67% to 5.7% - so we don't have to round up nearest whole number. If it's .51, we don't need to say 1%.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Also, i've seen news people round up 5.67% to 5.7% - so we don't have to round up nearest whole number. If it's .51, we don't need to say 1%.


Oh yeah, there's always the chance that their vote will start with the figure 0.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2014)

Crick being doing his figs:

*Michael Crick*
@MichaelLCrick
If Lib Dems get under 549 votes they will break all-time record low vote for a main party in any Westminster election - 1.367% in Clacton

The South shields one i can only find rounded up to 1.4%.


----------



## belboid (Nov 21, 2014)

anything under 400 would be rounded to 0.99, needs to be 381 or less to be rounded to 0.9


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2014)

99p will do. Couldn't even get a quid for yourselves. 

How long we got to go btw, i forget to check the expected timetable.


----------



## meurig (Nov 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> A better way of saying that, one that doesn't involve white people over 40 saying cuz, is that she has been so hidden from normality for 30 years that what is now normal appears alien to her and this understanding of normality is common across all parties at all levels.



Living in her constituency, as she does, the saddest thing about this is that there are at least 5 houses or flats similarly decorated within 3 roads of me. She hasn't got a clue what's going on under her own nose, let alone in Rochester.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 21, 2014)

Stupid, short sighted etc. as it was, I suspect her walking the plank is more a sacrifice to the great gods of Murdoch et al than actually in proportion.

If she'd have said she didn't want to live next door to Romanians it would probably be "Oh, how brave and plain speaking". Overt racism being not such a big deal as it used to be, back in the bad days when the PC left ran everything, before the earthquake.

They can make all the fuss in the world about this, but privatisating the NHS is fine. Why Labour continue to play to their values is a complete mystery. It does them no good at all.


----------



## belboid (Nov 21, 2014)

I see Lembit Opik is running the Caroline Rose, Sexual Freedom Party, campaign. She's due to beat his former party.


----------



## meurig (Nov 21, 2014)

It's because of the way this plays in England - Westminster is shot in terms of its cultural links to the populace, and this exacerbates it. The electorate has largely has itself to blame of course, but that's not the way they'll see it.


----------



## JTG (Nov 21, 2014)

From Andrew Sparrow on Guardian live blog:



> *Chris Bryant* has just been interviewed by Andrew Neil on the BBC’s election programme. Asked about flags, he admitted that he had never hung one outside his window. He was not a football fan, he said.
> 
> "I cannot stand football. And I know my mother-in-law would be very, very, angry with me now, she tells me that I ought to live football, but I just don’t."
> 
> Obviously, in my book, that makes Bryant a man of sound judgment, but are you really allowed to say that if you’re a Labour frontbencher? Until recently, being interested in football, or feigning an interest, was virtually compulsory at Westminster (especially in Labour.) I do hope Bryant doesn’t get sacked too.



Jesus, is that what they think this is about? Ffs


----------



## JTG (Nov 21, 2014)

Peninsula Ward by-election (yep, Medway council):

UKIP 2850
Con 1965
Lab 716
Green 314
Lib Dem 60

UKIP gain from Con


----------



## meurig (Nov 21, 2014)

JTG said:


> From Andrew Sparrow on Guardian live blog:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus, is that what they think this is about? Ffs



That's quite a misrepresentation. Bryant first said he'd have been livid if Thornberry had done something like that in his ward (Rhondda); and understood that displaying the flag was a football practice, and not to be sneered at. So far fairly reasonable.

He then rather cackhandedly tried to play to rugby enthusiasts in his ward by playing the "I like rugby I hate football card", rather forgetting that more people probably play and support football in his constituency than rugby. I'm sure he doesn't think this is actually about football, but he did appear like the geek playing up to jocks who could make him unpopular.


----------



## JTG (Nov 21, 2014)

Result in minutes...


----------



## JTG (Nov 21, 2014)

UKIP majority 2920


----------



## meurig (Nov 21, 2014)

Outpolling Labour by over 2:1 in a seat that they held until 2010. Bollocks.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 21, 2014)

Reckless:

"We must be a party that speaks to and for the whole nation and all those who live in it." *

* After we've started the repatriations, and obviously not Romanians, who we wouldn't want to live next door to.


----------



## JTG (Nov 21, 2014)

*Mark Reckless *(UKIP) 16,867 (42.10%) 

*Kelly Tolhurst* (C) 13,947 (34.81%, -14.39%) 

*Naushabah Khan* (Lab) 6,713 (16.76%, -11.70%) 

*Clive Gregory* (Green) 1,692 (4.22%, +2.69%) 

*Geoff Juby* (LD) 349 (0.87%, -15.39%)

*Hairy Knorm Davidson* (Loony) 151 (0.38%) 

*Stephen Goldsbrough* (Ind) 69 (0.17%) 

*Nick Long* (PBP) 69 (0.17%)

*Jayda Fransen* (Britain 1st) 56 (0.14%) 

*Mike Barker* (Ind) 54 (0.13%) 

*Charlotte Rose* (Ind) 43 (0.11%) 

*Dave Osborn* (Pat Soc) 33 (0.08%) 

*Christopher Challis *(Ind) 22 (0.05%) 

UKIP maj 2,920 (7.29%)

Electorate 79,163; Turnout 40,065 (50.61%, -14.32%)


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 21, 2014)

Good grief, he invoked the suffragettes. Start as you mean to go on : Insulting posturing bullshit.


----------



## chilango (Nov 21, 2014)

0.87%.



0.87%

Result!


----------



## J Ed (Nov 21, 2014)

The39thStep said:


> No been out watching Hunger Games 3 and came home philosophical



May the flags be ever in your flavour (something palatable and conceivably forrin enough)


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 21, 2014)

libdems winning here


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 21, 2014)

Here's a pic to bring up a bit of sick -


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Crick being doing his figs:
> 
> *Michael Crick*
> @MichaelLCrick
> ...


And they've done it. Excellent


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 21, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Stupid, short sighted etc. as it was, I suspect her walking the plank is more a sacrifice to the great gods of Murdoch et al than actually in proportion.
> 
> If she'd have said she didn't want to live next door to Romanians it would probably be "Oh, how brave and plain speaking". Overt racism being not such a big deal as it used to be, back in the bad days when the PC left ran everything, before the earthquake.
> 
> They can make all the fuss in the world about this, but privatisating the NHS is fine. Why Labour continue to play to their values is a complete mystery. It does them no good at all.



So it's ok to slide together racism and anti-working class prejudice?

Oh and to pre-empt you, privatising the NHS is not ok.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2014)

1.34 to 2.34...the very definition of "_ideological transvestism_"



'kinnel


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 21, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So it's ok to slide together racism and anti-working class prejudice?
> 
> Oh and to pre-empt you, privatising the NHS is not ok.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


I sense a strawman in this. They are both abhorent, but one is clearly less abhorent when it suite the 2 faced media shits. Yor pre emption was based on duff mind reading. None of it is ok, but this is about the politics of who walks the plank, and in truth it prob has less to with levels of not-ok than it is spectacle and bluster for the rags.


----------



## gosub (Nov 21, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Stupid, short sighted etc. as it was, I suspect her walking the plank is more a sacrifice to the great gods of Murdoch et al than actually in proportion.
> 
> If she'd have said she didn't want to live next door to Romanians it would probably be "Oh, how brave and plain speaking"*. Overt racism being not such a big deal as it used to be, back in the bad days when the PC left ran everything, before the earthquake.*
> 
> They can make all the fuss in the world about this, but privatisating the NHS is fine. Why Labour continue to play to their values is a complete mystery. It does them no good at all.



The high water mark of PC was the backlash on Brown's British jobs for British workers.  It was an oil refinery, where the jobs were filled by an Italian agency and not advertised locally. - The main argument for accepting heavy industry on your doorstep is it will bring jobs to the local community. 
ended up with complainants smeared as racists and planning law de-democratized.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 21, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I sense a strawman in this. They are both abhorent, but one is clearly less abhorent when it suite the 2 faced media shits. Yor pre emption was based on duff mind reading. None of it is ok, but this is about the politics of who walks the plank, and in truth it prob has less to with levels of not-ok than it is spectacle and bluster for the rags.



Gobbledegook! Have another go.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I sense a strawman in this. They are both abhorent, but one is clearly less abhorent when it suite the 2 faced media shits. Yor pre emption was based on duff mind reading. None of it is ok, but this is about the politics of who walks the plank, and in truth it prob has less to with levels of not-ok than it is spectacle and bluster for the rags.





Louis MacNeice said:


> Gobbledegook! Have another go.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


on second thoughts, taffboy gwyrdd, leave it as it is.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 21, 2014)

Its not about what urbanites think, which is genuine anger.Its not even as much about the offences, its about the punishments and the staged anger of anti working class media.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2014)

Have you been to bed yet taffboy?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 21, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Its not about what urbanites think, which is genuine anger.Its not even as much about the offences, its about the punishments and the staged anger of anti working class media.



Do you seriously think that Thornberry's tweet says more about the media than it does about her appreciation of 'white van man'?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2014)

Please please let her have put this flag here herself (that's her house):


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 21, 2014)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Here's a pic to bring up a bit of sick -


Somehow, you just can't see Robinson getting that close to a Green or a TUSC candidate. 

All in it together.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 21, 2014)

I very rarely give 'likes' but that picture gets one; what's she meant to do...take it down ...leave it up...the anguish, the mental torment, torn between gut reaction and political expediency!

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Quartz (Nov 21, 2014)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Here's a pic to bring up a bit of sick -



Is she the Britain First candidate or an independent?


----------



## treelover (Nov 21, 2014)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Here's a pic to bring up a bit of sick -



Who is/was she?


----------



## treelover (Nov 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Please please let her have put this flag here herself (that's her house):



Photoshopped? put there by UKIP/The Sun?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 21, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Do you seriously think that Thornberry's tweet says more about the media than it does about her appreciation of 'white van man'?
> 
> Louis MacNeice



I think the episode shows a staged reaction by anti working class media that is definite. Her attitude towards the house happens to be implied / inferred, quite possibly correctly. Labour pursue anti working class policies quite often without anyone resigning, so yes - it has all the appearance of a media shitstorm and a useful distraction from tory difficulties, the latter point being made quite a lot here yesterday.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I think the episode shows a staged reaction by anti working class media that is definite. Her attitude towards the house happens to be implied / inferred, quite possibly correctly. Labour pursue anti working class policies quite often without anyone resigning, so yes - it has all the appearance of a media shitstorm and a useful distraction from tory difficulties, the latter point being made quite a lot here yesterday.


no, everyone's inferring for her.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2014)

treelover said:


> Who is/was she?


that's jayda fransen of britain first
https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=11707


----------



## treelover (Nov 21, 2014)

What!, and Robinson is doing a selfie with her!


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 21, 2014)

More likely (?) a selfie by her, or a pic by one of her friends.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 21, 2014)

Robinson is taking the time to personally reply to outraged twitterati by saying_ "I had no idea who this person was. Was asked for a selfie by someone I wrongly assumed was a worker at the count. My mistake"_


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 21, 2014)

Britain First got 56 votes or something?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Britain First got 56 votes or something?


They ran a very off campaign that basically urged people to vote UKIP.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 21, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I think the episode shows a staged reaction by anti working class media that is definite. Her attitude towards the house happens to be implied / inferred, quite possibly correctly. Labour pursue anti working class policies quite often without anyone resigning, so yes - it has all the appearance of a media shitstorm and a useful distraction from tory difficulties, the latter point being made quite a lot here yesterday.



So the problem is the media (which people apart from you have little or no ability to interpret) and not the lack of relevant political ideas and organisation; thanks for making that clear.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Dan U (Nov 21, 2014)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Here's a pic to bring up a bit of sick -


59 votes or something. 

They should be proud.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So the problem is the media (which people apart from you have little or no ability to interpret) and not the lack of relevant political ideas and organisation; thanks for making that clear.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



...and i think - though it's rather hard to tell from what he wrote - that Thornberry's tweet told us nothing/was correct?


----------



## andysays (Nov 21, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Robinson is taking the time to personally reply to outraged twitterati by saying_ "I had no idea who this person was. Was asked for a selfie by someone I wrongly assumed was a worker at the count. My mistake"_



She's wearing a big badge saying "candidate" which might have led him to rethink that assumption.

And I know there was a large number of candidates, but isn't he the BBC's political correspondent and shouldn't he have some idea who the candidates are?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2014)

andysays said:


> She's wearing a big badge saying "candidate" which might have led him to rethink that assumption.
> 
> And I know there was a large number of candidates, but isn't he the BBC's political correspondent and shouldn't he have some idea who the candidates are?


specially when she's got a britain first jacket on


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 21, 2014)

Thanks Emily (and taffboy gwyrdd?) - I like that fact that just by looking at the surface of something  - the van, the flags , the columns - means you don't have to think any harder; sorry Bo it seems you missed a trick.



Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## andysays (Nov 21, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> specially when she's got a britain first jacket on



Yeah, I was wondering if that logo might be significant but, not being the Beeb's political correspondent, I confess I'm not familiar with BF's logos or campaigning outfits...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2014)

andysays said:


> Yeah, I was wondering if that logo might be significant but, not being the Beeb's political correspondent, I confess I'm not familiar with BF's logos or campaigning outfits...


yeh but when someone wearing a jacket with a strange logo on it and a badge saying candidate comes up to you asking for a photo, even someone less canny than nick robinson ought to be asking questions.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 21, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> specially when she's got a britain first jacket on



Maybe a trip to specsavers for a new eye test, or he's just a right wing cunt. Oh hang on...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2014)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Maybe a trip to specsavers for a new eye test, or he's just a right wing cunt. Oh hang on...


i don't see why there needs to be an either or here


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 21, 2014)

its only a matter of time until Phillip 'fred westalike' Hollobone takes the purple and reigns my town for farange


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2014)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Maybe a trip to specsavers for a new eye test, or he's just a right wing cunt. Oh hang on...


..or just has a eye for the laydeez?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 21, 2014)

I supposed the Libdems should accenuate the positive - "0.49% more popular than the Loony Party, if 41% less popular than an actual swivel eyed loon".


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 21, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> More likely (?) a selfie by her, or a pic by one of her friends.


 it's not a fucking selfie unless you're taking it your fucking self ffs


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 21, 2014)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> More likely (?) a selfie by her, *or a pic* by one of her friends.





Spanky Longhorn said:


> it's not a fucking selfie unless you're taking it your fucking self ffs




Read the second part of that post by me again please. Starts with the word OR. Admittedly the words 'by her' in the first part were unnecessary (  )  but at no point did I say a selfie could be by anyone else now did I? Also, the post was a direct response against someone else suggesting it might be a selfie by Nick Robinson.

But I suppose you just started off assuming I was stupid and went on from there. Thanks for that.


----------



## JimW (Nov 21, 2014)

It was a selfie by her of her PIN number. Actually, she might have freakishly long arms.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 21, 2014)

JimW said:


> I Actually, she might have freakishly long arms.



Yeah, I should have looked at it more closely (not that anyone would want to, really). Can't really be a selfie at all.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 21, 2014)

I just quoted you because you were the last one to mention selfie - my ire and disdain was aimed at both of you and the wider phenomenon of mislabelling of photos as selfies


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 21, 2014)

I see farage is on the 'when did we start having to be ashamed of our flag' shtick which is predictable, but thats irrelevant imo, the real problem with that pic is the naked illustration of the contempt labours upper echelons hold the average bod on the street in


we've been selected one Rhea Keehn to stand for  labour against crypto-kipper Hollobone.

http://www.ketteringlabourparty.org/?page_id=164

chock full of info there


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 21, 2014)

Page not found DotCom!


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 21, 2014)

I know, hence my quip about info.

the google box says CWU endorsed, co-op party endorsed

CBA to search further atm, I'm voting for the Cock and Balls Party (spunking) next time round anyway


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 21, 2014)

andysays said:


> And I know there was a large number of candidates, but isn't he the BBC's political correspondent and shouldn't he have some idea who the candidates are?



He'd know. He's a pretty dark character.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2014)

Dennis Skinner straight into the pair of cunts:


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2014)

The Scum's bought WVM don't look too chuffed to be in Islington...


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 21, 2014)

treelover said:


> Who is/was she?


Jayda Fransen, Britain First candidate (and Paul Golding's shag).


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 21, 2014)

brogdale said:


> 1.34 to 2.34...the very definition of "_ideological transvestism_"
> 
> 
> 
> 'kinnel



He has such a weedy voice too.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Jayda Fransen, Britain First candidate (and Paul Golding's shag).





>


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> He has such a weedy voice too.


 ...and, as Liddle put it...



> Mark Reckless – Ukip’s lauded defectee – was disingenuous and evasive and possessed of all of the charisma and warmth of a caravan site on the Isle of Sheppey in late February.



Apols to anyone from Leysdown


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 21, 2014)

In hindsight, 'fuck' would have been a better choice of word.


----------



## red & green (Nov 21, 2014)

Up the pub in Rochester with Nige...


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2014)

red & green said:


> Up the pub in Rochester with Nige...



err....they're drinking lager.


----------



## red & green (Nov 21, 2014)

Maybe he's with the wife


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 21, 2014)

red & green said:


> Up the pub in Rochester with Nige...




Which film is that from? I've seen it once or twice (the clip), but never found out the origin.
Cabaret. Duh!


----------



## red & green (Nov 21, 2014)

Cabaret


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 21, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So the problem is the media (which people apart from you have little or no ability to interpret) and not the lack of relevant political ideas and organisation; thanks for making that clear.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Completely missed my point, and sticking in a strawman for good measure.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 21, 2014)

red & green said:


> Up the pub in Rochester with Nige...




Don't be ridiculous.

Nige and his troops will be singing something much more festive this weekend.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 21, 2014)

<deleted duplicated post>


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 21, 2014)

<deleted duplicated post>


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 21, 2014)

This is interesting. Turns out Thornberry had tweeted a similar image beofre, but in praise of the house.

Luckily, seeing as she was only blandly descriptive this time around, there were plenty of people on left and right to do her thinking for her. An internet first, no doubt.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/this-...mps-rochester-picture-is-manufactured-2014-11


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> This is interesting. Turns out Thornberry had tweeted a similar image beofre, but in praise of the house.
> 
> Luckily, seeing as she was only blandly descriptive this time around, there were plenty of people on left and right to do her thinking for her. An internet first, no doubt.
> 
> http://uk.businessinsider.com/this-...mps-rochester-picture-is-manufactured-2014-11


That's a different house in a different city and its been posted on the thread already.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> This is interesting. Turns out Thornberry had tweeted a similar image beofre, but in praise of the house.
> 
> Luckily, seeing as she was only blandly descriptive this time around, there were plenty of people on left and right to do her thinking for her. An internet first, no doubt.
> 
> http://uk.businessinsider.com/this-...mps-rochester-picture-is-manufactured-2014-11





taffboy gwyrdd said:


> This is interesting. Turns out Thornberry had tweeted a similar image beofre, but in praise of the house.
> 
> Luckily, seeing as she was only blandly descriptive this time around, there were plenty of people on left and right to do her thinking for her. An internet first, no doubt.
> 
> http://uk.businessinsider.com/this-...mps-rochester-picture-is-manufactured-2014-11





taffboy gwyrdd said:


> This is interesting. Turns out Thornberry had tweeted a similar image beofre, but in praise of the house.
> 
> Luckily, seeing as she was only blandly descriptive this time around, there were plenty of people on left and right to do her thinking for her. An internet first, no doubt.
> 
> http://uk.businessinsider.com/this-...mps-rochester-picture-is-manufactured-2014-11


so interesting you posted it thrice. sadly not an internet first.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2014)

Defend her tweet yesterday taffboy. Go on.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2014)

red & green said:


> Up the pub in Rochester with Nige...


----------



## Schmetterling (Nov 21, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> so interesting you posted it thrice. sadly not an internet first.


Liking it for you quoting it thrrrice!


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 21, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> so interesting you posted it thrice. sadly not an internet first.



oops. shit connection didn't show it had posted even the once.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Defend her tweet yesterday taffboy. Go on.



I don't really have to. I've already said she, as a senior politician, should have forseen the trouble. I know the other one is different town etc. but it shows a potential for her to post such stuff with no intent. Doesn't matter, the resident psychics here and elsewhere have decided her intent, it's a wonder anyone bothers to think for themselves any more. The points I made about politicos getting away with evidently far worse stuff still stand.

I think it was you, Butchers, who predicted it wouldn't remain a Sun front page, maybe I'm wrong about that. I thought so too, but it did.

The union busting Sun being a huge champion of working class culture and stuff.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2014)

Jesus Christ. Why do you bother?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 21, 2014)




----------



## rutabowa (Nov 21, 2014)

my mum hates houses with st george's flags on and she is about as far away from "Islington snob" as you can get... I mean she isnt an mp in election day but still. odd it was a big deal to post that photo I think.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 21, 2014)

Allegra Stratton outside flag house in Strood tonight on Newsnight. Poor buggers who live there.


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 21, 2014)

Mr.Bishie said:


>


 
That's one of those shit £99 mountain bikes, isn't it?  Does he live in a house with Doric columns too?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 22, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Completely missed my point, and sticking in a strawman for good measure.



Maybe you failed to make your point...whatever it was; as I said earlier up the thread have another go.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 22, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> This is interesting. Turns out Thornberry had tweeted a similar image beofre, but *in praise of the house*.
> 
> Luckily, seeing as she was only blandly descriptive this time around, there were plenty of people on left and right to do her thinking for her. An internet first, no doubt.
> 
> http://uk.businessinsider.com/this-...mps-rochester-picture-is-manufactured-2014-11



This bit of grammar makes it sound as though you are talking about the same house. That aside can't you a reason why Emily couldn't make a sneering tweet about the Bristol house?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

Sacking Emily Thornberry was a massive own goal, that only adds to the impression that Labour has a problem with snobbish liberal attitudes to the w/c in general.   The bloke was a racist cunt anyway!


----------



## brogdale (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Sacking Emily Thornberry was a massive own goal, that only adds to the impression that Labour has a problem with snobbish liberal attitudes to the w/c in general.   The bloke was a racist cunt anyway!


But Miliband looks at his house and thinks "*respect".*


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

this is where that blue labour shite gets you.  Respect the flag, that's what proles like.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Sacking Emily Thornberry was a massive own goal, that only adds to the impression that Labour has a problem with snobbish liberal attitudes to the w/c in general.   The bloke was a racist cunt anyway!


They do have those problems. Your advice is to pretend they don't exist.

Or are you saying that existing snobbish liberal attitudes to the w/c in general in the labour party are Ok and so not a problem?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> this is where that blue labour shite gets you.  Respect the flag, that's what proles like.


I thought a sophisticated student of semiotics such as yourself would be able to provide a bit more of a nuanced reading than this defensive drivel. Seems like the proles have been able to.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> this is where that blue labour shite gets you.  Respect the flag, that's what proles like.


Its not really about nuanced positioning like "blue Lab" shite, is it? It's about complete ideological reverse/retreat.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> this is where that blue labour shite gets you.  Respect the flag, that's what proles like.


What they like is not being patronsised by their betters. She was partronising and now you're being patronising in defence of her patronisation. Not surprising as you both live in the same bubble.

Very telling that the three defenders are you, taffboy and awesome wells.


----------



## youngian (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Sacking Emily Thornberry was a massive own goal, that only adds to the impression that Labour has a problem with snobbish liberal attitudes to the w/c in general.   The bloke was a racist cunt anyway!


Thornberry was sacked for being a damn fool, politicians insult each other not voters. If she didn't take a bullet for the team it would have been a massive own goal; "dithering weak Miliband shows his contempt..blah blah".

Don't know if there is any evidence of his racism and probably likes a lot of Labour's policies for all I know, he even looks like a Daily Mail MAC cartoon Labour voter who are all scum until they vote for a cunt like Reckless and become salt of the earth.

I hope Thornberry has a whinge about Miliband acting like Stalin, the voters like a leader who is in charge.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> They do have those problems. Your advice is to pretend they don't exist.
> 
> Or are you saying that existing snobbish liberal attitudes to the w/c in general in the labour party are Ok and so not a problem?



I really don't think this problem is as wide as the current tabloid populist narrative would have it.  Far more dangerous in my view are the people who think they show they understand the w/c from a tabloid stereotype, and try to play UKIP/Tories at their own game on immigration and welfare.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I really don't think this problem is as wide as the current tabloid populist narrative would have it.  Far more dangerous in my view are the people who think they show they understand the w/c from a tabloid stereotype, and try to play UKIP/Tories at their own game on immigration and welfare.


It's rather in your interest to pretend that the people you work with, the people whose politics you share and the people you urge w/c people to vote for and get involved with are not snobby anti-w/c liberals though isn't it? I think a view from outside your bubble and its interests would be a lot more accurate here. Even here now you're doing that patronisng finger-wagging that this whole thing was a symptom of. Clueless.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

youngian said:


> Thornberry was sacked for being a damn fool, politicians insult each other not voters. If she didn't take a bullet for the team it would have been a massive own goal; "dithering weak Miliband shows his contempt..blah blah".
> 
> Don't know if there is any evidence of his racism and probably likes a lot of Labour's policies for all I know, he even looks like a Daily Mail MAC cartoon Labour voter who are all scum until they vote for a cunt like Reckless and become salt of the earth.
> 
> I hope Thornberry has a whinge about Miliband acting like Stalin, the voters like a leader who is in charge.



Bollocks - who would have remembered an innocuous tweet if he hadn't gone into panic mode and made it a major fucking story?   It wasn't even an insult - it was an image of Rochester at a particular time, and no doubt a fairly accurate one if his comments about flying the flag because it pisses off ethnic minorities is anything to go by.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

Do you know Thornberry btw a8?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Bollocks - who would have remembered an innocuous tweet if he hadn't gone into panic mode and made it a major fucking story?   It wasn't even an insult - it was an image of Rochester at a particular time, and no doubt a fairly accurate one if his comments about flying the flag because it pisses off ethnic minorities is anything to go by.


She made it a major story by tweeing it and then defending it in two further ridiculous tweets - one that revealed she was a liar (i've never seen anything like it) and one that revealed the snobby bubble nauture of her life (this is just anti-posh people/islington stuff). And your defence now is equally revealing.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It's rather in your interest to pretend that the people you work with, the people whose politics you share and the people you urge w/c people to vote for and get involved with are not snobby anti-w/c liberals though isn't it? I think a view from outside your bubble and its interests would be a lot more accurate here. Even here now you're doing that patronisng finger-wagging that this whole thing was a symptom of. Clueless.



UKIP and the Tories will be the ones who make mileage out of this kind of inaccurate (or wildly exaggerated) picture of what Labour - all of it - really thinks.  It serves their agenda.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Sacking Emily Thornberry was a massive own goal, that only adds to the impression that Labour has a problem with snobbish liberal attitudes to the w/c in general.   *The bloke was a racist cunt anyway!*



And Emily knew this just from the flag and the van?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Do you know Thornberry btw a8?


I've met her a couple of times for work that's all


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> UKIP and the Tories will be the ones who make mileage out of this kind of inaccurate (or wildly exaggerated) picture of what Labour - all of it - really thinks.  It serves their agenda.


What's that got to do with what i said? It's sand in the eye issue-shifting away from your self-serving view of what large parts of the w/c thinks about people like you and your party - and that you're doing a great job of re-inforcing here.

Speaking of not being able to see out of your bubble, is your new role as administrator of the Labour Representation Committee a paid position?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I've met her a couple of times for work that's all


Thanks so much for declaring your interests before wading in then.


----------



## youngian (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Bollocks - who would have remembered an innocuous tweet


Lynton Crosby, Farage, every national newspaper, the BBC, guff fest daytime TV shows, radio phone-ins. The story is that Miliband sacked her promptly. Nobody died and Thornberry just needs to keep her head down for a few months. I personally prefer politics in the mass media to be all serious worthy debate about issues but it ain't going to happen. The man has said he felt insulted and probably all his neighbours with their "ghastly working class faux neo-classical columns" did as well.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What's that got to do with what i said? It's sand in the eye issue-shifting away from your self-serving view of what large parts of the w/c thinks about people like you and your party - and that you're doing a great job of re-inforcing here.


It's being promoted by people with anti w/c agendas, and it's not accurate for the most part.  



> Speaking of not being able to see out of your bubble, is your new role as administrator of the Labour Representation Committee a paid position?


I wish - is it fuck!


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Thanks so much for declaring your interests before wading in then.


how is that an "interest" - we disagreed sharply on electoral reform, so it's hardly as if we're best mates or anything.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

youngian said:


> Lynton Crosby, Farage, every national newspaper, the BBC, guff fest daytime TV shows, radio phone-ins. The story is that Miliband sacked her promptly. Nobody died and Thornberry just needs to keep her head down for a few months. I personally prefer politics in the mass media to be all serious worthy debate about issues but it ain't going to happen.


Sacking her has fuelled all that, and made it look like Labour has a problem with snobbery.   There was nothing for her to apologise for.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> It's being promoted by people with anti w/c agendas, and it's not accurate for the most part.



Of course it is - and it's been put there exactly by the sort of snobby liberal anti-w/c views of a leading member of your party - views you are simultaneously defending and denying actually exist. You - and the prevalence of these sort of views in your circle - and why these people are able to do this.

I repeat - the defenders of this on here aside from you are taffboy and awesome wells - two posters with notoriously snobby liberal anti-w/c views. Does that not make you stop and think?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> how is that an "interest" - we disagreed sharply on electoral reform, so it's hardly as if we're best mates or anything.


We've seen the range of people you claim to disagree with who you defend after meeting them professionally - Ben Bradshaw, Rachael Reeves, her laduship - and yes, at that point it becomes an interest. Esp when in this case thornberry is clearly a cipher for yourself.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> And Emily knew this just from the flag and the van?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Could you answer this one please articul8 as it gets right to the heart of the matter.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> how is that an "interest" - we disagreed sharply on electoral reform, so it's hardly as if we're best mates or anything.



Please don't use sharply in that way - it makes you sound like an SWP or CP goon


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> . Esp when in this case thornberry is clearly a cipher for yourself.



Wtf?  How?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Wtf?  How?


Yeah, right.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Could you answer this one please articul8 as it gets right to the heart of the matter.


She took a picture that she believed captured the political mood at a byelection at a particular point in time, when UKIP had been talking about repatriation to appeal to a right wing working class section of the electorate that might previously have voted Tory or BNP.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah, right.



Err, I can tell you that I am in no way part of the social set that includes Islington barristers?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> She took a picture that she believed captured the political mood at a byelection at a particular point in time, when UKIP had been talking about repatriation to appeal to a right wing working class section of the electorate that might previously have voted Tory or BNP.


Could you have a go at answering the question Louis asked you instead of offering a load of defensive waffle.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Err, I can tell you that I am in no way part of the social set that includes Islington barristers?


I wasn't talking about a social set, i was talking about a shared snobby anti-w/c liberalism, a defence of a common worldview - that you share it with that social set is another thing that should have you questioning yourself.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Could you have a go at answering the question Louis asked you instead of offering a load of defensive waffle.


She didn't know.  She didn't claim that she knew about this guy. But he wasn't some mispresented joe normal - he was an overtly racist wanker.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> She took a picture that she believed captured the political mood at a byelection at a particular point in time, when UKIP had been talking about repatriation to appeal to a right wing working class section of the electorate that might previously have voted Tory or BNP.



Did Emily know he was a 'racist cunt' just by looking at the flags and the van? Would you be able to read those signs in the same way?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I wasn't talking about a social set, i was talking about a shared snobby anti-w/c liberalism, a defence of a common worldview - that you share it with that social set is another thing that should have you questioning yourself.


On what basis are you attributing anti/wc snobbery either to me, or to her, whatever our political differences?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Did Emily know he was a 'racist cunt' just by looking at the flags and the van? Would you be able to read those signs in the same way?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


No and no.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> She didn't know.  She didn't claim that she knew about this guy. But he wasn't some mispresented joe normal - he was an overtly racist wanker.


So that's a yes, it's ok to make assumptions that people who live in normal houses with football flags in the window and who drive white work vans are racist.

The labour party ladies and gentlemen - _the labour party._


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> She took a picture that she believed captured the political mood at a byelection at a particular point in time, when UKIP had been talking about repatriation to appeal to a right wing working class section of the electorate that might previously have voted Tory or BNP.



It's a picture of what can be any street, anywhere in the country, at any time.

But thats not the real issue. Its the assumptions made by Thornberry by doing so, which you are also defending and seem to share.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> On what basis are you attributing anti/wc snobbery either to me, or to her, whatever our political differences?


Your defence of snobby liberal anti-w/c assumptions about people with football flags in windows of normal houses and who drive white work vans. Simple.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> She didn't know.  She didn't claim that she knew about this guy. But he wasn't some mispresented joe normal - he was an overtly racist wanker.



So she didn't know; so as far as your concerned she just got lucky and it was a generalisation worth making. 

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So she didn't know; so as far as your concerned she just got lucky and it was a generalisation worth making.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



One that he would encourage others - maybe others more educated - to make in their wider political activity it seems.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> One that he would encourage others - maybe others more educated - to make in their wider political activity it seems.



It would certainly help to know which doors are worth knocking on and which ones can be written off as 'not one of ours'. 

It would also save listening to the concerns of people who have nothing to say, and it would save time spreading the good news to those who don't want to hear...hallelujah!

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Coolfonz (Nov 22, 2014)

The tweet didn't kill anyone and yes, it was an actual picture of an actual house.

But it is just a continuation of X decades when basically next to no politician has talked to "traditional working class" people in the UK.

Personally I think so much of this bullshit could have been avoided years ago if any politicians had actually made a point of talking directly to working class folk but they had zero interest in doing so. Especially Labour. (They preferred bombing working class people, albeit in other countries.)

Ukip have stepped into this vacuum and are exploiting it very well. Simple message, not wrapped up in bullshit language, no lifestyling crap the left are obsessed with.

And you end up with a Labour MP thinking it a good idea politically not only to photograph the house for some form of amusement but then publish the photo.

And the two people I know in the Labour party (just ordinary members) are almost completely the same.

One tried to introduce fair trade coffee into his (public sector) office a few years ago "the Africans, even the Africans didn't want it. 'Ooh we like Nescafe it tastes better' ." Seriously that is a quote.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> She took a picture that *she believed captured the political mood* at a byelection at a particular point in time, when UKIP had been talking about repatriation to appeal to a right wing working class section of the electorate that *might* previously have voted Tory or BNP.



If the bits I've bolded are true, it just encapsulates the assumptions of someone in that bubble. Detached, unlike the house.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So that's a yes, it's ok to make assumptions that people who live in normal houses with football flags in the window and who drive white work vans are racist.
> 
> The labour party ladies and gentlemen - _the labour party._


No - it wasn't about the individual (although as it happened his attitudes did reflect her general point) but about the mood of the byelection and the reactionary appeal UKIP was making to the white working class.  Since when has the flag-waving Sun reading white van man been an archetype of working class political consciousness?  You are reflecting the right wing tabloid assumptions yourself.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

eatmorecheese said:


> If the bits I've bolded are true, it just encapsulates the assumptions of someone in that bubble. Detached, unlike the house.


you don't think there was a right wing appeal to backward layers in w/c consciousness going on in Rochester?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No - it wasn't about the individual (although as it happened his attitudes did reflect her general point) but about the mood of the byelection and the reactionary appeal UKIP was making to the white working class.  Since when has the flag-waving Sun reading white van man been an archetype of working class political consciousness?  You are reflecting the right wing tabloid assumptions yourself.



How do you know what his attitudes were? You sound like you have heard this from somebody who spoke to him, but are unwilling to reveal your source or even admit that you have a source.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So she didn't know; so as far as your concerned she just got lucky and it was a generalisation worth making.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


It was specific to a very particular context.  The only ones who are attempting to make it into a dismisssal of the working class in generals are the political opponents of the Labour Party.  Which is why Miliband was stupid to make it a sackable offence - as it would seem to "confirm" there is a general problem..


----------



## eatmorecheese (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> you don't think there was a right wing appeal to backward layers in w/c consciousness going on in Rochester?



No, not what I'm saying. The detachment comes from assuming that a house displaying flags with a white van parked outside has a racist dwelling inside, and then defending that shit in later tweets.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> *No - it wasn't about the individual (although as it happened his attitudes did reflect her general point) but about the mood of the byelection and the reactionary appeal UKIP* was making to the white working class.  *Since when has the flag-waving Sun reading white van man been an archetype of working class political consciousness? * You are reflecting the right wing tabloid assumptions yourself.



1. Bullshit! It was saying look what we're up against; tasteless, white, racist and working class.

2. The photo said nothing about what paper he read; so we can add your ability to discern newspaper choice from surface appearance. We'll leave aside for the moment the assumption that Sun readership equals reactionary politics.

You're not making things better.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 22, 2014)

eatmorecheese said:


> No, not what I'm saying. The detachment comes from assuming that a house displaying flags with a white van parked outside has a racist dwelling inside, and then defending that shit in later tweets.



Thank you for putting it so neatly.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> How do you know what his attitudes were? You sound like you have heard this from somebody who spoke to him, but are unwilling to reveal your source or even admit that you have a source.





> the Telegraph quoted him as saying. “I will continue to fly the flags – I don’t care who it pisses off. I know there is a lot of ethnic minorities that don’t like it. They have been up since the World Cup.”


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/21/van-driver-emily-thornberry-tweet-shes-a-snob


----------



## andysays (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> this is where that blue labour shite gets you.  Respect the flag, that's what proles like.



I would actually be very surprised if Milliband was referring to respecting the flag, though maybe you can ask him the next time you bump into him or send him a tweet or something.

What about the idea of respecting the electorate and not passing judgement on people on the basis of their front gardens? That's what most people like, rather than being dismissed or ridiculed by the likes of Thornberry.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

eatmorecheese said:


> No, not what I'm saying. The detachment comes from assuming that a house displaying flags with a white van parked outside has a racist dwelling inside, and then defending that shit in later tweets.


she made no such assumption - she used the image to denote the political mood in Rochester on that day, not as an indictment of that guy himself (although - felicitously - he was a racist cunt!)


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> It was specific to a very particular context.  The only ones who are attempting to make it into a dismisssal of the working class in generals are the political opponents of the Labour Party.  Which is why Miliband was stupid to make it a sackable offence - as it would seem to "confirm" there is a general problem..



So it's just in Rochester that a white van and a St George's flag denote white,  working class racist; I didn't realise that the ability to infer from surface appearances was that refined...do tell us more.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 22, 2014)

Not merely the assumptions and detachment, it's also the failure by Labour to then connect and try to understand the concerns of w/c people should they happen to express such, look to change attitudes and offer solutions.

Obviously this is best achieved by dismissing said people as simply 'racist cunts'.

I bet the bloke concerned has more black mates than Thornberry btw.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/21/van-driver-emily-thornberry-tweet-shes-a-snob



Sounds more like bravado than out and out racism.


----------



## youngian (Nov 22, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> Ukip have stepped into this vacuum and are exploiting it very well. Simple message, not wrapped up in bullshit language, no lifestyling crap the left are obsessed with.


UKIP is very much a lifestyle identity politics party rather than one of bread and butter economic and social issues that win elections. Anti-EU nonsense is largely abstract to most people and so is immigration in a town like Clacton where it is under 4 per cent of the population.

For most working class C2 voters in urban and marginal constituencies, UKIP have a bad smell about them and little to offer. There were plenty of people in the 80s railing about Labour abandoning its working class roots. Unfortunately most working class people were not enamoured by Scargill and Derek Hatton's proletarian shock troops and decided to switch in droves to voting for poncey wine drinking Europhile Metropolitan elitists like Roy Jenkins and Shirley Williams.

None of that justifies New Labour taking on the Thatcherite mantra that democracy is about a simple majority and its OK to leave 20 per cent of the population struggling. The fact that a rancid outfit like UKIP can pick up disgruntled Labour votes (not that many though) is not a cause for celebration


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So it's just in Rochester that a white van and a St George's flag denote white,  working class racist; I didn't realise that the ability to infer from surface appearances was refined...do tell us more.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Her tweet was about the mood following UKIP's talk about repatriation, and who anti-immigrant rhetoric was calculated to appeal to in the context of a byelection.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No - it wasn't about the individual (although as it happened his attitudes did reflect her general point) but about the mood of the byelection and the reactionary appeal UKIP was making to the white working class.  Since when has the flag-waving Sun reading white van man been an archetype of working class political consciousness?  You are reflecting the right wing tabloid assumptions yourself.


Classless lies and shameless twisting. Where on earth did you learn to do this? Oh yeah...the labour party.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Sounds more like bravado than out and out racism.


He's not even working class really - he's a used car dealer.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Her tweet was about the mood following UKIP's talk about repatriation, and who anti-immigrant rhetoric was calculated to appeal to in the context of a byelection.


No  it wasn't. As wellyou know. And as she said herself - she claimed to simply have never seen any such thing as house with some flags on it and that was all (which was a lie). You're making yourself look very very dishonest here.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> He's not even working class really - he's a used car dealer.


Again, something else she magically divined without actually knowing. Keep digging.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

Seriously, well done articul8 - you've brilliantly demonstrated why this isn't a problem with just one individual close to the leadership in labour - that it actually extends to central figures and assumptions what remains of the labour left as well. Brilliant work. Someone should sign you up to work in politics or something.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

You are advancing a narrative that is being promoted by the Sun, and designed to benefit UKIP and the Tory right.  You can justify that to yourself if you want, but for Miliband and Labour sacking Thornberry is an own goal.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 22, 2014)

People who aren't 'one of ours':

Any one displaying a St George's flag;
Anyone driving a white van;
People who sell cars for living;
People who 'do up' their porches;
All Sun readers.

Please feel free to add to the list; this is the sort of stuff we need to know.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> You are advancing a narrative that is being promoted by the Sun, and designed to benefit UKIP and the Tory right.  You can justify that to yourself if you want, but for Miliband and Labour sacking Thornberry is an own goal.


I'm laughing at you and your expert political advice and the way you twist to defend her/yourself and your assumptions. I'm not laughing that you and your party have those assumptions though - because i know the damage they have done and will do in the future.

Look at the way people have seen through you in short time here - what do you think people outside of here are doing? It seems they don't really matter to you and your bubble though.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> You are advancing a narrative that is being promoted by the Sun, and designed to benefit UKIP and the Tory right.  You can justify that to yourself if you want, but for Miliband and Labour sacking Thornberry is an own goal.



No you're doing that; it's you narrative that white working class men with white vans, St George's flags and done up porches are racist cunts (or at least in Rochester they are). One of my narratives is the same as Bo's; you do get why this narrative matters don't you?



Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> He's not even working class really - he's a used car dealer.


----------



## Sue (Nov 22, 2014)

Christ.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

...and this sort of nonsense is one way the blairite professionals managed to get themselves into the leading organisational and campaigning positions in the party in the early 90s - because of the basic political headcasery and naivety of people like articul8 that more sensible types could see was going to drive them off a cliff. And he does it in defence of a class based analysis, in defence of class politics. (Not sure he knows which class mind)


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> People who aren't 'one of ours':
> 
> Any one displaying a St George's flag;
> Anyone driving a white van;
> ...


I haven't said any of this, although I don't think that Sun reading flag waving used car salesmen are the yardstick of working class opinion, that's true enough.   The people in Labour who think we need to appeal to the most backwards section of w/c opinion are precisely those on the right who want to make concessions to UKIP on immigration etc rather than tackle big capital.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I think Thornberry could have just handed the GE to the Tories, this is a Gillian Duffy moment. Her resignation means very little given her proximity to Miliband.
> 
> ETA: as the tipping point of course not the sole reason obviously



I'm not sure that Thornberry's crassness is the factor that will do what you claim above, although it may be *represented*, especially by the Labour Party itself post-election, as the key factor.  The wider class she sees the flags as representing is already alienated from the Labour Party, and not because some piss-arsed middle-class snob tweets contemptuously about them, rather because Labour hasn't even pretended to have the class's interests as a priority for decades now.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I haven't said any of this, although I don't think that *Sun reading flag waving used car salesmen are the yardstick of working class opinion*, that's true enough.   The people in Labour who think we need to appeal to *the most backwards section of w/c opinion* are precisely those on the right who want to make concessions to UKIP on immigration etc rather than tackle big capital.



You can't help yourself can you and what's more worrying is that you don't seem to be able to see yourself doing it...again and again and again.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

this whole thing is a distraction - as the tabloids, Tories and UKIP well know.  Rather than saying how much he likes flags and white vans, Miliband should be putting forward policies which resonate with working class experiences - scrap the public sector pay freeze, £10 an hour minimum wage, scrap zero hours contracts, tax the rich, all that.


----------



## cesare (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> this whole thing is a distraction - as the tabloids, Tories and UKIP well know.  Rather than saying how much he likes flags and white vans, Miliband should be putting forward policies which resonate with working class experiences - scrap the public sector pay freeze, £10 an hour minimum wage, scrap zero hours contracts, tax the rich, all that.


He can't say that cos any fule no he ain't gonna do it


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

THAT's the problem - not tweets about flags


----------



## cesare (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> THAT's the problem - not tweets about flags


Rubbish. The tweets about the flags and subsequent fallout/defence - that you don't identify as a problem - indicate that there's a slice of the LP that see the w/c as a problem to be managed.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> THAT's the problem - not tweets about flags


And how do you think this will go down with that section of the w/c who live in normal houses and fly football flags and drive white work vans who think - partly because of the crap you've written above and the attitude that it demonstrates is alive and well in your party and partly based on actual lived experience - that you don't give a shit about them beyond thinking they're racists and so on? You really do not get it do you? And you're employed because you're have to have some political insight - astonishing really.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

No but reactionary populist appeals to prejudices of all classes are a big problem to be dealt with, and only a positive alternative grounded in working class communities can deal with it.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And how do you think this will go down with that section of the w/c who live in normal houses and fly football flags and rive white work vans who think - partly because of the crap you've written above and the attitude that it demonstrates is alive and well in your party and partly based on actual lived experience - that you don't give a shit about them beyond thinking they're racists and so on?


That is not true at all.  See above


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No but reactionary populist appeals to prejudices of all classes are a big problem to be dealt with, and only a positive alternative grounded in working class communities can deal with it.


Now you're back into nice sound fluffy banalities - and the nastiness of the snobby liberal anti-w/c attitudes can go back under the expensive but tasteful persian rug.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> That is not true at all.  See above


There is precisely nothing to see above.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> this whole thing is a distraction - as the tabloids, Tories and UKIP well know.  Rather than saying how much he likes flags and white vans, Miliband should be putting forward policies which resonate with working class experiences - scrap the public sector pay freeze, £10 an hour minimum wage, scrap zero hours contracts, tax the rich, all that.



A really poor attempted side step .

Not only is Miliband not my leader, the Labour party isn't a solution; so your anguish is not my problem. However your continued insistence on being able to tell someone's politics from their mode of transport, choice of news paper or home décor is a problem for you...especially as you don't seem to be able to recognise as such.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## cesare (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No but reactionary populist appeals to prejudices of all classes are a big problem to be dealt with, and only a positive alternative grounded in working class communities can deal with it.


What kind of double-speak is this? You now try and wriggle out of it by suddenly extending this to "all classes" in the vain hope that people will run with that rather than what you were saying previously about "backwards sections of the w/c" (paraphrased).


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No but reactionary populist appeals to prejudices of all classes are a big problem to be dealt with, and only a positive alternative *grounded in working class communities* can deal with it.



So long as they get rid of the flags, the white vans and the Sun; will you be providing an inoculation service so that these backward elements can be cured?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

Prejudices exist in all classes - including elements of the w/c.  Not that markers of class identity are markers of reactionary ideas.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Prejudices exist in all classes - including elements of the w/c.  Not that markers of class identity are markers of reactionary ideas.


what about markers of ruling class identity? surely they would be by definition reactionary?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2014)

meurig said:


> It's because of the way this plays in England - Westminster is shot in terms of its cultural links to the populace, and this exacerbates it. The electorate has largely has itself to blame of course, but that's not the way they'll see it.



So the people have alienated themselves from Westminster, rather than _vice versa_?
I'd contend the opposite: That Westminster has, through the pursuit of neoliberal economic policy on both sides of both Houses, alienated the electorate, and that the use of methods of triangulation to shape policy, allied to viewing policy as a "vote-catcher" rather than a social tool, has reduced the need for politicians to pay any attention to the electorate to the minimum.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Prejudices exist in all classes - including elements of the w/c.  Not that markers of class identity are markers of reactionary ideas.


Make  your mind up articul8. And get those Celtic flags and irish flags off yourself.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Prejudices exist in all classes - including elements of the w/c.  *Not that markers of class identity are markers of reactionary ideas.*



Just in Rochester at the moment...apparently. Please at least try to get your story straight.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## cesare (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Prejudices exist in all classes - including elements of the w/c.  Not that markers of class identity are markers of reactionary ideas.


You're doing it again.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Make  your mind up articul8. And get those Celtic flags and irish flags off yourself.


Irish flags aren't what's being discussed.  English flags don't automatically denote racism.  But racists are more likely to fly them exuberantly in a context where politicians have been calling for the repatriation of immigrants.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Irish flags aren't what's being discussed.  English flags don't automatically denote racism.  But racists are more likely to fly them exuberantly in a context where politicians have been calling for the repatriation if immigrants.



In that link you put up before it said he had put the flag up during the world cup and hadn't bothered to take it down. At what point did it stop signifying support for the England football team and start signifying the racism of the flag flyer? After the Uruguay game presumably.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Irish flags aren't what's being discussed.  English flags don't automatically denote racism.  But racists are more likely to fly them exuberantly in a context where politicians have been calling for the repatriation of immigrants.



And thats what the bloke in Rochester was doing? Or is it that the framing has actually been made/reinforced by the likes of Thornberry? I seem to recall reading he wasn't even particularly political or interested in the election.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

He is political enough to be happy to piss off ethnic minorities... And be used by the Sun to attack Labour


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> its only a matter of time until Phillip 'fred westalike' Hollobone takes the purple and reigns my town for farange



He was on R4 news t'other day for a sound-bite about something or other. He even *sounds* like a cat-strangler!


----------



## cesare (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> He is political enough to be happy to piss off ethnic minorities... And be used by the Sun to attack Labour


He was pissed off that some fucking MP took a photo of his home and van including its registration number.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Irish flags aren't what's being discussed.  English flags don't automatically denote racism.  But racists are more likely to fly them exuberantly in a context where politicians have been calling for the repatriation of immigrants.



You don't even know what's really being discussed - nor did Thornberry - that's why it's been so revealing to those with eyes to see. And that includes Miliband. Imagine that, Miliband was more politically sussed than you, more tactically sussed than you, more in tune with what this idiocy meant in terms of his parties relationship with the w/c than you, and more honest about how widespread this cack is within your party than you. 

And you're the red hot socialist.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

Miliband has made a big error, totally unnecessary and counter-productive


----------



## eatmorecheese (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Irish flags aren't what's being discussed.  English flags don't automatically denote racism.  But racists are more likely to fly them exuberantly in a context where politicians have been calling for the repatriation of immigrants.



English flags have been displayed "exuberantly" in this country since Euro 96 or thereabouts, as far as I can tell. It'd be different seeing those flags in Islington, though. 

Can't be bothered with this.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> He is political enough to be happy to piss off ethnic minorities... And be used by the Sun to attack Labour


the bloke inside the house could've been a full-on Nazi and Thornberry would still be wrong for exactly the same reason.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Miliband has made a big error, totally unnecessary and counter-productive


Christ, i hope for labour's sake you're never involved in organising any electoral tactics. In fact, for their sake, i pray you never go out on the doorstep.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 22, 2014)

Its actually good for Labour she tweeted the picture, it has brought all this out into the open a few months before the GE, just the right length of time for the impetus not to be lost. What Labour need to do now is to bring other more credible MPs into the picture(if they have any)those that can talk the talk to those potential voters they need to listen to them. Farage can do this, so can Obama, Michael Foot could, Blair could & so could Enoch Powell, nothing to do with what politics the speaker has or even their ultimate success as a politician, its just the ability to deliver a good speech that holds the attention without listeners thinking, wtf? Who is this twat? What a weirdo.

& this good orator needs to spell out clearly policies with sums that all add up. One could argue good public speaking is useless if the policies can be taken apart & ridiculed but nonetheless the success of UKIP so far shows Farage by the ability to deliver a good speech has convinced his target potential voters to vote UKIP even if much of what he actually says is patently bollocks. Nu Labour did all that before the '97 GE. Blair talked the talk, the sums added up & they got a result. Who could do that now? Hard to say, perhaps Chuka Umunna, perhaps Andy Burnham? I don't know really but its what needs to happen. Those within the party including Articul8 must know this & they need to move on from the petty arguments over this specific incident & spell out policies clearly & concisely. If the combined brains of Labour high command cannot get this together in the next few months starting right now then they deserve to fail.


----------



## agricola (Nov 22, 2014)

eatmorecheese said:


> English flags have been displayed "exuberantly" in this country since Euro 96 or thereabouts, as far as I can tell. It'd be different seeing those flags in Islington, though.
> 
> Can't be bothered with this.



TBH in Islington they are known as "bandiera di Genova".

(edited to correct spelling)


----------



## eatmorecheese (Nov 22, 2014)

agricola said:


> TBH in Islington they are known as "bandieri di Genova".


----------



## Belushi (Nov 22, 2014)

I still occasionally think perhaps I should rejoin Labour, then articul8's posts always remind why I left.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

There has always been an element of w/c opinion hostile to Labour - who voted NF or for Thatcher or whatever.  These people aren't going to be won and it would be stupid to try.  We need to mobilise people who would if we gave a proper lead on class issues.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 22, 2014)

cesare said:


> He was pissed off that some fucking MP took a photo of his home and van including its registration number.



Quite. Having seen his peace/privacy shattered by an MP typically throwing around entitlement and assuming him to be 'all sorts', and the resulting media scrum, and yet its boohoo the Labour Party is being attacked.

Besides, the quote I read, is hardly one of somebody with a strong political/racist ideology, more the sort of remark said when you're really peeved by something and you've suddenly got newspapers on your doorstep wanting a story.

The issue anyway is, as Articul8 lays bare, is Labour's utter detachment from, and attitude towards everyday people.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> There has always been an element of w/c opinion hostile to Labour - who voted NF or for Thatcher or whatever.  These people aren't going to be won and it would be stupid to try.  We need to mobilise people who would if we gave a proper lead on class issues.


Excellent - when are you and lady thornberry going out to mark crosses on the doors of heretics? Are you going to provide an easy to follow manual or handbook of identifying these scum without talking or seeing them?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Irish flags aren't what's being discussed.  English flags don't automatically denote racism.  But racists are more likely to fly them exuberantly in a context where politicians have been calling for the repatriation of immigrants.



You could detect exuberance of the flag flying in Emily's tweeted photo...wow!

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> There has always been an element of w/c opinion hostile to Labour - who voted NF or for Thatcher or whatever.  These people aren't going to be won and it would be stupid to try.  We need to mobilise people who would if we gave a proper lead on class issues.



Of course, because people's politics are _that fucking simple_.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

Who the fuck are "everyday people" - are you Miliband in disguise?   and that racist cunt can go fuck himself


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> There has always been an element of w/c opinion hostile to Labour - who voted NF or for Thatcher or whatever.  These people aren't going to be won and it would be stupid to try.  We need to mobilise people who would if we gave a proper lead on class issues.


You(we)need somebody who can talk the talk & deliver the right(deliverable)policies. Potential Labour voters I know(if they could be persuaded to vote)are not interested in 'class issues' they just want ordinary things like a decent affordable place to live. Why cannot Labour deliver a large nationwide programme of council house building, paid for with the money that is about to be wasted on HS2?


----------



## Coolfonz (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I haven't said any of this, although I don't think that Sun reading flag waving used car salesmen are the yardstick of working class opinion, that's true enough.   The people in Labour who think we need to appeal to the most backwards section of w/c opinion are precisely those on the right who want to make concessions to UKIP on immigration etc rather than tackle big capital.


Who the flying fuck in Labour wants to "tackle big capital"? For crying out loud. What a fantasy.

"a positive alternative grounded in working class communities"

This is also bollocks. A year ago in Spain Podemos weren't even formed. They didn't need to be `grounded` in anything - the financial crisis did it for them - they just needed to be organised and not fucking gob on about "socialism" or "working class" or how clever they think they are or whether they do the recycling/eat organic food.

And not blow up kids in foreign adventure wars. That also helps.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> There has always been an element of w/c opinion hostile to Labour - who voted NF or for Thatcher or whatever.  These people aren't going to be won and it would be stupid to try.  We need to mobilise people who would if we gave a proper lead on class issues.



And you can tell who they are by their flags and their vans and their newspapers; they are not one of ours and as such should be shunned. You're just parodying yourself now right?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## eatmorecheese (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> There has always been an element of w/c opinion hostile to Labour - who voted NF or for Thatcher or whatever.  These people aren't going to be won and it would be stupid to try.  We need to mobilise people who would if we gave a proper lead on class issues.



How do you mobilise those you are targeting to support your case on that street by taking pictures of their neighbours house and treating the view as an exotic tourist? The human zoo of Rochester? Just politically inept.It disturbs me that you can't get this. Target demographics are porous, with shades of opinion put in various contexts. This just writes people off.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

SaskiaJayne said:


> You(we)need somebody who can talk the talk & deliver the right(deliverable)policies. Potential Labour voters I know(if they could be persuaded to vote)are not interested in 'class issues' they just want ordinary things like a decent affordable place to live. Why cannot Labour deliver a large nationwide programme of council house building, paid for with the money that is about to be wasted on HS2?


Things like properly affordable homes are what I mean by "class issues" - an agenda that would really make a difference for millions.  Not chasing the tail of other parties racing off to the right


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Who the fuck are "everyday people" - are you Miliband in disguise?   and that racist cunt can go fuck himself



Laid bare.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Things like properly affordable homes are what I mean by "class issues" - an agenda that would really make a difference for millions.  Not chasing the tail of other parties racing off to the right



So fucking do it then. Oh wait.


----------



## Coolfonz (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Prejudices exist in all classes - including elements of the w/c.  Not that markers of class identity are markers of reactionary ideas.


You just said they were!! You just said "blah blah and the guy was a racist blah blah." Flags/vans etc.

Tackling big capital is still cracking me up as well.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 22, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> "a positive alternative grounded in working class communities"
> 
> This is also bollocks. A year ago in Spain Podemos weren't even formed. They didn't need to be `grounded` in anything - the financial crisis did it for them - they just needed to be organised and not fucking gob on about "socialism" or "working class" or how clever they think they are or whether they do the recycling/eat organic food.


This is bollocks btw.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

The problem is with Miliband and the leadership's failure not to mobilise support for a radical alternative not some mythical contempt for the w/c


----------



## agricola (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> The problem is with Miliband and the leadership's failure not to mobilise support for a radical alternative not some mythical contempt for the w/c



It is entirely possible that the first state of affairs came about because of the second, though.  Lets face it, this week they havent exactly suggested they value the contribution of people outside of the Westminster bubble.


----------



## Coolfonz (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> The problem is with Miliband and the leadership's failure not to mobilise support for a radical alternative not some mythical contempt for the w/c


But they aren't interested in an alternative are they. It's the Labour party.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Things like properly affordable homes are what I mean by "class issues" - an agenda that would really make a difference for millions.  Not chasing the tail of other parties racing off to the right


You need to talk in terms that those who take no interest in politics understand. Surely you must agree that you need to spell out credible policies to potential voters? Balls & Milliband et al have no hope of doing that. You need somebody who can, you must be educated & intelligent, surely you can see that? I am desperately still trying to stay a Labour supporter, a party I have supported all my life, I see young folk with families who have no hope of affording decent housing & I weep for them. Stop spouting about class & tell us what you are going to do about it. How hard is it to build council houses & have some sort of rent control?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

Of course it is possible - but it would mean taking on the interests of the City, property developers and landlords


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> The problem is with Miliband and the leadership's failure not to mobilise support for a radical alternative not some mythical contempt for the w/c



Do you think the contempt feels mythical to:


all those people on housing waiting lists or enduring the precariousness of 'assured short hold tenancies';
all those trade unionist 'enjoying' some of the lowest levels or organisational rights in the industrialised world;
every person bullied by fitness to work tests;
every person humiliated by the demand to chase non-existent job opportunities; 
all the care workers on minimum wage;
all the health service workers working second jobs to make ends meet;
and all the pensioners choosing between food or heating?
I could go on and on. The Labour Party - the one that wants to form a government - is happy to accept these people's votes and even use some of their stories to tug on heart strings, but it doesn't fundamentally commit itself to pursue their interests. It has even given up on the vision of social democratic radical reform preferring instead to manage the status quo. Far from being mythical the contempt is palpable.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Do you think the contempt feels mythical to:
> 
> 
> all those people on housing waiting lists or enduring the precariousness of 'assured short hold tenancies';
> ...


This is a different level of argument and infinitely more serious than tweets about flags and vans.  I'd argue that there isn't this sense of active contempt, but a false belief itis unable to do otherwise than allow these conditions to develop.  This is the level on which Labour needs to restablish credibility though, not respecting vans


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Of course it is possible - but it would mean taking on the interests of the City, property developers and landlords


If Labour got elected then you would be the governmen & of course you could take them on & win. Are you going to spell this out clearly as Labour policy in the run up to the GE? I think it would be a vote winner, don't you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2014)

stethoscope said:


> Not merely the assumptions and detachment, it's also the failure by Labour to then connect and try to understand the concerns of w/c people should they happen to express such, look to change attitudes and offer solutions.
> 
> Obviously this is best achieved by dismissing said people as simply 'racist cunts'.



It's easier to dismiss people as "racist cunts" than admit that while you rely on their vote to return Labour MPs, you really don't give a chihuahua's cock about what happens to them between GEs.



> I bet the bloke concerned has more black mates than Thornberry btw.



Likely, given how swathes of Islington are nowadays solidly affluent white middle-class in the way Surbiton used to be thought to be.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 22, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Do you think the contempt feels mythical to:
> 
> 
> all those people on housing waiting lists or enduring the precariousness of 'assured short hold tenancies';
> ...


and it's bewildering that many people on the left can't see the connections between these policies and the attitudes behind them and this episode.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> and it's bewildering that many people on the left can't see the connections between these policies and the attitudes behind them and this episode.


In this case it not in articul8's interest to see it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Her tweet was about the mood following UKIP's talk about repatriation, and who anti-immigrant rhetoric was calculated to appeal to in the context of a byelection.



So, by your own admission, her tweet basically played on UKIP's rhetoric by positioning "person with Cross of St George flags and West Ham flag" as being someone who'd obviously be amenable to "anti-immigrant rhetoric". Which means she's either too naive to be allowed to go out on her own, let alone be an MP, or she was playing to a presumed audience who also believe that people with Cross of St. George flags are likely amenable to anti-immigrant rhetoric.

Nice people you associate with.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> This is a different level of argument and infinitely more serious than tweets about flags and vans.  I'd argue that there isn't this sense of active contempt, but a false belief itis unable to do otherwise than allow these conditions to develop.  This is the level on which Labour needs to restablish credibility though, not respecting vans


I think I pointed that out earlier. If you say it is false belief, then indeed you can do something about it. I think the problem is that the wealthy Labour elite don't want to because they are happy just to collect their salaries(provided they retain their seats)& amass resonable wealth. They see themselves as part of the political class & are happy to remain as that even if they remain in opposition. There is no fire in them, no desire to make things better for the working class. This was well illustrated in 2008, at that point after the banking crash with capitalists as the arch villians Gordon Brown had the opportunity to call a GE with a radical left wing agenda & the whole country would have been behind him, I think. But he didn't, probably because he knew that he would never be poor.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> He's not even working class really - he's a used car dealer.



My dad was a "used car dealer" - he used to buy cars from auctions, do them up and sell them on. That doesn't mean he had a car lot with a forecourt full of cars, it mean he had tools, a hoist and a garage, plus some welding kit, and knew how to use them to make some "pin money" - all those being skills that ground a person firmly within the working class _milieu_.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2014)

Sue said:


> Christ.



You'd think articul8 would be embarrassed, wouldn't you?


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> In this case it not in articul8's interest to see it.


Perhaps he really is Ed Balls?


----------



## eatmorecheese (Nov 22, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Do you think the contempt feels mythical to:
> 
> 
> all those people on housing waiting lists or enduring the precariousness of 'assured short hold tenancies';
> ...



Well said


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> This is a different level of argument and infinitely more serious than tweets about flags and vans.  I'd argue that there isn't this sense of active contempt, but a false belief itis unable to do otherwise than allow these conditions to develop.  This is the level on which Labour needs to restablish credibility though, not respecting vans



I'm not saying it's about respecting vans you disingenuous numpty. I'm saying it is about not dismissing whole swathes of the working class because of what you erroneously read into certain items and practices. 

The contempt is spelled out in your own post. It is contemptuous to ask people to vote for you while simultaneously believing that you can't do anything about the 'conditions' they face; to do so is seeking their votes for your advantage not theirs.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 22, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's easier to dismiss people as "racist cunts" than admit that while you rely on their vote to return Labour MPs, you really don't give a chihuahua's cock about what happens to them between GEs.



That's mythical contempt that is.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> THAT's the problem - not tweets about flags



So the problem resides in the fact that Labour do not have, and within their current structure are *unable to have*, policies that appeal to working-class voters.
And this is the party you believe can be reformed from inside to become a party of the working class, even though there are no mechanisms through which this can be done, and plenty of mechanisms preventing the establishment of any tools to render the party more democratic?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I'm not saying it's about respecting vans you disingenuous numpty. I'm saying it is about not dismissing whole swathes of the working class because of what you erroneously read into certain items and practices.
> 
> The contempt is spelled out in your own post. It is contemptuous to ask people to vote for you while simultaneously believing that you can't do anything about the 'conditions' they face; to do so is seeking their votes for your advantage not theirs.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


That isn't my view, I believe Labour can and should make a real difference.  The real contempt is from people like Miliband who want to seem sympathetic to cultural markers of class identity whilst actively blocking policies which would demonstrate real respect.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2014)

cesare said:


> Rubbish. The tweets about the flags and subsequent fallout/defence - that you don't identify as a problem - indicate that there's a slice of the LP that see the w/c as a problem to be managed.



As sheep to be manouvered into a polling booth occasionally, and left to rot the rest of the time, Labour's insecure-incomed sink of tribal voters.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 22, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> My dad was a "used car dealer" - he used to buy cars from auctions, do them up and sell them on. That doesn't mean he had a car lot with a forecourt full of cars, it mean he had tools, a hoist and a garage, plus some welding kit, and knew how to use them to make some "pin money" - all those being skills that ground a person firmly within the working class _milieu_.



I used to have a neighbour who was a car dealer, he'd regularly have 10-15 cars for sale parked along the road. Didn't bother me as I don't drive but the rest of the street would be going bloody nuts


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Prejudices exist in all classes - including elements of the w/c.  Not that markers of class identity are markers of reactionary ideas.



Of course prejudices exist in all classes. That isn't the issue. The issue is that invariably the political classes, our Oxford PPEs, represent the working class as the exemplars of such prejudices, usually through reference to our "ignorance".


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> That isn't my view, I believe Labour can and should make a real difference.  The real contempt is from people like Miliband who want to seem sympathetic to cultural markers of class identity whilst actively blocking policies which would demonstrate real respect.


You appear to be suggesting that there are those within the Labour party at high level who want more left wing policies & they are being blocked by Miliband & Balls etc or is there real division over this at top level? Whatever, Labour need to start spelling out policies now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2014)

Belushi said:


> I used to have a neighbour who was a car dealer, he'd regularly have 10-15 cars for sale parked along the road. Didn't bother me as I don't drive but the rest of the street would be going bloody nuts




My dad only did it one car at a time. That way he didn't get the local council breathing down his neck.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You don't even know what's really being discussed - nor did Thornberry - that's why it's been so revealing to those with eyes to see. And that includes Miliband. Imagine that, Miliband was more politically sussed than you, more tactically sussed than you, more in tune with what this idiocy meant in terms of his parties relationship with the w/c than you, and more honest about how widespread this cack is within your party than you.
> 
> And you're the red hot socialist.



So we've changed the definition of "red hot socialist" to actually mean "Fabian twat-monkey", have we? Why didn't I get the memo?


----------



## Red Storm (Nov 22, 2014)

My facebook is littered with people defending Thornberry as a bastion against nationalism. I'm glad U75 is being more sensible.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 22, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> In that link you put up before it said he had put the flag up during the world cuand hadn't bothered to take it down. At what point did it stop signifying support for the England football team and start signifying the racism of the flag flyer? After the Uruguay game presumably.



This whole episode has reminded me of a bizarre conversation I had with someone this year. Someone I was speaking with was telling me how disappointed they were that so many people around wearing England shirts or had England flags, I assumed that they just really didn't like football and asked them if they were just sick of it. Nope, they thought that all these people wearing England shirts or who had England flags had them because they were just racists, nothing to do with the World Cup. I asked them whether people who aren't white people with England flags or England shirts were racists... they denied ever seeing anyone black or Asian with either. I asked them if they knew that the England team hadn't been 'all white' for a very, very long time. Nope, they seemed very sceptical about that.

It was at this point that I realised that this combination of ignorance, from someone who was obviously intelligent enough to do know better, was not about the intentions of football fans and football itself. It was wilful ignorance, a form of middle-class identity politics and an excuse to feel superior to 'chavs'.

This was the day after the WC, I think.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 22, 2014)

Red Storm said:


> My facebook is littered with people defending Thornberry as a bastion against nationalism. I'm glad U75 is being more sensible.



John Rees' facebook utterances have been hilarious/disgusting over the past couple of days. He's on a one man (well, including the Caféless Counterfire so maybe one man and his dog) crusade to portray Thornberry as a socialist hero who has scored a victory over a latter day home counties Hitler.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 22, 2014)

Good illustration of Milliband's cluelessness even now. Asked what he though when he saw a white van outside a house with English flags on, he said he felt 'respect'. No he fuckin dosen't, nobody does. Its just a white van parked outside a house of a football fan. Whats to respect about that? its like saying you respect a lampost. What possesses a well educated politician with a degree in economics to come out with bollocks like that I really don't know. He is as clueless as Thornberry, a white van outside a house with flags on is just that, anybody who tries to present that as representing any stereotype of any sort is going to be considered a bit away with the fairies.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Good illustration of Milliband's cluelessness even now. Asked what he though when he saw a white van outside a house with English flags on, he said he felt 'respect'. No he fuckin dosen't, nobody does. Its just a white van parked outside a house of a football fan. Whats to respect about that? its like saying you respect a lampost. What possesses a well educated politician with a degree in economics to come out with bollocks like that I really don't know. He is as clueless as Thornberry, a white van outside a house with flags on is just that, anybody who tries to present that as representing any stereotype of any sort is going to be considered a bit away with the fairies.


Can you really not decode what he said? The basic message of respect peoples interests/fears/etc until they prove to themselves to be knobs - don't start by writing them off. He wasn't saying respect the van or respect the flag ffs - he was saying start off respecting that person and this thornberry had not.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 22, 2014)

J Ed said:


> This was the day after the WC, I think.



The day after the working class what?


----------



## J Ed (Nov 22, 2014)

World Cup!


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Can you really not decode what he said? The basic message of respect peoples interests/fears/etc until they prove to themselves to be knobs - don't start by writing them off. He wasn't saying respect the van or respect the flag ffs - he was saying start off respecting that person and this thornberry had not.


Well cheers for explaining that ba, most potential Labour voters, myself included would might just think it was rather odd to say that they respect a white tranny. Which leads neatly back to what I metioned earlier about good speech making. If a politician wants to explain policies or anything else, they need to do it clearly & not expect people to 'decode' anything.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Can you really not decode what he said? The basic message of respect peoples interests/fears/etc until they prove to themselves to be knobs - don't start by writing them off. He wasn't saying respect the van or respect the flag ffs - he was saying start off respecting that person and this thornberry had not.


He specifically said, I see a white van, I think "respect". You are leaping to his defence becausd/ even though he has fucked up  and given credence to the idea that Labour has a problem with class snobbery.  We don't, we have an intolerance of parties appealing to the racism of an element of the white working class.  Or some of us - like Thornberry do.  Others like Milibands mate Glassman want to play up to it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> we have an intolerance of parties appealing to the racism of an element of the white working class.


other racism presumably ok


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

Not at all


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Not at all


i am pleased to hear it.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> He specifically said, I see a white van, I think "respect". You are leaping to his defence becausd/ even though he has fucked up  and given credence to the idea that Labour has a problem with class snobbery.  We don't, we have an intolerance of parties appealing to the racism of an element of the white working class.  Or some of us - like Thornberry do.  Others like Milibands mate Glassman want to play up to it.


You'll link to this specific quote then won't you. No you won't because it didn't happen. He was asked



> what goes through his mind when he sees a white van outside a house with england flags?



To which he replied:



> Well, what goes through my mind is that you respect...respect is the basic rule of politics



Are you so out of the loop that you think like some trot liberal that he's using respect as in street respect - or is it more likely he means respect in the sense i explained above. He did not say what you claim at all.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 22, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i am pleased to hear it.



(Mostly powerless, often imagined) white w/c racism bad, jailing refugees in G4S run abuse centres through the state racism good


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> He specifically said, I see a white van, I think "respect".


The point was this was obviously bollocks, Ed no more thinks that than anybody else, it was a stupid thing to say because nobody sees a white van & thinks 'I respect that icon of the British w/c'. The term 'white van man' was coined as a derogatory term due to the often inconsiderate driving of some van drivers iirc, it has nothing to do with w/c values. Fact is, a white van is just that, nobody sees it as representing anything, they just swear when they get cut up by one. Ed simply is not sharp, he is not good at delivering off the cuff oneliners & this was nearly as bad as Thornberry's tweet because it just compounds how out of touch they are in their politically elite bubble.

Trouble is Ed cannot make himself what he is not, he might have ability perhaps, but he needs other Labour MPs who do have more ability to connect, there must be some?


----------



## rutabowa (Nov 22, 2014)

If i see a house draped in english flags (outside of world cup time) i do think "wanker". is that really terrible of me? it just comes from my real life experiences, and i'll still give people the benefit of the doubt... just that will be my gut feeling.


----------



## rutabowa (Nov 22, 2014)

Ive got a mexican flag in our window tho, no problema with that.


----------



## rekil (Nov 22, 2014)

rutabowa said:


> If i see a house draped in english flags (outside of world cup time) i do think "wanker". is that really terrible of me? it just comes from my real life experiences, and i'll still give people the benefit of the doubt... just that will be my gut feeling.





rutabowa said:


> Ive got a mexican flag in our window tho, no problema with that.


Here's a pic I took in Hamburg. What now.


----------



## rutabowa (Nov 22, 2014)

copliker said:


> Here's a pic I took in Hamburg. What now.
> 
> View attachment 64052


thats fine, whats the relevance?


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 22, 2014)

Flying flags from houses does seem slightly popular at the moment, around where I live in Essex anyway. Often they are draped in the window & some larger houses have flagpoles. Its normal in other countries. Holland for example where flags are flown on certain days. Many houses there have fitting on front wall to put a flagpole.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 22, 2014)

copliker said:


> Here's a pic I took in Hamburg. What now.
> 
> View attachment 64052



1/3rd racist is still problematic, check that privilege, balcony dwellers


----------



## rutabowa (Nov 22, 2014)

different symbols have different meanings depending on context. i am sure noone needs that pointing out tho!


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 22, 2014)

rutabowa said:


> If i see a house draped in english flags (outside of world cup time) i do think "wanker". is that really terrible of me? it just comes from my real life experiences, and i'll still give people the benefit of the doubt... just that will be my gut feeling.


Is dealing in stereotypes ever a productive way of thinking? I've hung an England flag from my window, I've driven a van for a living, I've lived in a terraced house in a provincial town.  

What exactly does that snapshot say about me, my life and my ideas about the world? 

(there's a power dimension when an MP does it too...)


----------



## rutabowa (Nov 22, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Is dealing in stereotypes ever a productive way of thinking? I've hung an England flag from my window, I've driven a van for a living, I've lived in a terraced house in a provincial town.
> 
> What exactly does that snapshot say about me, my life and my ideas about the world?
> 
> (there's a power dimension when an MP does it too...)


me making assumptions about people who drape their houses in england flags outside of world cup times has probably kept me out of aggro situations. ignoring my instincts on this has got me into aggro situations once or twice.

agreed would be bad news politically for an mp to make such assumptions, tho the assumptions have all been inferred from a single photo rather than  from her actually saying anything.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

Butchersapron is desperately attempting to defend Miliband's absurd stance because his stupid panicked reaction to a tweet is "proof" of a myth that it is useful for the far right and workerist ultra-left to peddle.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Butchersapron is desperately attempting to defend Miliband's absurd stance because his stupid panicked reaction to a tweet is "proof" of a myth that it is useful for the far right and workerist ultra-left to peddle.


He's  only going to get worse as the night gets older folks...keep digging though articul8 - enjoying it.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 22, 2014)

rutabowa said:


> me making assumptions about people who drape their houses in england flags outside of world cup times has probably kept me out of aggro situations. ignoring my instincts on this has got me into aggro situations once or twice.



I can see a hell of a lot of potentially dodgy applications of that particular logic. 



> agrees would be bad news politically for an mp to make such assumptions, tho the assumptions have all been inferred from a single photo rather than  from her actually saying anything.



You don't need to say anything to be tapping into an existing stereotype, do you?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Butchersapron is desperately attempting to defend Miliband's absurd stance because his stupid panicked reaction to a tweet is "proof" of a myth that it is useful for the far right and workerist ultra-left to peddle.





> Well, what goes through my mind is that you respect...respect is the basic rule of politics



Which bit do you disagree with? Should you disrespect people you know nothing about bar a flag, a house and a van?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

There is nothing about a van and a flag that deserves respect automatically.   There is no need for Labour to superficially embrace markers of a tabloid version of w/c identity.  Miliband is displacing his own failure to bring forward pro w/c policies onto the scapegoats of populist right wing withchunts.


----------



## rutabowa (Nov 22, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> I can see a hell of a lot of potentially dodgy applications of that particular logic.


like what? hanging england flags all over your house outside of world cup etc is making a big statement; i am simply taking notice of that statement.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> There is nothing about a van and a flag that deserves respect automatically.   There is no need for Labour to superficially embrace markers of a tabloid version of w/c identity.  Miliband is displacing his own failure to bring forward pro w/c policies onto the scapegoats of populist right wing withchunts.



Shouldn't the Labour Left be rallying to defend Eddie while his right flank is under attack rather than opening up an attack on his left flank?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> There is nothing about a van and a flag that deserves respect automatically.   There is no need for Labour to superficially embrace markers of a tabloid version of w/c identity.  Miliband is displacing his own failure to bring forward pro w/c policies onto the scapegoats of populist right wing withchunts.



Everyone should be respected until you've a reason not to, shouldn't they?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 22, 2014)

rutabowa said:


> like what?



From the idea that you can use stereotypes to better navigate the problems that the world presents? It's pretty much the basis for virtually all prejudicial behaviour.


----------



## rutabowa (Nov 22, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> From the idea that you can use stereotypes to better navigate the problems that the world presents? It's pretty much the basis for virtually all prejudicial behaviour.


its not a stereotype; it is reacting to someone making a public statement.

would you say i was stereotyping if i avoided people with a swastika tattoo?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Shouldn't the Labour Left be rallying to defend Eddie while his right flank is under attack rather than opening up an attack on his left flank?


He is not helping himself - he needs to be on the front foot attacking the coalition, not apologising whenever Labour is attacked


----------



## Brechin Sprout (Nov 22, 2014)

I was brought up in Strood. Brothers, cousins etc still live there. In "social housing" in the main. If you were to ask me to choose one photo to sum up the constituency of Rochester and Strood, it wouldn't be the castle, the cathedral or Rochester's twee high street: it would be a photo of the vast sprawl of Strood on the other side of the river - housing estate after housing estate. Just like the one posted. That's what it's like.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Everyone should be respected until you've a reason not to, shouldn't they?


Judgement should be reserved whilst evidence is awaited


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Judgement should be reserved whilst evidence is awaited


That's an element of treating people with respect, isn't it? Do you think Thornberry tweet awaited evidence before judgement?


----------



## chilango (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Butchersapron is desperately attempting to defend Miliband's absurd stance because his stupid panicked reaction to a tweet is "proof" of a myth that it is useful for the far right and workerist ultra-left to peddle.




Nice lumping together of the far right and ultra-left. Classy.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 22, 2014)

rutabowa said:


> its not a stereotype; it is reacting to someone making a public statement.
> 
> would you say i was stereotyping if i avoided people with a swastika tattoo?


You're taking one ambiguous outward feature of someone and allying it to expectations of various other behaviours. That's a stereotype. 

The act of flying a swastika from your house is in itself objectionable. It doesn't require you to make assumptions about the person flying it for it to be wrong.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> That's an element of treating people with respect, isn't it? Do you think Thornberry tweet awaited evidence before judgement?


She wasn't making a judgement of an individual but capturing an image that enapulated something of the mood on that day.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> She wasn't making a judgement of an individual but capturing an image that enapulated something of the mood on that day.


and that something was ...

and of course she was making 'a judgement of an individual' unless you're suggesting she is in fact a team.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

She was saying that the by election was about the contest over who could best appeal to white van man flying the flag etc... She said nothing more


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> There is nothing about a van and a flag that deserves respect automatically.



There is nothing about a van and a flag that _removes _respect automatically, you fucking donut


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> She wasn't making a judgement of an individual but capturing an image that enapulated something of the mood on that day.



Thornberry could have used many images, or even attacked UKIP. Instead she chose to use a picture of someones house (someone with a van and England and West Ham flags - the audacity of it!). And how does that not feel like a judgement and an attack against the individual?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

Zapp- Ive never said otherwise, prick


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> She wasn't making a judgement of an individual but capturing an image that enapulated something of the mood on that day.


No shes wasn't. Even she didn't offer this dishonest spin. You sad sad hack.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No shes wasn't. Even she didn't offer this dishonest spin. You sad sad hack.


Image of #rochester - of course she was


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Image of #rochester - of course she was


That's why her defence consisted of saying she was astonished at and has never seen any such thing as a house with flags in the windows. Not your guff.

And how exactly does saying Image of #rochester on an Image of rochester mean any of the crap you've come up with? This is quite quite tragic.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

The idea flag waving van drivers are fully representative of the class seems to be shared only by you, Ukip and the right wing tabloids


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That's why her defence consisted of saying she was astonished at and has never seen any such thing as a house with flags in the windows.



What sort of bubble do MPs like Thornberry live in to come out with this sort of stuff?!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Image of #rochester - of course she was


you're making a # of this


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> The idea flag waving van drivers are fully representative of the class seems to be shared only by you, Ukip and the right wing tabloids


I told you it would get worse as the night got older people..plenty left yet i suspect.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I told you it would get worse as the night got older people..plenty left yet i suspect.


Miliband needs to stop trying to flatter a tabloid image of the working class and start trying to put forward policies which would really strike an echo with the experience of working class people.  Not the same at all


----------



## eatmorecheese (Nov 22, 2014)

This has to be one of the slowest car crashes I've ever seen.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 22, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> and it's bewildering that many people on the left can't see the connections between these policies and the attitudes behind them and this episode.


On this thread the only people who can't see it seem to be articul8, Taffbhoy and Awesome Wells (and maybe SakiaJayne). So maybe the LP could get Taffbhoy to organise it's social media policy.



articul8 said:


> The idea flag waving van drivers are fully representative of the class seems to be shared only by you, Ukip and the right wing tabloids


You fucking dick. You know that this is wrong as well as being a pathetic attempt to slur people you know are left wingers. This post shows why so many P&P posters hold you in contempt these days.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> There is nothing about a van and a flag that deserves respect automatically.   There is no need for Labour to superficially embrace markers of a tabloid version of w/c identity.  Miliband is displacing his own failure to bring forward pro w/c policies onto the scapegoats of populist right wing withchunts.



He didn't mean that you docile wrecker. Miliband meant that the tweet was disrespectful and that, you should automatically respect people - which is just common decency. Miliband reacted correctly - the problem Labour has that because it turns out the bloke does have a few "interesting" views then enough Labour types will use that as an excuse to continue showing disrespect and so probably over shadow Ed's action (because like you they don't understand what the millionaire liberal snob did wrong)


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2014)

it's wicked to mock the afflicted


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 22, 2014)

Ed went ape on it to bolster himself the useless bastard. It was poor judgement on Thornberry's part, a fucking lawyer posting a pic of someone's home and number plate, but she didn't invade Poland.

Funny how, on the one hand the Labour Party seems to wish to show it's beyond a PC talking shop of elites and is robust enough to take on the uncomfortable views of some of it's constituency and yet it shows this by ruthlessness towards it's own errors in a desperate attempt to play the gallery. How does that show people the party is welcoming and inclusive?

He should have given her a bollocking but kept it in the dressing room. It's like he sacked the first person to catch his eye.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 22, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Ed went ape on it to bolster himself the useless bastard. It was poor judgement on Thornberry's part, a fucking lawyer posting a pic of someone's home and number plate, but she didn't invade Poland.
> 
> Funny how, on the one hand the Labour Party seems to wish to show it's beyond a PC talking shop of elites and is robust enough to take on the uncomfortable views of some of it's constituency and yet it shows this by ruthlessness towards it's own errors in a desperate attempt to play the gallery. How does that show people the party is welcoming and inclusive?
> 
> He should have given her a bollocking but kept it in the dressing room. It's like he sacked the first person to catch his eye.



That's not how politics works


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 22, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> That's not how politics works



There's a time to sack and a time to ride it out. Hopefully if Ed gets in he'll have good advice from a competent Attorney General when it comes to say, going to war in the Middle East. That's tells you how trivial this issue is by comparison.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> There's a time to sack and a time to ride it out. Hopefully if Ed gets in he'll have good advice from a competent Attorney General when it comes to say, going to war in the Middle East. That's tells you how trivial this issue is by comparison.


Blair's AG told him the invasion of iraq was illegal. That worked out well.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That's why her defence consisted of saying she was astonished at and has never seen any such thing as a house with flags in the windows. Not your guff.


She was lying tbf


----------



## gosub (Nov 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Blair's AG told him the invasion of iraq was illegal. That worked out well.


Overridden by Straw.  When does that inquiry publish ?


----------



## gosub (Nov 22, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> There's a time to sack and a time to ride it out. Hopefully if Ed gets in he'll have good advice from a competent Attorney General when it comes to say, going to war in the Middle East. That's tells you how trivial this issue is by comparison.


True, but alienate voters and you don't get in the position to make those decisions


----------



## brogdale (Nov 22, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> It's like he sacked the first person to catch his eye.



It's not really, is it?

He sacked the MP who thought it clever to take the piss out of the people that their party used to represent.


----------



## coley (Nov 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> She wasn't making a judgement of an individual but capturing an image that enapulated something of the mood on that day.



Not getting into this bunfight but looking at that photo,the word _*Sneer *_came across loud and clear.


----------



## rekil (Nov 22, 2014)

.


redsquirrel said:


> So maybe the LP could get Taffbhoy to organise it's social media policy.


"The keyword for the next 6 months is "the protocols" people. We don't know if they were a forgery or not so let's push hard."


----------



## coley (Nov 22, 2014)

brogdale said:


> It's not really, is it?
> 
> He sacked the MP who thought it clever to take the piss out of the people that their party used to represent.


Aye, she was guilty of making public what most in Westminster believe.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 22, 2014)

coley said:


> Not getting into this bunfight but looking at that photo,the word _*Sneer *_came across loud and clear.


no no you bastard, thats just you sneering, she was just looking blankly and impartially at it


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 22, 2014)

it was a moment of psychogeography where the genius loci of the place siezed her to photo the doric. the georges, and the defiant van as poignant and somehow moving examples of the layered echoes of empires now written in faded  flag and crazy flagstone- the rust of the wheel arch and the rust of past glories.

It was an artistic statement


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 22, 2014)

my name is thornberry, look upon my tweets you mighty and despair


----------



## coley (Nov 22, 2014)

ska invita said:


> no no you bastard, thats just you sneering, she was just looking blankly and impartially at it



Bugger, you have caught me in the middle of trying to flog me transit and wondering what the visiting social services have made of the little union flag that me nephews stuck in the flower bed.
No sleep tonight, thanks to you, you insufferable PC git


----------



## ska invita (Nov 23, 2014)

relating to the photo, a good comment piece here which rings true - what with economic policy as good as agreed on by the parties whats left is a division over identity and tribalism
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ornberry-tweet-us-style-culture-wars-identity


----------



## bamalama (Nov 23, 2014)

coley said:


> Bugger, you have caught me in the middle of trying to flog me transit and wondering what the visiting social services have made of the little union flag that me nephews stuck in the flower bed.
> No sleep tonight, thanks to you, you insufferable PC git


Another one for the family cannon fodder conveyer belt,
you insufferable,deluded apologist


----------



## Ole (Nov 23, 2014)

Red Storm said:


> My facebook is littered with people defending Thornberry as a *bastion against nationalism*. I'm glad U75 is being more sensible.


ffs


----------



## Ole (Nov 23, 2014)

"Wow".


----------



## articul8 (Nov 23, 2014)

There's not much point continuing this, since it is perfectly evident that political opponents of Labour have a vested interest in misreading her tweet as some kind of snobbery, or an attack on working class people in general.  Miliband has accepted that narrative, a major mistake.  The hostility on here just shows how much some people have invested in it.


----------



## chilango (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> There's not much point continuing this, since it is perfectly evident that political opponents of Labour have a vested interest in misreading her tweet as some kind of snobbery, or an attack on working class people in general.  Miliband has accepted that narrative, a major mistake.  The hostility on here just shows how much some people have invested in it.



The hostility on here should give you a clue how this is being (mis)read more widely.

Unless you're gonna claim we're all far right ultra-leftists?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 23, 2014)

He's made this into the big story, and people hostile to Labour (from a variety of perspectives) have leapt on it.


----------



## chilango (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> He's made this into the big story, and people hostile to Labour (from a variety of perspectives) have leapt on it.



No one I know IRL has "leapt on it" but I can bet you how they read it. 

And I know plenty of people who'd share her sneering views too. 

I can't think of anyone who'd read it in the way you are.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

I bet you can think of some people who have an interest in _pretending _they genuinely read it like articul8 pretends to genuinely read it. They'd all be involved in the same bubble mind.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> since it is perfectly evident that political opponents of Labour have a vested interest in misreading her tweet as some kind of snobbery



I'm a Labour voter from as soon as I was old enough to vote, the enthusiasm for which has since dissipated to the "should I hold my nose and vote for Labour as the least worst option, or should I spoil my ballot since i'm going unrepresented anyway" school of thought.

I read her tweet as 'some kind of snobbery', and I didn't need to be told to think that by a red top newspaper.  Am I some kind of political opponent to Labour, or am I a vote that Labour should be working hard to get back?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 23, 2014)

And sacking Thornberry would make you more likely to vote Labour? Can't believe there are many in that camp


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 23, 2014)

Spot on Zapp. And shared by my w/c mother, who was very a committed Labour activist in the 80s-early 90s, and whom feels really alienated by the party now - usually voting for them just because 'she hates the Tories so much'.

She's never been much of a fan of England flags much either, but saw Thornberry's actions as 'typical of the political class gulf that exists', and is not surprised people vote UKIP even though she's wary of their popularity. She doesn't like Ed much either but not on this particular issue


----------



## brogdale (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> likely to vote Labour? Can't believe there are many in that camp


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> And sacking Thornberry would make you more likely to vote Labour? Can't believe there are many in that camp



He didn't even say that. No wonder Labour isn't coming over any more.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> And sacking Thornberry would make you more likely to vote Labour? Can't believe there are many in that camp



And unchecked class based snobbery as a party policy would make me more likely to vote labour?  At least by doing something Milliband can pretend that it was a lone view, not one they all share but aren't stupid enough to voice.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

...and anyway, articul8, the issue _here _isn't miliband's reaction to her tweet - but _yours_. Your craven lying hacking defence of it. And if it's not that, if you do genuinely believe what you're wrote about it then that's just as bad and just as damaging - you might as well just write snobby liberal anti w/c bubble dweller on your forehead. Maybe you'll be able to see it that way - i think most of the rest of us can already.

And if you're representative of the labour-party left, the pro-w/c leftin the party, then fuck me...you are already dead.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 23, 2014)

How about Labour deliver some proper socialist, pro-working class, alternative policies? And then stuff like this would probably not really provoke quite so much reaction if Labour were _actually saying something_.


----------



## killer b (Nov 23, 2014)

I think sacking the snob is going to make some people more likely to vote labour. more likely than they had been if he'd circled the wagons anyway. Immediate sacking was the best move he could make, under the circumstances.


----------



## cesare (Nov 23, 2014)

stethoscope said:


> How about Labour deliver some proper socialist, pro-working class, alternative policies? And then stuff like this would probably not really provoke quite so much reaction if Labour were _actually saying something_.


Milliband's been promising these elusive policies since the last GE. He cannot afford to publicise any policies because there'd only be a rizla between LP's and LibCon ones. They've swallowed the austerity economics position wholesale.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> ...and anyway, articul8, the issue _here _isn't miliband's reaction to her tweet - but _yours_. Your craven lying hacking defence of it. And if it's not that, if you do genuinely believe what you're wrote about it then that's just as bad and just as damaging - you might as well just write snobby liberal anti w/c bubble dweller on your forehead. Maybe you'll be able to see it that way - i think most of the rest of us can already.
> 
> And if you're representative of the labour-party left, the pro-w/c leftin the party, then fuck me...you are already dead.


What you find galling is that I reject and refute accusations of class snobbery that your dismissal of Labour is built around (and which Miliband has given credence to).  it's not for nothing that The Sun has gone to town on this story.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

killer b said:


> I think sacking the snob is going to make some people more likely to vote labour. more likely than they had been if he'd circled the wagons anyway. Immediate sacking was the best move he could make, under the circumstances.


What about Thornberry though?

Coat got, out door, down street


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 23, 2014)

cesare said:


> Milliband's been promising these elusive policies since the last GE. He cannot afford to publicise any policies because there'd only be a rizla between LP's and LibCon ones. They've swallowed the austerity economics position wholesale.



Oh yeah, I know - I have little, if any hope for Labour any more. Was just trying to make a, frustrated, point really.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> What you find galling is that I reject and refute accusations of class snobbery that your dismissal of Labour is built around (and which Miliband has given credence to).  it's not for nothing that The Sun has gone to town on this story.



What i find hilarious is your hack defences of her snobbery and the fact that  master strategist has left himself two options - 1) people laughing at you for genuinely believing it 2) people laughing at you for the transparent campbell-esque attempt at spin. Either way, they're laughing at you. The norms are ahead of you in their political reading of the original tweet and what you're up to here.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

I don't know, maybe articul8 is right and a series of panicked defences of the tweet laying it out clear for all to see that it's right and good to judge people on the outside of their house, the size of their house, what football teams they support and what work van they drive, then following it up by calling ed miliband a clueless clown and calling people who don't agree a stalninst-fascist amalgam then ending on a note of _vote labour_ may have been the correct response.

I'm not really convinced though.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> There's not much point continuing this, since it is perfectly evident that political opponents of Labour have a vested interest in misreading her tweet as some kind of snobbery, or an attack on working class people in general.  Miliband has accepted that narrative, a major mistake.  The hostility on here just shows how much some people have invested in it.



And yet many of us are saying Miliband made the right choice - it's people advocating a defence of Thornberry that could cost Labour votes.


----------



## cesare (Nov 23, 2014)

stethoscope said:


> Oh yeah, I know - I have little, if any hope for Labour any more. Was just trying to make a, frustrated, point really.


Aye


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 23, 2014)

stethoscope said:


> How about Labour deliver some proper socialist, pro-working class, alternative policies? And then stuff like this would probably not really provoke quite so much reaction if Labour were _actually saying something_.



It's not their job to deliver socialist policies given they're not and don't pretend to be a socialist party.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's not their job to deliver socialist policies given they're not and don't pretend to be a socialist party.


Defines itself thusly:

The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party


----------



## articul8 (Nov 23, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> And yet many of us are saying Miliband made the right choice - it's people advocating a defence of Thornberry that could cost Labour votes.


This was a non-story whipped up by the Sun to distract from the Tory failure.  Ed fell headlong into a trap.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

Re: your liike above articul8 - we all know it's not. It's a party with some socialists in it.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> This was a non-story whipped up by the Sun to distract from the Tory failure.  Ed fell headlong into a trap.


You really are a head in the sand type aren't you? I wonder why head office has never picked you up for the strategy dept.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> This was a non-story whipped up by the Sun to distract from the Tory failure.  Ed fell headlong into a trap.



It really wasn't. Thornberry outed herself.


----------



## cesare (Nov 23, 2014)

"We like to think of ourselves as a democratic socialist party, in the context of right wing neoliberalism"


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> What you find galling is that I reject and* refute accusations of class snobbery* that your dismissal of Labour is built around (and which Miliband has given credence to).  it's not for nothing that The Sun has gone to town on this story.



Genuinely?! You genuinely don't think that there are lots of Labour MPs who are snobs?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

I'd like to see this refutation - maybe articul8 means rebut?


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 23, 2014)

I'm still baffled by your earlier aligning of those us criticising Thornberry with 'blue Labour', articul8. It's so arse about face I don't where to start.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 23, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Genuinely?! You genuinely don't think that there are lots of Labour MPs who are snobs?


If they are, then they have no business in the Labour party. I wonder if it really is snobbery or just a genuine failure to even try to understand the lives of their potential voters? I think Ed & his close circle are now pretty well beyond redemption this side of the GE, I wonder if they can admit this to themselves & realise they need to push forward MPs who can talk the talk better far better than the high command & of course they need policies that can stand close scrutiny as well? Its not as if Labour is behind the Tories in the polls. Clearly the electorate do not really want Camo & his privatisations but if Labour cannot make themselves electable in the next few months then really most of us have nobody to vote for.

I find it annoying that articul8 will not engage on a solution to this & just continues to defend the indefensible.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 23, 2014)

stethoscope said:


> I'm still baffled by your earlier aligning of those us criticising Thornberry with 'blue Labour', articul8. It's so arse about face I don't where to start.


Blue Labour begins from the premise that what ordinary folk are really attached to are the flag, the country, royalty, hard work, family, and a suspicion of Johnny foreigner.  It then says the market undermines these traditional attachments so it's possible to argue for protecting what's popular in the eyes of Joe prole whilst at the same time speaking to fear of change in way that the neoliberal Tories no longer can.  But the whole thing rests on a stereotype of what drives the working class just as much if not more so than Thornberry.  

This "I see a van and think respect" stuff is far further outside most people's experience.We all make judgements positive and negative from markers of cultural identity.  It's perfectly normal.


----------



## gosub (Nov 23, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> And yet many of us are saying Miliband made the right choice - it's people advocating a defence of Thornberry that could cost Labour votes.









Mr Milliband's defence of England supporting white van man isn't really resonating either


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> This "I see a van and think respect" stuff is far further outside most people's experience.We all make judgements positive and negative from markers of cultural identity.  It's perfectly normal.


Hang on. A second ago she wasn't making a judgement, she was just innocently taking a photo


----------



## articul8 (Nov 23, 2014)

SaskiaJayne said:


> I find it annoying that articul8 will not engage on a solution to this & just continues to defend the indefensible.


I am not issuing a blanket defence of Labour - there is a whole series of failures to connect with what working class voters want.  And yes for many it's because they have little connection to the way people outside their sphere lives their lives.  Of course this is a major problem.  But it doesn't follow that Labour proves its respect by playing up to a no less stereotyped view of what working class politics look like.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 23, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Hang on. A second ago she wasn't making a judgement, she was just innocently taking a photo


No I said it was a comment about the mood of a particular place on a particular day (not a comment on the home owner per se).


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> This "I see a van and think respect" stuff is far further outside most people's experience.We all make judgements positive and negative from markers of cultural identity.  It's perfectly normal.



This didn't happen - as you've been told. Why persist in the lie? Why persist in following  the anti-labour types who have suggested this has happened whilst claiming others are doing just that? You are all over the shop. In fact, you're doing exactly what they want and using their lies to do so.


----------



## cesare (Nov 23, 2014)

He's anti-Milliband so will seize on anything to give that traction


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

It really is astonishing that such a political sophisticate like articul8 can't read a millionaire going _erghh _but so many political illiterates who would never match his depth of strategic thinking can.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

cesare said:


> He's anti-Milliband so will seize on anything to give that traction


Indeed, he's petty much a puppet for progress/the sun/guido fawkes etc here. Odd thing is,  a few years back he was giving us the line that Miliband has put the labour party back on track and is moving them in a definite left-wing direction. It almost looks like he was wrong doesn't it? But we all know that doesn't happen. Unless it later proves he was right to have been wrong _at that point._


----------



## Red Storm (Nov 23, 2014)

All you've got to ask yourself is what was her purpose in tweeting that picture with that caption. 

There's no possible answer in that she was mocking the house and it's relation to the impending UKIP win.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> This didn't happen - as you've been told. Why persist in the lie? Why persist in following  the anti-labour types who have suggested this has happened whilst claiming others are doing just that? You are all over the shop. In fact, you're doing exactly what they want and using their lies to do so.


That's how he came across and how his comments were reported.  Sacking Thornberry was an own goal, and he looks daft.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 23, 2014)

gosub said:


> Mr Milliband's defence of England supporting white van man isn't really resonating either



the fuck is that


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It really is astonishing that such a political sophisticate like articul8 can't read a millionaire going _erghh _but so many political illiterates who would never match his depth of strategic thinking can.



it's really strange and doesn't match what he tells us his politics are...


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Blue Labour begins from the premise that what ordinary folk are really attached to are the flag, the country, royalty, hard work, family, and a suspicion of Johnny foreigner.  It then says the market undermines these traditional attachments so it's possible to argue for protecting what's popular in the eyes of Joe prole whilst at the same time speaking to fear of change in way that the neoliberal Tories no longer can.  But the whole thing rests on a stereotype of what drives the working class just as much if not more so than Thornberry.
> 
> This "I see a van and think respect" stuff is far further outside most people's experience.We all make judgements positive and negative from markers of cultural identity.  It's perfectly normal.


I'm sorry but this is the sort of 'focus group' gobbledygook that won't win votes. I'm sure this is how Labour high command do converse among themselves & they really need to get out more, when Ed speaks this is exactly the sort of language he speaks in & this is why most people do not see him as prime minister. Ed & co need go out & buy some clothes from Matalan & spend from now until the next GE out among the people who's votes they need.


----------



## gosub (Nov 23, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> the fuck is that



Cartoon from one of today's papers


----------



## articul8 (Nov 23, 2014)

cesare said:


> He's anti-Milliband so will seize on anything to give that traction


I'm not anti-Miliband, I want him to succeed. But he fucked up here.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> That's how he came across and how his comments were reported.  Sacking Thornberry was an own goal, and he looks daft.


No they didn't - you picked up the anti-labour rags deliberate misreading of what he said and ran with them rather than checking out what actually happened for yourself , effectively bringing your common anti-miliband/anti-labour agenda to the fore - whilst accusing others of using anti-labour rags hatred of labour to attack poor old Thornberry and anti-w/c sobbery. Shameless hypocrisy.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> it's really strange and doesn't match what he tells us his politics are...


It does fit his fabian forebears traditions though, holding your nose whilst you help the poor unfortunates and other w/c types.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

gosub said:


> Mr Milliband's defence of England supporting white van man isn't really resonating either



You'll notice this piece that articul8 likes features the same misreading of respect - here rendered as respec' - as he made. And features the same snobby liberal anti w/c perspective - can anyone say who drew it please - i can't read that middle class scrawl.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 23, 2014)

Fuck off with that Fabian shite too


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 23, 2014)

gosub said:


> Cartoon from one of today's papers




feels like its not just ed the cartoonist is taking the piss out of to me


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I am not issuing a blanket defence of Labour - there is a whole series of failures to connect with what working class voters want.  And yes for many it's because they have little connection to the way people outside their sphere lives their lives.  Of course this is a major problem.  But it doesn't follow that Labour proves its respect by playing up to a no less stereotyped view of what working class politics look like.


Then surely you agree that to at least be part of some sort coalition after the next GE Ed & co need to get out more among the people they need to vote for them & we need to hope for no gaffs?


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 23, 2014)

Good god that cartoon is awful


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Fuck off with that Fabian shite too


Wow, you really _refuted _that didn't you? Seeing as you're now also an expert in political cartoonery (to go with the political buffonery) let's have your comments on this - just trying to capture the moment?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I'm not anti-Miliband, I want him to succeed. But he fucked up here.


Excellent - your criticisms _come from a place of honesty _(despite allying with anti-labour rags and interests) everyone elses come from _a place of mendacity_ and are a mix of far-right and far-left filth.

You really are a danger to your party, an utter liability. You are so so inept and so so convinced that you're some master strategist seeing further than anyone else. Why can't you see what's in front of your nose then?

Lesson here kids, don't go to university and don't enter the bubble - the bubble will change you, you won't change the bubble.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

Yes, i thought so, the cartoonist articul8 liked, the one whose cartoon above he thought fitted the moment rather accurately in its snobby anti w/c way, is the private school boy from surrey christian adams.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 23, 2014)

They're not letting it lie, are they?



> Ed Miliband was right to sack Emily Thornberry from the shadow cabinet because she was “*condescending and disrespectful*” towards working people and damaged Labour’s election prospects when she tweeted a picture of a house decked out in St George’s flags, Rachel Reeves has said.
> 
> In some of the strongest criticism of the former frontbencher, the shadow work and pensions secretary said that her tweet was contrary to the values of the Labour party.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 23, 2014)

That Thornberry is a smug elitist ranks low on the list of big surprises in the political arena. The tweet, about as respectful as offering a homeless person 2p with your back turned, was crass.

But she didn't actually caption it with 'look at this chav - blimey no wonder UKIP are winning here - get me back to civilisation quick'. We just think she did. Whatever good reason we have, whatever instinctive disapproval we have for her smug entitled face, she didn't give it the captions we have.

If Labour give in this quickly they'll be only Ed left by the election date. You won't see UKIP making its candidates fall on their swords for such small beer.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 23, 2014)

brogdale said:


> They're not letting it lie, are they?


As often when links are posted there are other things worth reading. This I found gobsmacking. If the Tories are this bad its not suprising Labour are still level in the polls, would other European countires allow this sort of thing? If Labour cannot highlight this sort of thing by screaming it from the rooftops in the next few months then god help us all.

Fuck you articul8 with all your whinging & infighting, get your party out on the streets with some proper policies & ram home just how bad a Tory government would be for the working people of this country. You have less than 6months.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 23, 2014)

SaskiaJayne said:


> As often when links are posted there are other things worth reading. This I found gobsmacking. If the Tories are this bad its not suprising Labour are still level in the polls, would other European countires allow this sort of thing? If Labour cannot highlight this sort of thing by screaming it from the rooftops in the next few months then god help us all.
> 
> Fuck you articul8 with all your whinging & infighting, get your party out on the streets with some proper policies & ram home just how bad a Tory government would be for the working people of this country. You have less than 6months.



It's a fucking outrage.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 23, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> It's a fucking outrage.


Well yes & living 70miles from London its the first I'd heard of it. Labour need to be more vocal about this sort of thing.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> That Thornberry is a smug elitist ranks low on the list of big surprises in the political arena. The tweet, about as respectful as offering a homeless person 2p with your back turned, was crass.
> 
> But she didn't actually caption it with 'look at this chav - blimey no wonder UKIP are winning here - get me back to civilisation quick'. We just think she did. Whatever good reason we have, whatever instinctive disapproval we have for her smug entitled face, she didn't give it the captions we have.
> 
> If Labour give in this quickly they'll be only Ed left by the election date. You won't see UKIP making its candidates fall on their swords for such small beer.


If they lied and took the line articul8 has how do you think people would have responded? He might live in the bubble and think fluffy banalities would get rid of it, it would leave everyone else thinking they were lying snobby cunts. Which they would be.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> If they lied and took the line articul8 has how do you think people would have responded? He might live in the bubble and think fluffy banalities would get rid of it, it would leave everyone else thinking they were lying snobby cunts. Which they would be.



I wouldn't ever advocate lying, but she could have had a more private bollocking and even a demotion along the line if her behaviour didn't improve. But I would never put on a show for the press and this has become so.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 23, 2014)

I don't think this incident will come back to haunt Labour at next GE the way Gord's bigot gaffe did, its not as damaging as that. It does illustrate(as did Gord's gaffe)how out of touch Labour top people are with those whose votes they need, but we knew this already. Labour need to move on quickly with some good policies.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

SaskiaJayne said:


> I don't think this incident will come back to haunt Labour at next GE the way Gord's bigot gaffe did, its not as damaging as that. It does illustrate(as did Gord's gaffe)how out of touch Labour top people are with those whose votes they need, but we knew this already. Labour need to move on quickly with some good policies.


That was in the week of the election. I reckon it made very little difference anyway. This, well be gone soon - but, for on here, it's revealing of either what a8 really thinks or how much shit he's prepared to swallow and spew out as we get closer to may 2015 - and how far he is prepared to go against the party. He's shown he's happy to use the anti-labour anti-immigration rags to attack miliband (whilst moaning that other views are illegitimate on the basis that he thinks they do this) and to attack people who criticise this. God knows what he'll be up to come april.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 23, 2014)

I wonder who articul8 really is? Why do I keep coming back to Ed Balls?


----------



## gosub (Nov 23, 2014)

it was interesting (at least to me) Alan Johnson was on This Week, side stepped the issue, saying he had only just heard of it so couldn't comment on it but Thornberry had good working class credentials blah blah.  Then the next night Have I Got News For You is shown, and Alan Johnson is on it and they cover the story.  HIGNFY is recorded before This Week


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

Why is this knackered horse suddenly doing interviews and warm appearances?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, i thought so, the cartoonist articul8 liked, the one whose cartoon above he thought fitted the moment rather accurately in its snobby anti w/c way, is the private school boy from surrey christian adams.


The cartoon is not at all snobby or anti w/c itis taking the piss out of a middle class politician's desperate attempt to associate himself with proletarian cliches -with predictably embarrassing results like the bacon butty.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> The cartoon is not at all snobby or anti w/c itis taking the piss out of a middle class politician's desperate attempt to associate himself with proletarian cliches -with predictably embarrassing results like the bacon butty.


Thank you. Fantastic. You are in so much trouble.  You can't see the same snobbery writ through the posh cartoonist choices of signifier. 

Yeah, you really changed things in london.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I'm not anti-Miliband, I want him to succeed. But he fucked up here.


and here you have it. after a post like that you should admit you're no in any way interested in positive change in society, you just want it managed a bit differently.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> There is nothing about a van and a flag that deserves respect automatically.



Fortunate that Miliband didn't say anything regarding giving vans and flags automatic respect, then.
His point that one should respect a person until you have a reason to not respect them is practical manners, no more, no less. To do not do so implies condescension and contempt on par with that displayed by Thornberry.  



> There is no need for Labour to superficially embrace markers of a tabloid version of w/c identity.  Miliband is displacing his own failure to bring forward pro w/c policies onto the scapegoats of populist right wing withchunts.



How exactly does one fail at something one hasn't actually attempted?


----------



## Belushi (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> The cartoon is not at all snobby or anti w/c itis taking the piss out of a middle class politician's desperate attempt to associate himself with proletarian cliches -with predictably embarrassing results like the bacon butty.



Whose clichés?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Zapp- Ive never said otherwise, prick



Whereas you, you write much, but say nothing that isn't political flatus.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> The cartoon is not at all snobby or anti w/c itis taking the piss out of a middle class politician's desperate attempt to associate himself with proletarian cliches -with predictably embarrassing results like the bacon butty.



True it is attacking Miliband but it is also sneeringly anti-working class. You know it's anti those people you can recognise by the vans and the beer and the dogs and the fags and the flags. 

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> True it is attacking Miliband but it is also sneeringly anti-working class. You know it's anti those people you can recognise by the vans and the beer and the dogs and the fags and the flags.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


yes but articul8 is a loyal labour party man. so his interest in the working class is wholly abstract.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 23, 2014)

I don't see it as promoting cliches, it is mocking Miliband's appeal to them.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I don't see it as promoting cliches, it is mocking Miliband's appeal to them.


Yeah,the privately schooled telegraph cartoonist was prob doing that. Any more anti-labour anti-immigrant rags you want to support/line up with?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I don't see it as promoting cliches, it is mocking Miliband's appeal to them.


Why can't you just not a be a fucking knob?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I don't see it as promoting cliches, it is mocking Miliband's appeal to them.



It just reasserts the cliches for comic effect; in no way does it seek to question them let alone undermine them. In doing so it shows the same sort of contempt that you spectacularly failed to recognise earlier in this thread...at least you're being consistent in some things.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> There's not much point continuing this, since it is perfectly evident that political opponents of Labour have a vested interest in misreading her tweet as some kind of snobbery, or an attack on working class people in general.  Miliband has accepted that narrative, a major mistake.  The hostility on here just shows how much some people have invested in it.



Your narrative misses the fact that Thornberry's supposedly-misread snobbery is being decried by Labour supporters who have no vested interest in representing Thornberry as a clueless Islingtonite twat, people who are disgusted that an MP for a party that makes claim to representing the working class, could treat a member of that class so cavalierly, and with such contempt.
As for accusing others of constructing narratives that favour their political preferences, you're doing exactly the same. The only difference is that you do it very poorly because you're a hack.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> And sacking Thornberry would make you more likely to vote Labour? Can't believe there are many in that camp



That'd be because you're part of the bubble. Your politics is far removed from "the man on the street".


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

Who _produced _these cliches - and _use _of them - that you support articul8?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2014)

stethoscope said:


> Spot on Zapp. And shared by my w/c mother, who was very a committed Labour activist in the 80s-early 90s, and whom feels really alienated by the party now - usually voting for them just because 'she hates the Tories so much'.
> 
> She's never been much of a fan of England flags much either, but saw Thornberry's actions as 'typical of the political class gulf that exists', and is not surprised people vote UKIP even though she's wary of their popularity. She doesn't like Ed much either but not on this particular issue



I'm not a fan of the Cross of St. George - being from the generation I am, I originally associated it more with the British Movement, than with support of the England soccer team - but I don't immediately associate it with a particular politics because what the flag signifies has evolved well beyond it being a simple marker of political nationalism. That Thornberry didn't/doesn't "get" this simply marks her as being at least as bubblicious as articul8, perhaps even more so.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 23, 2014)

I think it's fair to criticise the faux-sincerity of people who seize on the same cliches and reverse the negative evaluation.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I think it's fair to criticise the faux-sincerity of people who seize on the same cliches and reverse the negative evaluation.


This is why you're a hack, a liability and liar - all in one sentence.

Oh yeah, a pretentious wanker as well. A casually red.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I think it's fair to criticise the faux-sincerity of people who seize on the same cliches and reverse the negative evaluation.


we criticise your faux-politics all the time. when are you going to come out with something which sounds as though there's been some thought gone into it?

reading the exchange on this thread is like seeing someone (i.e. you) getting kicked in the head again and again and again


----------



## articul8 (Nov 23, 2014)

Whatever


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 23, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Your narrative misses the fact that Thornberry's supposedly-misread snobbery is being decried by Labour supporters who have no vested interest in representing Thornberry as a clueless Islingtonite twat, people who are disgusted that an MP for a party that makes claim to representing the working class, could treat a member of that class so cavalierly, and with such contempt.
> As for accusing others of constructing narratives that favour their political preferences, you're doing exactly the same. The only difference is that you do it very poorly because you're a hack.



Whereas Ed merely humiliated a homeless woman with his 2p without flags nor a van to her name. 

Facepalm stupidity for a lawyer to put someone's home and number plate up on Twitter, but let's also not overdo it on the victim here. He had three flags up on the day the English nationalists rode to victory. It's not outside of credibility to suggest he might have been joining in as these were street facing and anything in the street is public. FTAOD Thornberry should not have done it, but the hysterical response to it was an own goal, one Ed will live to regret. Disloyalty isn't liked by anyone.

A sensible answer would have been to take the issue on truthfully. Actually, yes, we have been a divided nation. The England flag has often been a mistrusted symbol, including by people within the Labour Party who wish to include all working class people in our project. But this is wrong, we should all be proud of where we come from, which is why I have discussed the matter firmly with Emily (And implied trouser trembling bollocking). But more importantly it reminds us why we oppose UKIP who seek to make flag waving and national loyalties a devisive and destructive force once more. We do not play those games. Now fuck off.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 23, 2014)

You're a fucking terrible PR man 

(articul8 that is. not Mr Moose)


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Whatever


it's like you're some apolitical teenager instead of someone who professes some sort of structured political beliefs. except any apolitical teenager would be able to batter your so-called politics into submission every time here. you're like rebel warrior only in the labour party.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 23, 2014)

Go back to wanking off to pics of dead coppers


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Whatever


Third day to get some grip - thus far you've put off someone who was thinking of rejoining labour, convinced no one of your argument, convinced people that you're either lying or an idiot and generally made a bit of a tit of yourself.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Third day to get some grip - thus far you've put off someone who was thinking of rejoining labour, convinced no one of your argument, convinced people that you're either lying or an idiot and generally made a bit of a tit of yourself.


a quiet few days for him then


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Go back to wanking off to pics of dead coppers


you've got no politics.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 23, 2014)

ive always respected articul8 for holding his corner on the boards, pretty much single handedly, and although i rarely agree i usually understand where he's coming from and can respect the sentiment
but on this one i just dont understand how there's room for any confusion - its an open and shut case - and amazingly his view isnt that uncommon, in as much as that there are a fair few blogs and articles out there who also dont understand the fuss to different degrees - ive found the whole thing eye opening


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2014)

ska invita said:


> ive always respected articul8 for holding his corner on the boards, pretty much single handedly, and although i rarely agree i usually understand where he's coming from and can respect the sentiment
> but on this one i just dont understand how there's room for any confusion - its an open and shut case - and amazingly his view isnt that uncommon, in as much as that there are a fair few blogs and articles out there who also dont understand the fuss to different degrees - ive found the whole thing eye opening


tbh i don't think he has ever held his own corner, he's been beaten, twatted, knocked about and always ending where he started, on the losing side.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 23, 2014)

She has been scapegoated to appease right wing tabloids. Simple as. The story here was the Tory failure to hold the seat. Miliband has only himself to blame for turning a Twitter spat into an overall admission of Labour snobbery. No wonder Butchers and all the haters are delighted with him.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> She has been scapegoated to appease right wing tabloids. Simple as.


Irrelevant - your defence of her is relevant. You may try to make it about something beyond our understanding and some other internal game but each time you do this you just show that you can't read what that tweet meant and why you should be kept away from anything to with any election ever.

And btw you're the one doing the right wing tabloids game. No one else. You literally post their lies as fact, even when corrected.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 23, 2014)

Totally wrong.  They have him well and truly on the back foot now


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Totally wrong.  They have him well and truly on the back foot now


Another _refutation_. Blimey, we are prived to be in the presence of such rigour.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Totally wrong.  They have him well and truly on the back foot now



They/him - you' the one using them to attack him. Well done.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Indeed, he's petty much a puppet for progress/the sun/guido fawkes etc here. Odd thing is,  a few years back he was giving us the line that Miliband has put the labour party back on track and is moving them in a definite left-wing direction. It almost looks like he was wrong doesn't it? But we all know that doesn't happen. Unless it later proves he was right to have been wrong _at that point._


A few years before that, he was a Trot.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 23, 2014)

It is perfectly clear - they will only grant that he has started to listen and respect working class people if they were to go hard on benefits, immigrants and criminals.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Fuck off with that Fabian shite too



So you're *not* a reformist, top-downist condescending shitehawk, then?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 23, 2014)

VP - l'll condescend to you , you daft twat, but the rest is bollocks


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> It is perfectly clear - they will only grant that he has started to listen and respect working class people if they were to go hard on benefits, immigrants and criminals.


He babbling his bubble again. Don't ever go out on the knocker...oh. Stay behind as a strategist...oh.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> It is perfectly clear - they will only grant that he has started to listen and respect working class people if they were to go hard on benefits, immigrants and criminals.


you're all over the fucking shop here. they = right wing media. he = miliband. so [right wing media] will only grant that [miliband]has started to listen to and respect working class people if [right wing media] were to go hard on benefits, immigrants and criminals.

you fucking what?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> VP - l'll condescend to you , you daft twat, but the rest is bollocks


you condescend to everyone, you're very condescending.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He babbling his bubble again. Don't ever go out on the knocker...oh. Stay behind as a strategist...oh.


This episode is a self-inflicted wound. Inflicted by Miliband


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> This episode is a self-inflicted wound. Inflicted by Miliband


Don't you ever do anything really. There's nothing you cannot make worse.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 23, 2014)

> you fucking what?


No - only if Miliband dances to the right wing tabloid tune would they (the tabloids) grant he has started to listen to working people


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No - only if Miliband dances to the right wing tabloid tune would they (the tabloids) grant he has started to listen to working people


but that's not what you said.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No - only if Miliband dances to the right wing tabloid tune would they (the tabloids) grant he has started to listen to working people


_Hold the line_ - flags and houses and vans are racist and people we don't want. _No pasaran.

That someone so massively brained be could be so fucking thick, i'm shocked._


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2014)

SaskiaJayne said:


> I wonder who articul8 really is? Why do I keep coming back to Ed Balls?



Nah. Ed Balls wouldn't go through the wanky ideological contortions that articul8 has. He's more of a Peter Watt.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No - only if Miliband dances to the right wing tabloid tune would they (the tabloids) grant he has started to listen to working people


Literally _support class snobbery or the papers i don't like won't like it_. Extend this little tactical annexe into the future. What the fuck is this utter naive nonsense. The ragss are calling your fucking tune here and you've even used their weapons.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> This is why you're a hack, a liability and liar - all in one sentence.
> 
> Oh yeah, a pretentious wanker as well. A casually red.



Steady on!!!


----------



## J Ed (Nov 23, 2014)

This is getting North Korean


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2014)

J Ed said:


> This is getting North Korean


wait for the highlight of the evening when we feed articul8 to some dogs. that's when it really will be north korean.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 23, 2014)

J Ed said:


> This is getting North Korean



You say that as if it's a bad thing comrade; have you considered the benefits of re-education? 

Cheers - Louis (Kim something or other) MacNeice


----------



## articul8 (Nov 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> _Hold the line_ - flags and houses and vans are racist


 i Never said that, nor did she - in any case, you think the Sun is genuinely outraged at class snobbery ??! You're a joke if so


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> You say that as if it's a bad thing comrade; have you considered the benefits of re-education?
> 
> Cheers - Louis (Kim something or other) MacNeice


kim il macni


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Whereas Ed merely humiliated a homeless woman with his 2p without flags nor a van to her name.



*If* you buy the story that he gave her 2p, anyway. The repro quality and blow-up of the newspaper image made it pretty indistinct.



> Facepalm stupidity for a lawyer to put someone's home and number plate up on Twitter, but let's also not overdo it on the victim here. He had three flags up on the day the English nationalists rode to victory. It's not outside of credibility to suggest he might have been joining in as these were street facing and anything in the street is public. FTAOD Thornberry should not have done it, but the hysterical response to it was an own goal, one Ed will live to regret. Disloyalty isn't liked by anyone.



Of course it's not outside of credibility.
That Thornberry appears, in most interpretations, to have made an automatic assumption about what was being signified, is the issue at hand, though, and what it reveals about her perspective on a section of the population her party purports to represent.



> A sensible answer would have been to take the issue on truthfully. Actually, yes, we have been a divided nation. The England flag has often been a mistrusted symbol, including by people within the Labour Party who wish to include all working class people in our project. But this is wrong, we should all be proud of where we come from, which is why I have discussed the matter firmly with Emily (And implied trouser trembling bollocking). But more importantly it reminds us why we oppose UKIP who seek to make flag waving and national loyalties a devisive and destructive force once more. We do not play those games. Now fuck off.



As I was saying earlier, there's a world of difference in what the St George signifies now, compared to what it used to signify, such that making an automatic assumption that it is shorthand for "nationalist lives here" is pretty much intellectually lazy, if not intellectually bankrupt. Miliband appears to understand this, where Thornberry (and articul8) appear to have missed it.


----------



## Coolfonz (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> It is perfectly clear - they will only grant that he has started to listen and respect working class people if they were to go hard on benefits, immigrants and criminals.



It's not that though. It is 20ish years of Labour deliberately not talking to 'traditional working class' people, instead courting the middle/centre-right ground who swing elections.
Then Milliband comes out with what do you think when you see a white van outside a house, he says "respect". Which just sounds fucking weird.
It is the ability to sit in a room full of Ukip voters and maybe win them over, at least charm them, at least some of them. Labour won't even come in the room, it can't even open the door, it can't even hold the door handle its hands are so greased with sleaze and power, it can't (insert door/handle analogy here)...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> It's not that though. It is 20ish years of Labour deliberately not talking to 'traditional working class' people, instead courting the middle/centre-right ground who swing elections.
> Then Milliband comes out with what do you think when you see a white van outside a house, he says "respect". Which just sounds fucking weird.
> It is the ability to sit in a room full of Ukip voters and maybe win them over, at least charm them, at least some of them. Labour won't even come in the room, it can't even open the door, it can't even hold the door handle its hands are so greased with sleaze and power, it can't (insert door/handle analogy here)...


nothing suitable for a family website leaps to mind.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> VP - l'll condescend to you , you daft twat, but the rest is bollocks



I'll keep this simple for you.
You support the Labour Party. The Labour Party is constructed around the acceptance of a political structure which operates to facilitate top-down political _diktat_. 
That same party has, within the last generation, removed all mechanisms that allowed the membership a say in the direction of the party - it's not democratic in any real sense of the word, and neither are those who operate within it. Their course is one which has taken the party quite far into policy being decided by small cliques, and then imposed on the membership, and on the UK.
That same party has never been revolutionary, it has always been reformist or, applicable to the post-Smith years, ameliorationist.

That makes you a reformist top-downer, or what is known as a "Fabian".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you condescend to everyone, you're very condescending.



Unfortunately for him, with very little reason.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Unfortunately for him, with very little reason.


yeh he's much to be very modest about.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 23, 2014)

She was making a comment about the political mood of the place, not that specific resident (who, as it turned out, was a racist prick in any case).


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 23, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> *If* you buy the story that he gave her 2p, anyway. The repro quality and blow-up of the newspaper image made it pretty indistinct.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thornberry on Question Time normally looks like she's just eaten a servant. She comes across posh and entitled. She's a lawyer, it's in the JD. The fact that she might be a bit Islington snobby won't be people's biggest concern if she could do her job well. But people really hate the ego driven politics, of playing tough to the press, sack and disown on tittle tattle and trivia.

Ed doesn't really get it at all. If he pretends that we can just smile at Nationalism and welcome it into the big tent he's in for a big shock. The flag is still the flag. Democratic socialists have to admit they can't always wave it. You seem to be criticising Thornberry for no more than not keeping up with today's narrative.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Thornberry on Question Time normally looks like she's just eaten a servant. She comes across posh and entitled. She's a lawyer, it's in the JD. The fact that she might be a bit Islington snobby won't be people's biggest concern if she could do her job well. But people really hate the ego driven politics, of playing tough to the press, sack and disown on tittle tattle and trivia.
> 
> Ed doesn't really get it at all. If he pretends that we can just smile at Nationalism and welcome it into the big tent he's in for a big shock. The flag is still the flag. Democratic socialists have to admit they can't always wave it. You seem to be criticising Thornberry for no more than not keeping up with today's narrative.


you should change your username to 'mr morose'


----------



## articul8 (Nov 23, 2014)

Thornberry was, I gather brought up on a council estate - hardly the kind of elite liberal she is being made out as


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you should change your username to 'mr morose'


Does morose mean daft now or summat?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh he's much to be very modest about.



Unlike belboid


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Thornberry was, I gather brought up on a council estate - hardly the kind of elite liberal she is being made out as


so was david davis. now, do you have anything substantive to add, or are you just going to piss about like this for the next few days?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Does morose mean daft now or summat?


sullen and ill-tempered


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Thornberry was, I gather brought up on a council estate - hardly the kind of elite liberal she is being made out as



Yeah, we've all got all sorts of roots, but she chosen to hide hers well. It's not a card in this argument.



Pickman's model said:


> you should change your username to 'mr morose'



But I is happy Moose today.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> But I is happy Moose today.


today. but tomorrow?


----------



## ska invita (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> She has been scapegoated to appease right wing tabloids. Simple as. The story here was the Tory failure to hold the seat. Miliband has only himself to blame for turning a Twitter spat into an overall admission of Labour snobbery. No wonder Butchers and all the haters are delighted with him.


i was offended by it - im not a right wing tabloid. simple as.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 23, 2014)

ska invita said:


> i was offended by it - im not a right wing tabloid. simple as.



It was offensive true. Offended to the point of sacking though?


----------



## ska invita (Nov 23, 2014)

> Miliband has only himself to blame for turning a Twitter spat into an overall admission of Labour snobbery. No wonder Butchers and all the haters are delighted with him.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 23, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> It was offensive true. Offended to the point of sacking though?


im offended by the attitude of the politician in question - if thats the way she views the world then yes, shes got no business representing the community as a politician

*of course 99% of them feel similiarly, but pretend otherwise - she gave herself away to anyone who cares to see it


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 23, 2014)

ska invita said:


> im offended by the attitude of the politician in question - if thats the way she views the world then yes, shes got no business representing the community as a politician
> 
> *of course 99% of them feel similiarly, but pretend otherwise - she gave herself away to anyone who cares to see it



If 99% of them feel the same then sacking one of them is just PR. And poor PR at that.

Low on the list of Churchill's values much beloved by the British was his common touch. The public do not care that much, don't really expect Politicians to be like them. There is also a significant portion of the electorate who don't like flag waving types and who don't wish to see the Labour Party prostrate before them, even when it's in the wrong.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Nov 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> She actually was one the lefter people around Milibands team. Tough shit. 2 million quid house and such arrogance.



Like the fucking lot of them. Labour embraced neo liberal politics 30 years ago. How can this M.P.'s comments even appear surprising, at this late stage? A labour prime minister got stuck into a war based on lies for profit not so long ago. They are a totally lost cause.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 23, 2014)

Anudder Oik said:


> Like the fucking lot of them. Labour embraced neo liberal politics 30 years ago. How can this M.P.'s comments even appear surprising, at this late stage? A labour prime minister got stuck into a war based on lies for profit not so long ago. They are a totally lost cause.



Nearer 40 years; it was very nearly exactly 38 years ago that the IMF published the conditions consequent upon the £2.3bn loan sought by Healy. This effectively marks the formal point from which the de-democratisation of the economy proceeded; the subsequent 'consolidation' or public spending cuts contributing to the 'winter of discontent' that preceded the 1979 election.


----------



## cantsin (Nov 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Thornberry was, I gather brought up on a council estate - hardly the kind of elite liberal she is being made out as



Dad assistant gen sec of UN, mum mayor of Guildford


----------



## brogdale (Nov 23, 2014)

cantsin said:


> Dad assistant gen sec of UN, mum mayor of Guildford



Boutros Boutros-Ghali?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 23, 2014)

Ashcroft's take....



> ....looking back, we can see that the tale of the Emily Thornberry tweet provides a perfect parable for Ukip’s rise. I do not suppose the shadow attorney general was overcome with hostility or even distaste at the sight of a house festooned with St George flags; the problem was that *a senior Labour politician seemed bemused by the kind of people her party was created to represent.*


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 23, 2014)

A proper _scolding, _no less http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/rebecca-winson/emily-thornberry-tweet_b_6197296.html


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 23, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Ashcroft's take....



I don't think there is any reason to expect she was bemused. We simply don't know, though she, in a moment of Twitter brain by-pass, clearly thought we would get it.

Not respectful, not clever, but hardly worth the fuss.



S☼I said:


> A proper _scolding, _no less http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/rebecca-winson/emily-thornberry-tweet_b_6197296.html



Yep...This will seem like a weird dream in a few weeks. 'He sacked her for...what?..really?..'


----------



## coley (Nov 23, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> It's not that though. It is 20ish years of Labour deliberately not talking to 'traditional working class' people, instead courting the middle/centre-right ground who swing elections.
> Then Milliband comes out with what do you think when you see a white van outside a house, he says "respect". Which just sounds fucking weird.
> It is the ability to sit in a room full of Ukip voters and maybe win them over, at least charm them, at least some of them. Labour won't even come in the room, it can't even open the door, it can't even hold the door handle its hands are so greased with sleaze and power, it can't (insert door/handle analogy here)...


What makes it worse,is that not only was it a sneer against the WC,it was a lazy, oh we can drop our pretensions here, this lot isn't worth bothering with sneer.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 23, 2014)

I don't agree with the article, lol

I've seen some phenomenal responses from supposed left-leaning people on this whole story last few days, including "he can't be working class" (despite Mr. Ware describing himself as such), "you just KNEW he was going to look like that", and calling him all sorts of things from dickhead to fash...


----------



## coley (Nov 23, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> It was offensive true. Offended to the point of sacking though?


On balance? He should have regretfully accepted her resignation


----------



## ska invita (Nov 23, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Ashcroft's take.... " a senior Labour politician seemed bemused by the kind of people her party was created to represent."


yeah exactly
if a tory had tweeted it the class politics would be even clearer than they are now - theyre perfectly clear now to anyone who isnt still delusional about the labour party



Mr Moose said:


> If 99% of them feel the same then sacking one of them is just PR. And poor PR at that.


If you can find a way to sack off the lot of them let me know...


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 24, 2014)

ska invita said:


>


----------



## gosub (Nov 24, 2014)

coley said:


> What makes it worse,is that not only was it a sneer against the WC,it was a lazy, oh we can drop our pretensions here, this lot isn't worth bothering with sneer.



as the bloke didn't even know there was a bi election on, not sure she was wrong


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 24, 2014)

gosub said:


> as the bloke didn't even know there was a bi election on, not sure she was wrong


Yeah, def don't bother trying to win the votes of people who aren't currently planning to vote in a by-election. That's the winners way. Just ask UKIP. maybe you and articul8 should have a get together.


----------



## gosub (Nov 24, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Fortunate that Miliband didn't say anything regarding giving vans and flags automatic respect, then.
> His point that one should respect a person until you have a reason to not respect them is practical manners, no more, no less. To do not do so implies condescension and contempt on par with that displayed by Thornberry.
> 
> 
> ...



It was a misuse of the word respect, he went on to say he respects everyone in the UK.  What she did was disrespectful, and had to be countered.  But when you start saying you respect everyone, you dilute the word and render it meaningless


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 24, 2014)

gosub said:


> It was a misuse of the word respect, he went on to say he respects everyone in the UK.  What she did was disrespectful, and had to be countered.  But when you start saying you respect everyone, you dilute the word and render it meaningless


No, he was saying you should _start _from a position of respect - not that all views and opinions should be equally respected at all times. This really is quite simple stuff - it's the ABC of electoral politics.

And are you _really _sure he went onto to say what you claim he did?


----------



## gosub (Nov 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah, def don't bother trying to win the votes of people who aren't currently planning to vote in a by-election. That's the winners way. Just ask UKIP. maybe you and articul8 should have a get together.



If you can sit through six weeks of a media and political circus and still be oblivious to its existence, maybe politics isn't for you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 24, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Thornberry was, I gather brought up on a council estate - hardly the kind of elite liberal she is being made out as



Does she live on a council estate now? Does she associate with the people she grew up alongside?
Or has she left her class for membership of a different, more elitism-centric one?

We both know the answer to that, just as we know that your mentioning her childhood on a council estate is a transparent stab at giving her some class credibility.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 24, 2014)

gosub said:


> If you can sit through six weeks of a media and political circus and still be oblivious to its existence, maybe politics isn't for you.


Lord above - did you really just type that. You and articul8 _really _should teem up - he doesn't want the votes of people in common houses and you think they should just be ignored. What a pair of winners.

_maybe politics isn't for you_ - the whole stinking arrogant attitude laid bare.


----------



## gosub (Nov 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No, he was saying you should _start _from a position of respect - not that all views and opinions should be equally respected at all times. This really is quite simple stuff - it's the ABC of electoral politics.
> 
> And are you _really _sure he went onto to say what you claim he did?


2.32. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-feel-respect-whenever-I-see-a-white-van.html


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 24, 2014)

articul8 said:


> She was making a comment about the political mood of the place, not that specific resident (who, as it turned out, was a racist prick in any case).



No she wasn't; she was pointing at a house and sneering.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 24, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Thornberry was, I gather brought up on a council estate - hardly the kind of elite liberal she is being made out as



My first home was a council flat. I don't claim any working class credentials. I look at where I am to day. You should stop defending sneering privilege.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 24, 2014)

gosub said:


> as the bloke didn't even know there was a bi election on, not sure she was wrong



That rather supports why Thornberry was caught out, and Labour more widely have lost the plot doesnt it?

He didn't know/wasn't interested in the election, yet Thornberry had already crudely judged him (via his house/flags/van) to use as political capital.

That he didnt know/wasnt interested shows how political parties (and particularly Labour) are no longer reaching out to w/c vote.


----------



## gosub (Nov 24, 2014)

stethoscope said:


> That rather supports why Thornberry was caught out, and Labour more widely have lost the plot doesnt it?
> 
> He didn't know/wasn't interested in the election, yet Thornberry had already crudely judged him (via his house/flags/van) to use as political capital.
> 
> That he didnt know/wasnt interested shows how political parties (and particularly Labour) are no longer reaching out to w/c vote.



I would respect the blokes right not to get drawn in not to get drawn in to something to which he was wilfully ignorant. And would agree the political class  (that term is part of the problem IMO)is becoming detached.  but there is only so much parties can do, I almost fell sorry for constituents when the circus of a well contested by election comes to town


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 24, 2014)

gosub said:


> I would respect the blokes right not to get drawn in not to get drawn in to something to which he was wilfully ignorant. And would agree the political class  (that term is part of the problem IMO)is becoming detached.  but there is only so much parties can do, I almost fell sorry for constituents when the circus of a well contested by election comes to town


Is one of the things that can do leap to conclusions about them based on their house, their shirt football team(s) and their white work van? Or is that one of the things that sort of re-inforces that detachment you talk of?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 24, 2014)

gosub said:


> as the bloke didn't even know there was a bi election on, not sure she was wrong


Wonder if the thick fucker even knew how to spell it, either....Lol


----------



## Wilf (Nov 24, 2014)

The sneer comes out of the social base and politics of new labour, but also manages to fuck newlab's presentation of itself as being 'on the side of working families'.  The paranoid little tap dance they've been doing since the tweet is also a good satement of who new labour are.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 24, 2014)

Wilf said:


> The sneer comes out of the social base and politics of new labour, but also manages to fuck newlab's presentation of itself as being 'on the side of working families'.  The paranoid little tap dance they've been doing since the tweet is also a good satement of who new labour are.



Giving the likes of Clegg an open goal-mouth amply illustrates quite how badly she fucked up.



> Nick Clegg described the photograph tweeted last week by the former shadow attorney general Emily Thornberry as “*drippingly patronising and jaw-droppingly condescending*”.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 24, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Giving the likes of Clegg an open goal-mouth amply illustrates quite how badly she fucked up.


 Wow, the tweet took the attention away from the Tories losing the seat - and now from the 1%ers!


----------



## gosub (Nov 24, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Wonder if the thick fucker even knew how to spell it, either....Lol


are you sneering at my dyslexia?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 24, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Giving the likes of Clegg an open goal-mouth amply illustrates quite how badly she fucked up.


 There's a lovely bit at the end of that story. Just as new lab manage to show their contempt for the working class using the medium of twitter, clegg is equally apt, using his European dream to cut benefits:



> He disclosed he would be travelling to Germany on Wednesday to discuss Europe-wide action to restrict access to benefits for EU migrants. “I think we can go further in concert with our EU partners,” he said


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 24, 2014)

Yep, no benefits until they've paid in.  A principle that will be quickly extended to 'native' school leavers and anyone else not yet working.  Social support is something you earn, not just something people get because we live in a decent society that looks after people without any means to support themselves.

I feel sorry for today's kids, nobody gives a fuck about them, least of all UKIP.  Work or study as hard as you like, you're getting fuck all unless your parents/expensive schooling give you a leg-up.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 24, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Wonder if the thick fucker even knew how to spell it, either....Lol


No; just your (mis-spelt) contention that, because the householder chose to tell the media he was unaware of the event, Thornberry was not wrong to imply his type were not worth bothering with.


----------



## gosub (Nov 24, 2014)

brogdale said:


> No; just your (mis-spelt) contention that, because the householder chose to tell the media he was unaware of the event, Thornberry was not wrong to imply his type were not worth bothering with.



Thornberry was wrong to publish that photo.  As it happened, (and assuming he is on the electoral role) turned out she was correct, whilst not right.

The bloke himself, from what is known has done nothing to warrant respect (he might do shed loads for charity, who knows) but his right to privacy should have been respected - Milliband sort of tried to say that but it got mangled, a big up to people for just existing is fucked up


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 24, 2014)

gosub said:


> a big up to people for just existing is fucked up



what sort of disgusting anti-human cunt are you?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 24, 2014)

gosub said:


> Thornberry.....turned out *she was correct, whilst not right*.
> 
> The bloke himself, *from what is known has done nothing to warrant respect* (he might do shed loads for charity, who knows) but his right to privacy should have been respected



What the fuck are you on about?


----------



## gosub (Nov 24, 2014)

respect
rɪˈspɛkt/
_noun_

*1*.
a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
"the director had a lot of *respect for* Douglas as an actor"
synonyms: esteem, regard, high regard, high opinion, acclaim, admiration,approbation, approval, appreciation, estimation, favour, popularity,recognition, veneration, awe, reverence, deference, honour, praise,homage
"the respect due to a great artist"
*2*.
due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others.
"young people's lack of *respect for* their parents"
synonyms: due regard, consideration, thoughtfulness, attentiveness, politeness,courtesy, civility, deference
"he speaks to the old lady with respect"

Taking a photo of someone's house and dragging them into an election campaign is a breach of the secondary definition of respect. Dishing out out respect willy nilly is a debasement of the primary definition of respect.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2014)

gosub said:


> Dishing out out respect willy nilly is a debasement of the primary definition of respect.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 24, 2014)

gosub said:


> Taking a photo of someone's house and dragging them into an election campaign is a breach of the secondary definition of respect. Dishing out out respect willy nilly is a debasement of the primary definition of respect.



You total fool, fuck off.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 24, 2014)

gosub said:


> respect
> rɪˈspɛkt/
> _noun_
> 
> ...



Yeah, yeah...all very dictionary corner, but why did you say.... 


gosub said:


> she was correct, whilst not right.


...and what does it mean?

And, while you're at it...what the fuck is this about?


gosub said:


> from what is known has done nothing to warrant respect


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2014)

gosub said:


> respect
> rɪˈspɛkt/
> _noun_
> 
> ...


----------



## articul8 (Nov 24, 2014)

> he doesn't want the votes of people in common houses


Yes that's what I said and believe


----------



## brogdale (Nov 24, 2014)

Staines (I won't link) is making hay with the story of Thornberry's husband (Sir Christopher George Nugee, styled The Hon. Mr Justice Nugee) and his investment in ex-social housing stock. It appears that Staines has a personal beef.


----------



## co-op (Nov 24, 2014)

> Thornberry was, I gather brought up on a council estate - hardly the kind of elite liberal she is being made out as



Her father went to Cambridge University and was Assistant Secretary General of the UN, wrote a load of books and was a visiting Professor at Kings College London. I don't know what she was doing being brought up on a council estate but the idea she isn't part of the liberal elite is a bit daft, she was born into it.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 24, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> what sort of disgusting anti-human cunt are you?


My search for a new tagline is over!


----------



## prunus (Nov 24, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> allied to viewing policy as a "vote-catcher" rather than a social tool



This, times one thousand, is the problem.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 24, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> My first home was a council flat. I don't claim any working class credentials. I look at where I am to day. You should stop defending sneering privilege.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



But you are doing just that. Your sentence could have read 'I don't claim any working class credentials. I look at where I am to day. You should stop defending sneering privilege' but you had to tell us you once lived in a council flat, which then gained a round of applause.

There is also a lot of sneering going on against those unable to make the sudden volte-face that enough nationalism draped over one's house to shut out all natural light along with a flag for the team with arguably UK football's most historically racist fans doesn't make us uneasy. Perhaps you should ask a (fellow perhaps) Scot what they think of that house?

Of course it doesn't mean it was correct to Tweet it and it doesn't mean that snobbery wasn't in the mix, but maybe now this guy's had his day in _the Sun_ and had the opportunity to let the world know that he likes to annoy easily annoyed ethnic minorities the self flagellation can cease.

This exercise will have meant very little to working class people, either those with antipathy towards Labour who will have enjoyed the squirming, or those with antipathy towards flag waving neighbours who may have disliked the fawning. It's a sop to middle class sensibilities offended by offence to a disadvantaged group that sends Labour on the back foot on nationalism and it's problems.


----------



## co-op (Nov 25, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> ...along with a *flag for the team with arguably UK football's most historically racist fans* doesn't make us uneasy.





That's just bullshit, West Ham aren't even historically the most racist fans in London.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 25, 2014)

co-op said:


> Her father went to Cambridge University and was Assistant Secretary General of the UN, wrote a load of books and was a visiting Professor at Kings College London.* I don't know what she was doing being brought up on a council estate *but the idea she isn't part of the liberal elite is a bit daft, she was born into it.



AFAIK it was after her parents separated or (?) divorced. There was genuine lack of money at one stage I think. Rest of what you say I agree with though.


----------



## co-op (Nov 25, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> AFAIK it was after her parents separated or (?) divorced. There was genuine lack of money at one stage I think. Rest of what you say I agree with though.



Yes I'd guess it would be something like that but google says her mother was a teacher and Mayor of Guildford so there wasn't exactly poverty, I'd call teachers middle class although of course with childcare it all depends on what kind of support networks you have around you.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 25, 2014)

I guess that would have been the Seventies, Thornberry was born in 1960. Teachers weren't in poverty then, but they were notably less well paid than now. Anyway it doesn't contradict the wider point -- her m/c background was exactly as you outlined.

Anyway I *partly *agree with Mr Moose (that crap about the West Ham flag aside) concerning this whole fandango. As he says snobbery was definitely there and she was bang out of order to tweet,  but some of the _really_ overboard comments about it (here and elsewhere) look somewhat ridiculous to me.

She's been sacked for being an idiot, deservedly, but she's not the only one as plenty have already said -- most politicians are tempted to think like she did but most are shrewd enough to keep it to themselves, and its those who hide it who are the worst elitists/snobs//hypocrites IMO. And that's across all parties, plenty of Labour definitely, but Tories and (I have zero doubt) UKIP very much included.

My real issue with this by-election is something that's not even been discussed over the past six or seven pages here -- UKIP continue to pose as the outsider/anti-elite/anti-establishment party when they are no different *whatsoever* than the others in that respect.

Owen Jones wrote what I thought was a pretty reasonable piece on Saturday including a passing mention of some voters both in Clacton and Rochester who said they were voting UKIP because the sitting MP had done nothing for them/the area, not sure how much real evidence there is for that (anecdotes are unsafe after all) but UKIP are the biggest snake-oil merchants going anywhere to be so successful at conning people to that extent. Says nothing for their opponents either for them being so rubbish, not even trying to exploit the gaping holes and inconsistencies in UKIP's story and candidates.

And we've barely discussed UKIP at all on this thread lately. Well done for that, Emily Thornberry  , but she's really not THAT important.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 25, 2014)

co-op said:


> Her father went to Cambridge University and was Assistant Secretary General of the UN, wrote a load of books and was a visiting Professor at Kings College London. I don't know what she was doing being brought up on a council estate but the idea she isn't part of the liberal elite is a bit daft, she was born into it.



Her parents split, and her mum got custody, hence the council estate.


----------



## treelover (Nov 25, 2014)

co-op said:


> Her father went to Cambridge University and was Assistant Secretary General of the UN, wrote a load of books and was a visiting Professor at Kings College London. I don't know what she was doing being brought up on a council estate but the idea she isn't part of the liberal elite is a bit daft, she was born into it.




To a degree, contacts, etc, but like many women who get divorced her mother went through some hard times and until she went to university ET had very little.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 25, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> But you are doing just that. Your sentence could have read 'I don't claim any working class credentials. I look at where I am to day. You should stop defending sneering privilege' but you had to tell us you once lived in a council flat, which then gained a round of applause.



Or perhaps he was illustrating that one can come from a council estate, "make good", and still not be a condescending cunt _a la_ Thornberry.



> There is also a lot of sneering going on against those unable to make the sudden volte-face that enough nationalism draped over one's house to shut out all natural light...



White cloth doesn't block out much natural light unless it's very heavy duty, like canvas. Most flags nowadays are made from high denier polyester, which is about as lightfast as a pair of tights.



> ....along with a flag for the team with arguably UK football's most historically racist fans doesn't make us uneasy. Perhaps you should ask a (fellow perhaps) Scot what they think of that house?



WHUFC have the "most historically racist fans"?  If you believe that, then in London alone you can never have been to The Den, or Stamford Bridge. "Arguably" isn't even in the running.



> Of course it doesn't mean it was correct to Tweet it and it doesn't mean that snobbery wasn't in the mix, but maybe now this guy's had his day in _the Sun_ and had the opportunity to let the world know that he likes to annoy easily annoyed ethnic minorities the self flagellation can cease.
> 
> This exercise will have meant very little to working class people, either those with antipathy towards Labour who will have enjoyed the squirming, or those with antipathy towards flag waving neighbours who may have disliked the fawning. It's a sop to middle class sensibilities offended by offence to a disadvantaged group that sends Labour on the back foot on nationalism and it's problems.



I have to ask: Who the *buggering fuck* are YOU to speak for the working class?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 25, 2014)

co-op said:


> That's just bullshit, West Ham aren't even historically the most racist fans in London.



Unless you've never seen Millwall or Chelsea on their home turf.
Still, it's easier for Mr Moose to trot out trite bollocks about West Ham that isn't historically reflected either by their players or fans, than to actually know what he's talking about.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 25, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> *But you are doing just that. Your sentence could have read 'I don't claim any working class credentials. I look at where I am to day. You should stop defending sneering privilege' but you had to tell us you once lived in a council flat, which then gained a round of applause.*


 
Sorry what am I doing? Defending sneering privilege or claiming working class credentials? I don't see how it can be the former. And as for the later; my whole point is that just like Emily, I can't claim any such credentials because of where I used to live.

I told you I once lived in a council house because articul8 cited Thornberry's childhood experience as evidence; I was giving a pertinent - and close to home - example to point up the flimsiness of his argument.

Also you might want to think about how you are able to discern the motivations of people giving likes to posts (the 'round of applause'); perhaps they appreciated the countering of articul8's position rather than any nostalgic image I might have conjured up of baby Louis.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## killer b (Nov 25, 2014)

I think getting distracted by the minutae of her proletarian (or otherwise) roots misses the point a bit. Snobbery is snobbery.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 25, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I have to ask: Who the *buggering fuck* are YOU to speak for the working class?



I'm not VP, I'm saying people will have very different reactions about this, Ed's outrage mirroring only some.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 25, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> I'm not VP, I'm saying people will have very different reactions about this, Ed's outrage mirroring only some.



You *stated* "This exercise will have meant very little to working class people, either those with antipathy towards Labour who will have enjoyed the squirming, or those with antipathy towards flag waving neighbours who may have disliked the fawning."
In other words you presented the above as "what the working class are thinking", when you'd no evidence to support your statement - if that isn't "speaking for the working class"< I don't know what is!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 25, 2014)

killer b said:


> I think getting distracted by the minutae of her proletarian (or otherwise) roots misses the point a bit. Snobbery is snobbery.



Quite, whether it's Hyacinth Bucket or Emily Thornberry.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 25, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Quite, whether it's Hyacinth Bucket or Emily Thornberry.



Tbf easy to mix the two up.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 25, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You *stated* "This exercise will have meant very little to working class people, either those with antipathy towards Labour who will have enjoyed the squirming, or those with antipathy towards flag waving neighbours who may have disliked the fawning."
> In other words you presented the above as "what the working class are thinking", when you'd no evidence to support your statement - if that isn't "speaking for the working class"< I don't know what is!



No it's not. I'm speculating. I don't accept the closedown argument that the flag has, for all, evolved into virtual neutrality.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 25, 2014)

it appears mellor has been at it, sun front page story. But, crucially, everyone knows thats what tories think anyway. So less milage here. Also its not as bad as plebgate for some reason- lack of swearing maybe


he sais to a cabbie:



			
				david mellor said:
			
		

> You've been driving a cab for 10 years? I have been in the cabinet, I am an award-winning broadcaster, I'm a Queen's Counsel, you think your experiences are anything compared to mine? Just shut up.
> "Drive me whichever way you want, and keep a civil tongue in your head."


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 25, 2014)

I can even hear the sneering arrogance of a well-bred tone saying it


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 25, 2014)

Renders all broadcasting awards meaningless if he has one.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 25, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> it appears mellor has been at it, sun front page story. But, crucially, everyone knows thats what tories think anyway. So less milage here. Also its not as bad as plebgate for some reason- lack of swearing maybe
> 
> 
> he sais to a cabbie:


Now _that_ is properly fucking offensive.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 25, 2014)

The words "I'm an award winning broadcaster" are just so


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 25, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> it appears mellor has been at it, sun front page story. But, crucially, everyone knows thats what tories think anyway. So less milage here. Also its not as bad as plebgate for some reason- lack of swearing maybe
> 
> 
> he sais to a cabbie:



Actually plenty of swearing. Vile behaviour.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 25, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Actually plenty of swearing. Vile behaviour.


have you a full transcript? I just flicked through the newstand athe shop


----------



## coley (Nov 25, 2014)

What did he get a broadcasting award for?


----------



## ska invita (Nov 25, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Now _that_ is properly fucking offensive.


only to a point, the cabbie had wound him up, we dont how, and then sat back and recorded his work - ETs was completely unprovoked


----------



## articul8 (Nov 25, 2014)

They aren't comparable at all - Thornberry did not mean to personally belittle anyone


----------



## belboid (Nov 25, 2014)

articul8 said:


> They aren't comparable at all - Thornberry did not mean to personally belittle anyone


Except whoever owned the van and put the flags up.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 25, 2014)

belboid said:


> Except whoever owned the van and put the flags up.



That's strong though, the notion that she sought to belittle and we don't know this from any words she wrote.

Had Denis Skinner been foolish enough to be the culprit my guess is he might have got a dressing down about privacy, no more. We have to believe it of Thornberry, we don't know it.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 25, 2014)

I suspect I'm a few days behind the news agenda, but I've only just learnt that Thornberry spent much of the night of 20th/21st on her twitter "_favoriting" _tweets by other folk lamenting her demise_.
_
eg.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 25, 2014)

One major difference between ET and DM's case is that the r/w media have an interest in making an abso fucking lutely massive shitstorm over any Labour cockup, and it's a mentality the Labour party fully play along with.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 25, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> One major difference between ET and DM's case is that the r/w media have an interest in making an abso fucking lutely massive shitstorm over any Labour cockup, and it's a mentality the Labour party fully play along with.



The fact that one is a serving, shadow cabinet MP, and the other isn't seems quite a major difference to me.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 25, 2014)

brogdale said:


> The fact that one is a serving, shadow cabinet MP, and the other isn't seems quite a major difference to me.



Indeed. Who gives a flying fuck what David Mellor gets up to? I'd be more shocked to see a 'David Mellor behaves like decent human being' headline.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 25, 2014)

brogdale said:


> The fact that one is a serving, shadow cabinet MP, and the other isn't seems quite a major difference to me.



That too for sure, but in that case we have to ask ourselves if more or less fuss would be made if it was a former senior Labour member. My strong guess is "more", whereas in this case it can perhaps be played up as "a bit funny" due to some of DM's past clownish exploits.


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 25, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> One major difference between ET and DM's case is that the r/w media have an interest in making an abso fucking lutely massive shitstorm over any Labour cockup, and it's a mentality the Labour party fully play along with.



Your post does not make sense.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 25, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> That too for sure, but in that case we have to ask ourselves if more or less fuss would be made if it was a former senior Labour member. My strong guess is "more", whereas in this case it can perhaps be played up as "a bit funny" due to some of DM's past clownish exploits.


I don't really know what you're getting at; any such sneery condescension of the 'ordinary man' deserves a "fuss", but it takes on an even more distasteful and hypocritical quality when it comes from a member of the party formed to represent their interests.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 26, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> One major difference between ET and DM's case is that the r/w media have an interest in making an abso fucking lutely massive shitstorm over any Labour cockup, and it's a mentality the Labour party fully play along with.




Mellor made the sun front page and also had a two page spread inside


----------



## articul8 (Nov 26, 2014)

Don't think the line about "jingoism mansion" works, but this piece is a lot more sensible than most of the drivel spouted here and elsewhere on the Thornberry incident:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...house-not-act-class-warfare-whatever-sun-says


----------



## brogdale (Nov 26, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Don't think the line about "jingoism mansion" works, but this piece is a lot more sensible than most of the drivel spouted here and elsewhere on the Thornberry incident:
> http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...house-not-act-class-warfare-whatever-sun-says





> who knows what Emily Thornberry was thinking as her thumb swiped the tweet button. Maybe, deep in her secret soul, every pixel really was imbued with the subtext “Oh my word how common” – although since Thornberry was raised on a council estate, she seems an unlikely vector for snobbery. Maybe it’s a coded missive of anti-patriotism, and if you say all the words in the tweet backwards, you’ll discover the subliminal message “I hate the Queen, shit on the flag”.



Hmmm..."_sensible"_....not actually the first adjective that comes to mind.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Don't think the line about "jingoism mansion" works, but this piece is a lot more sensible than most of the drivel spouted here and elsewhere on the Thornberry incident:
> http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...house-not-act-class-warfare-whatever-sun-says


sarah ditum: is she one of your friends?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Hmmm..."_sensible"_....not actually the first adjective that comes to mind.


a shorter and more pungent word, also beginning with s, does tho'.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 26, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> sarah ditum: is she one of your friends?


No, I don't know who she is.  I don't particularly like the Staggers, but fair play on this one...


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2014)

Excellent stuff - someone else from the heart of the bubble proclaiming the bubble is great and everyone else outside of the bubble are wrong.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No, I don't know who she is.  I don't particularly like the Staggers, but fair play on this one...


but it's crap.


----------



## killer b (Nov 26, 2014)

I know loads of people raised in social housing who sneer at stuff like that too. Only someone who doesn't actually know any working class people would think that argument would fly.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2014)

Oh well done articul8 - taffboy wells and now a lib-dem. Master strategist at work again.

The amazing thing is he whines about blue-labour dog whistling (and that's the party he's a member of ffs) but is entirely deaf to liberal-dog whistling. No, _no no there is no noise._


----------



## articul8 (Nov 26, 2014)

killer b said:


> I know loads of people raised in social housing who sneer at stuff like that too. Only someone who doesn't actually know any working class people would think that argument would fly.


who sneers at stuff like what?  What argument?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2014)

Thornberry _spent some time_ on a council estate is a better way of putting it i think. She later bought up social housing which then she then let out privately as part of their  (her and her husband Sir Christopher George Nugee - why doesn't she call herself Lady Nugee, that, after all, is what she actually is btw) buy to let property empire. Nice fucking comrades articul8. Nice fucking party.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 26, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No, I don't know who she is.  I don't particularly like the Staggers, but fair play on this one...


 
Seriously..."_fair play"?




			In the aftermath of the 2008 crash, we truly could have seen the “social democratic moment” that Miliband’s been so keen on invoking.
		
Click to expand...

_


----------



## killer b (Nov 26, 2014)

articul8 said:


> who sneers at stuff like what?  What argument?


I know plenty of people raised on council estates who would sneer (like Thornberry) at a white van / flag of st george combo. The argument being made in the article you linked to was that it was unlikely Thornberry was sneering, because she was raised on a council estate. The writer must not really know many people who were raised on council estates if she thinks this is true.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 26, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Don't think the line about "jingoism mansion" works, but this piece is a lot more sensible than most of the drivel spouted here and elsewhere on the Thornberry incident:
> http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...house-not-act-class-warfare-whatever-sun-says


"Jingoism Mansion"... it could be the title of a UKIP-related sitcom/reality show.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 26, 2014)

articul8 said:


> http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...house-not-act-class-warfare-whatever-sun-says


The good bit in that article..."In the aftermath of the 2008 crash, we truly could have seen the “social democratic moment” that Miliband’s been so keen on invoking. People wanted redistribution"..What I've said in previous posts. If Gord Brown had gone to the country with a left wing agenda just after the crash Labour would have been back in with a good majority I reckon. Probably missed political oppurtunity of the century so far.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 26, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> but it's crap.



Because? Because she's not with the Urban gang on this? Because you don't like articul8?

There would have been no story had Denis Skinner or Jeremy Corbyn done this, no outrage, just a reminder about privacy. Neither chucked overboard would have provided the necessary lift to Ed's balloon.

Thornberry erred, for whatever reason or internal prejudice, but it's of virtually no substance. Only prejudices about Thornberry can sustain it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Because? Because she's not with the Urban gang on this? Because you don't like articul8?
> 
> There would have been no story had Denis Skinner or Jeremy Corbyn done this, no outrage, just a reminder about privacy. Neither chucked overboard would have provided the necessary lift to Ed's balloon.
> 
> Thornberry erred, for whatever reason or internal prejudice, but it's of virtually no substance. Only prejudices about Thornberry can sustain it.


because i don't like the fucking article. i think articul8 is all over the fucking shop with his politics. but yer woman's not much better.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 26, 2014)

killer b said:


> I know plenty of people raised on council estates who would sneer (like Thornberry) at a white van / flag of st george combo. The argument being made in the article you linked to was that it was unlikely Thornberry was sneering, because she was raised on a council estate. The writer must not really know many people who were raised on council estates if she thinks this is true.



That's correct, it doesn't dismiss the notion she could be prejudiced in any way. But it does dismiss the notion that the alleged prejudice arises from being a complete 'blow-in', a middle class opportunist without experience or roots.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 26, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> because i don't like the fucking article. i think articul8 is all over the fucking shop with his politics. but yer woman's not much better.



Forget articul8 then.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Forget articul8 then.


sadly i have a good memory


----------



## articul8 (Nov 26, 2014)

Not wanking over dead cops = all over the place


----------



## killer b (Nov 26, 2014)

SaskiaJayne said:


> The good bit in that article..."In the aftermath of the 2008 crash, we truly could have seen the “social democratic moment” that Miliband’s been so keen on invoking. People wanted redistribution"..What I've said in previous posts. If Gord Brown had gone to the country with a left wing agenda just after the crash Labour would have been back in with a good majority I reckon. Probably missed political oppurtunity of the century so far.


Why would he have done that? There's been a lot of this on here recently, about how Ed Miliband should do this or that, Gordon Brown should have taken this opportunity, as if they're on your side, and it's only their tactics that are at fault. it's sweet that you (and many others here) still seem to think of Labour as your 'team', but you really shouldn't. 'cause they aren't.

Could you imagine how ridiculous it would sound if you said _all Cameron needs to do is offer a broad socialist manifesto, renationalise the railways and utilities and start a programme of council house construction - he'd win with  a landslide_? That's pretty much how ridiculous it is to say similar about the Labour party. They aren't shy social democrats, with just not quite enough nerve to push ahead with their radical agenda, they're neo-liberal capitalists. They believe the same things as the tories do.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 26, 2014)

http://saintnigepriory.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/cyber-debate-tips-for-the-peoples-army-2/


----------



## killer b (Nov 26, 2014)

do you enjoy the abuse taffboy?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> http://saintnigepriory.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/cyber-debate-tips-for-the-peoples-army-2/


Have you _really _done yet another not funny parody blog?


----------



## gosub (Nov 26, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Don't think the line about "jingoism mansion" works, but this piece is a lot more sensible than most of the drivel spouted here and elsewhere on the Thornberry incident:
> http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...house-not-act-class-warfare-whatever-sun-says



_"That’s all Emily Thornberry did. Just shared a picture, with the fairly redundant comment “Image from #Rochester”" _ At some stage there needs to be a grown up conversation about what publishing something on social media means.  I was really upset when my best mate died and the local paper obit was a mining of his face book page.  People need to be more aware it can be equivalent to sending out a press release. Media need the conversation too, its lazy journalism, and if I want to know what's on twitter I can look at twitterfall   I don't buy the papers for someone to read twitter for me.
Hopefully this conversation will happen soon, coz the current recipe of someone reads something in the media and comments on twitter, which leads to an article in the media, which gets commented on twitter...is driving me nuts. Its a feedback loop,and as with auditory ones it just gets shriller and shriller til its painful


----------



## ska invita (Nov 26, 2014)

Image of #hand


----------



## articul8 (Nov 26, 2014)

Don't people just assume that Twitter is full of shite anyway?


----------



## ska invita (Nov 26, 2014)

gosub said:


> _"That’s all Emily Thornberry did. Just shared a picture, with the fairly redundant comment “Image from #Rochester”" _ At some stage there needs to be a grown up conversation about what publishing something on social media means.  I was really upset when my best mate died and the local paper obit was a mining of his face book page.  People need to be more aware it can be equivalent to sending out a press release. Media need the conversation too, its lazy journalism, and if I want to know what's on twitter I can look at twitterfall   I don't buy the papers for someone to read twitter for me.
> Hopefully this conversation will happen soon, coz the current recipe of someone reads something in the media and comments on twitter, which leads to an article in the media, which gets commented on twitter...is driving me nuts. Its a feedback loop,and as with auditory ones it just gets shriller and shriller til its painful


i know where you're coming from but no Conversation is going to help when it comes to social media - only two options: dont engage in social media at all or keep humble on it. sorry to hear about the way journos mined those pictures - no conversation is going to teach hacks ethics though


----------



## gosub (Nov 26, 2014)

ska invita said:


> i know where you're coming from but no Conversation is going to help when it comes to social media - only two options: dont engage in social media at all or keep humble on it. sorry to hear about the way journos mined those pictures - no conversation is going to teach hacks ethics though


Wasn't the pictures it was the text content, he didn't give a fuck about privacy settings.  tbf to the journos, he was well known locally and nobody was giving interviews.  But it was all sorts of wrong and condemned in speechs at the funeral.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 26, 2014)

terrible behaviour...i guess theres a press complaints process, but whatever else that sounds painful for grieving friends and family
schools should teach about the privacy and the implications of posting online....maybe they already do?


----------



## Anudder Oik (Nov 26, 2014)

Can anybody explain why in Spain the crisis and a discredited political class (now called the caste) has led to a massive shift towards the left, with street movements springing up, banks being occupied, evictions being opposed by mass pickets and the establishment beginning to tremble, whereas in Britain, the same economic conditions have led to a shift towards the right with people voting UKIP?

What is the difference between Spain and Britain? If anything the crisis has hit harder here (in Spain), yet the movements that unite people rather than divide are stronger and growing.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 26, 2014)

Guys a recent experiment has shown that putting taffboy and gosub on ignore means the thread actually makes sense, please do try it!


----------



## J Ed (Nov 27, 2014)

Anudder Oik said:


> Can anybody explain why in Spain the crisis and a discredited political class (now called the caste) has led to a massive shift towards the left, with street movements springing up, banks being occupied, evictions being opposed by mass pickets and the establishment beginning to tremble, whereas in Britain, the same economic conditions have led to a shift towards the right with people voting UKIP?
> 
> What is the difference between Spain and Britain? If anything the crisis has hit harder here (in Spain), yet the movements that unite people rather than divide are stronger and growing.



I don't know if I can 'explain' it but there are definitely a good number of factors at play in Spain which aren't in Britain. As terrible as things are here, they are much worse in Spain and worse for more people, at over 50% youth unemployment for years it's difficult even for the most ardent traditionalist not to place blame on the economic system. Spain also has a much bigger 20th Century history of leftist opposition to the status quo, almost all of the active opposition to the Franco regime was Marxist or some variation thereof. The Podemos Party has grown out of the _indignado_ movement which was significantly more successful than both the US Occupy, though I'm beginning to think that we may have underestimated the legacy of the US Occupy, and certainly our own token effort at doing the same. 

No small measure of Podemos' success can also be attributed to an astute use of media to promote their message. Podemos' media effort has been led by Juan Carlos Monedero who participated in the very effective use of media by the Chavez government in Venezuela. The stuff they put out on their programme _La Tuerka_ is just good, it's genuinely entertaining and talks about politics using common sense and accessible language.

Also, and I may be being just completely off base and ageist here or whatever, but I think that maybe part of what allows Podemos to galvanise the support of youth where groups like Left Unity are not able to is the composition of the leadership. Monedero and Pablo Iglesias are both relatively young and are to an extent unblemished by association with the failures of the traditional Spanish left and trade unions, they are outflanking them to their left in both action and ways of imagining a future politics in Spain whereas you look at Left Unity and it just seems like the same people making the same mistakes again with the same ideas that they were promoting or continue to promote in their own respective sects.


----------



## JHE (Nov 27, 2014)

Fascinating subject, the differences. 

A few fragments of an answer:

I agree the media stuff Iglesias has done and others too (but especially Iglesias) has no equivalent in Britain.  I don't agree with all of it (working for the Iranian Press TV is repellent) but it is impressive and has had an enormous impact.

The Indignados:  Yes, 15M is crucial to understanding Podemos.  Without the first, Podemos would not have been formed, let alone have attracted so much support.

Cultural difference:  perhaps in Spain there is, among an important part of the population, a more civic democratic spirit than there is at the moment in Britain. It produces not only neighbourhood organisations of many sorts but also 15M.  What a contrast in 2011!  In Spain: enormous peaceful clean democratic co-operative debate-filled protest.  In English cities: big riots and widespread looting.

Migration:  A lot of UKIP's support is against high levels of immigration.  In Spain, the migration most talked about at the moment is emigration of young and youngish Spaniards - esp highly qualified ones.  That is not to say that immigration has not been or will not again be an issue (it will become an issue again, IMO), but at the moment it is not near the top of Spanish concerns, while in Britain I think it bothers a lot of people.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 27, 2014)

re: left unity, its not as if the public is saying, oh look theres so and so - first of all theyve never heard of left unity and i doubt theyve heard of anyone in a leadership position either.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Thornberry _spent some time_ on a council estate is a better way of putting it i think. She later bought up social housing which then she then let out privately as part of their  (her and her husband Sir Christopher George Nugee - why doesn't she call herself Lady Nugee, that, after all, is what she actually is btw) buy to let property empire. Nice fucking comrades articul8. Nice fucking party.



She's not a Baroness, so she isn't Lady Thornberry.  The allegation about profiting from buy-to-let is more serious to my mind than the twitter pic - or it would be if she opposed rent controls and building significant numbers of new council houses (which she might do, and if she does I agree profoundly).


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2014)

articul8 said:


> She's not a Baroness, so she isn't Lady Thornberry.  The allegation about profiting from buy-to-let is more serious to my mind than the twitter pic - or it would be if she opposed rent controls and building significant numbers of new council houses (which she might do, and if she does I agree profoundly).


Wrong - she is formally Lady Nugee but chooses for political reasons not to call herself that.

It's not an allegation - it's fact. So either it's not a problem (in which case wtf?) or it is a problem. (In which case what are you going to do about it? What does it say about your party and who you choose to support in this incident?)

Good darts there.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 27, 2014)

No I don't think so - a "lord justice" doesn't sit in the HoL and doesn't carry the title Lord.

Any Labour MP who refuses to back rent controls and expansion of council housing and at the same time profits from buying up and reletting social housing at private rents is a hypocrite and I'm happy to attack them on that basis.   Not for a tweet which the Sun used as a pretext for generating faux-outrage.


----------



## cesare (Nov 27, 2014)

She pissed off Guido Fawkes:  
http://order-order.com/2014/11/24/lady-nugees-walled-garden/


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No I don't think so - a "lord justice" doesn't sit in the HoL and doesn't carry the title Lord.
> 
> Any Labour MP who refuses to back rent controls and expansion of council housing and at the same time profits from buying up and reletting social housing at private rents is a hypocrite and I'm happy to attack them on that basis.   Not for a tweet which the Sun used as a pretext for generating faux-outrage.



You may not think so, but you are wrong. She is formally Lady Nugee.

Right, if they don't back rent controls you think it's not ok if they buy up social housing as part of a buy to let empire because they're being hypocrites (how by the way?). if they do back them and then they buy up social housing as part of a buy to let empire then it's fine. 

Instead of just condemning buying up social housing as part of a buy to let empire you've made yet another mess by attempting yet even more hack defences and spin. You really do not know that you're even doing it anymore.

What a shambles you are.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 27, 2014)

Buy to let is terrible and should be an outright no for labour candidates and their spouses.

It's a bit like nationalism though, lots of people like it and at the moment Labour wishes to pretend it all fits in its big tent.

Is there a source for Your Honour's portfolio?


----------



## cesare (Nov 27, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No I don't think so - a "lord justice" doesn't sit in the HoL and doesn't carry the title Lord.
> 
> Any Labour MP who refuses to back rent controls and expansion of council housing and at the same time profits from buying up and reletting social housing at private rents is a hypocrite and I'm happy to attack them on that basis.   Not for a tweet which the Sun used as a pretext for generating faux-outrage.


He was knighted therefore she's Lady Nugee.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Buy to let is terrible and should be an outright no for labour candidates and their spouses.
> 
> It's a bit like nationalism though, lots of people like it and at the moment Labour wishes to pretend it all fits in its big tent.
> 
> Is there a source for Your Honour's portfolio?


Yes.

As to the rest of the post, i'm not that interested in labour's position - i'm interested in articul8 now both supporting this buy to let landlords snobbery and her buying up of social housing as long as she makes a formal but meaningless declaration of support for rent controls etc. 

What have ye become articul8? What knots you tie yourself in in your attempt to play the master strategist above the rest of us thickos.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 27, 2014)

cesare said:


> She pissed off Guido Fawkes:
> http://order-order.com/2014/11/24/lady-nugees-walled-garden/



Fucking hell. Street turned from workers homes to hell on fucking earth.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 27, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Don't think the line about "jingoism mansion" works, but this piece is a lot more sensible than most of the drivel spouted here and elsewhere on the Thornberry incident:
> http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...house-not-act-class-warfare-whatever-sun-says



It's apologism, you sanctimonious knob-wart.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Fucking hell. Street turned from workers homes to hell on fucking earth.


Snob


----------



## cesare (Nov 27, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Fucking hell. Street turned from workers homes to hell on fucking earth.


I don't suppose she ever thought of the enemies she might make.


----------



## cesare (Nov 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Snob


She put up a huge fence, was a bit hellish I'd have thought


----------



## ska invita (Nov 27, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's apologism, you sanctimonious knob-wart.


its apologism of sorts but i think for a lot of people who have taken this line they really dont see what wrong about it - they think theres nothing to apologise for - they genuinely think the outrage is faux,  a falsehood invented by the Sun:


articul8 said:


> a tweet which the Sun used as a pretext for generating faux-outrage.


 



cesare said:


> She put up a huge fence, was a bit hellish I'd have thought


having that guido fawkes guy and lady nugee for neighbours does sound like hell


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 27, 2014)

killer b said:


> I know plenty of people raised on council estates who would sneer (like Thornberry) at a white van / flag of st george combo.



Yep. people on council estates, like people everywhere, evolve a variety of political/social outlooks. We're not some homogeneous mass of proletarians.



> The argument being made in the article you linked to was that it was unlikely Thornberry was sneering, because she was raised on a council estate. The writer must not really know many people who were raised on council estates if she thinks this is true.



Given how completely journalism in general and "the bubble" in particular is dominated by middle-class graduates nowadays, the not knowing wouldn't actually surprise me.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 27, 2014)

SaskiaJayne said:


> The good bit in that article..."In the aftermath of the 2008 crash, we truly could have seen the “social democratic moment” that Miliband’s been so keen on invoking. People wanted redistribution"..What I've said in previous posts. If Gord Brown had gone to the country with a left wing agenda just after the crash Labour would have been back in with a good majority I reckon. Probably missed political oppurtunity of the century so far.



It's a nice thing to believe, but IMO Brown *knew* that if he pushed a properly-left agenda, that the Blairite wing (effectively the right wing of the party) would have done their best to disrupt it, even to the extent of it causing a party meltdown. Unfortunately for us (i.e. the electorate), Brown is a "party man". He (unlike the Blairites) was always vanishingly unlikely to do anything that'd risk the party structure.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 27, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Because? Because she's not with the Urban gang on this? Because you don't like articul8?
> 
> There would have been no story had Denis Skinner or Jeremy Corbyn done this, no outrage, just a reminder about privacy. Neither chucked overboard would have provided the necessary lift to Ed's balloon.



Sorry, that's bullshit. There would have been an even bigger story if Skinner or Corbyn had done this, because they'd have exposed themselves as exactly the sort of people they usually rail against - hypocrites.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Snob



Too right. I'm not about to live next to Guido or Thornberry.


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No I don't think so - a "lord justice" doesn't sit in the HoL and doesn't carry the title Lord.
> 
> Any Labour MP who refuses to back rent controls and expansion of council housing and at the same time profits from buying up and reletting social housing at private rents is a hypocrite and I'm happy to attack them on that basis.   Not for a tweet which the Sun used as a pretext for generating faux-outrage.


let me break that down for you.


articul8 said:


> Any Labour MP who refuses to back rent controls and expansion of council housing is a hypocrite





articul8 said:


> Any Labour MP who profits from buying up and reletting social housing at private rents is a hypocrite.


this is pretty simple stuff. I thought you imagined yourself somewhere on the left?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> if they do back them and then they buy up social housing as part of a buy to let empire then it's fine.


That's a perverse reading of what I wrote, of course I don't think it's "fine".  It would still be bad and hypocritcal.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2014)

articul8 said:


> That's a perverse reading of what I wrote, of course I don't think it's "fine".  It would still be bad and hypocritcal.


So it's bad and hypocritical _whatever _- why didn't you just say that instead of all that fucking hack spin i'm a strategist waffle? Why not just speak directly openly and honestly instead of like a politician?

You accept your mistake on her being Lady Rugee i take it?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So it's bad and hypocritical _whatever _- why didn't you just say that instead of all that fucking hack spin i'm a strategist waffle? Why not just speak directly openly and honestly instead of like a politician?
> 
> You accept your mistake on her being Lady Rugee i take it?


yes, but worse still if their own financial advantage meant they didn't even formally call for the right policy, that's all I meant (not that simply calling for something but making a mint out of it not happening would be ok).  Re "Lady" - yes, but only by virtue of marrying someone who subsequently got knighted.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2014)

articul8 said:


> yes, but worse still if their own financial advantage meant they didn't even formally call for the right policy, that's all I meant (not that simply calling for something but making a mint out of it not happening would be ok).  Re "Lady" - yes, but only by virtue of marrying someone who subsequently got knighted.


You've done it again.

So only by virtue of being Lady Nugee. Which you claimed she wasn't and i was wrong to say was the case.. Yet again you were right to be wrong. wtf is wrong with you?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2014)

articul8 said:


> She's not a Baroness, so she isn't Lady Thornberry.





articul8 said:


> No I don't think so - a "lord justice" doesn't sit in the HoL and doesn't carry the title Lord.





articul8 said:


> Re "Lady" - yes, but only by virtue of marrying someone who subsequently got knighted.



So we find:

a) She's not lady rugee
b) Nope, she's def not lady rugee
c) Of course she's lady rugee, _but only because she's lady rugee._


----------



## articul8 (Nov 27, 2014)

That's the dialectical turn in the argument


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2014)

articul8 said:


> That's the dialectical turn in the argument


No, it's you losing every fucking argument then arguing you were right to lose them. Oh master strategist.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 27, 2014)

You were strongly implying that she was somehow being less than straight about her identity, in choosing not to use the name "Lady Rugee".  Since the title was bestowed on her in her own right, this is not really the case.  So on a formal level you are correct, but that idea it substantiates and vindicates your argument is not.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2014)

articul8 said:


> You were strongly implying that she was somehow being less than straight about her identity, in choosing not to use the name "Lady Rugee".  Since the title was bestowed on her in her own right, this is not really the case.  So on a formal level you are correct, but that idea it substantiates and vindicates your argument is not.


And again.

What the fuck happened to you? When did you think this hack first year undergraduate speak would be the way to go? Once you got in the bubble or before ('prior') to that?


----------



## treelover (Nov 27, 2014)

J Ed said:


> I don't know if I can 'explain' it but there are definitely a good number of factors at play in Spain which aren't in Britain. As terrible as things are here, they are much worse in Spain and worse for more people, at over 50% youth unemployment for years it's difficult even for the most ardent traditionalist not to place blame on the economic system. Spain also has a much bigger 20th Century history of leftist opposition to the status quo, almost all of the active opposition to the Franco regime was Marxist or some variation thereof. The Podemos Party has grown out of the _indignado_ movement which was significantly more successful than both the US Occupy, though I'm beginning to think that we may have underestimated the legacy of the US Occupy, and certainly our own token effort at doing the same.
> 
> No small measure of Podemos' success can also be attributed to an astute use of media to promote their message. Podemos' media effort has been led by Juan Carlos Monedero who participated in the very effective use of media by the Chavez government in Venezuela. The stuff they put out on their programme _La Tuerka_ is just good, it's genuinely entertaining and talks about politics using common sense and accessible language.
> 
> Also, and I may be being just completely off base and ageist here or whatever, but I think that maybe part of what allows Podemos to galvanise the support of youth where groups like Left Unity are not able to is the composition of the leadership. Monedero and Pablo Iglesias are both relatively young and are to an extent unblemished by association with the failures of the traditional Spanish left and trade unions, they are outflanking them to their left in both action and ways of imagining a future politics in Spain whereas you look at Left Unity and it just seems like the same people making the same mistakes again with the same ideas that they were promoting or continue to promote in their own respective sects.






> The London Black Revs, NUS Black Students’ Campaign, BARAC and DtRtP would like to thank everyone who attended the vigil last night.
> We want to also thank all the speakers, community activists/groups and all others who helped us mobilise for the event.
> There were between 2,500-3,000 people in attendance as we later took to the streets and marched in protest against the on-going murder and injustices committed against Black people at the hands of the Police!
> ...



http://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahjewell/ferguson-protest-london
maybe because things don't get a chance to build here anymore, especially amongst the young, this happened last night, yet I heard nothing in the media


----------



## articul8 (Nov 27, 2014)

> and again


 I don't speak like that - I reply like that to dull scholastic hair splitting.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2014)

treelover said:


> maybe because things don't get a chance to build here anymore, especially amongst the young, this happened last night, yet I heard nothing in the media


You didn't see the guardian live thing that followed it for hours?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I don't speak like that - I reply like that to dull scholastic hair splitting.


You introduce dull hackery and spin in defence of your bubble and its interests.You then play an anti-sun card to defend yourself. It's transparent. You've have no political sense.


----------



## treelover (Nov 27, 2014)

btw, its really good they are doing this, but one day I would hope they will do it for the hundreds, maybe thousands who have died as a result of the benefit cuts, etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I don't speak like that - I reply like that to dull scholastic hair splitting.


I note, being wrong is dull scholastic hair-splitting.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I don't speak like that - I reply like that to dull scholastic hair splitting.


Actually no - this is your style of response whatever and whenever.


----------



## treelover (Nov 27, 2014)

> The “secret” of Podemos according to Pablo Iglesias:
> I have defeat tattooed on my DNA. My great-uncle was shot dead. My grandfather was given the death sentence and spent 5 years in jail. My grandmothers suffered the humiliation of those defeated in the Civil War. My father was put in jail. My mother was politically active in the underground. My first experience of political socialisation as a child was in the mobilisations against NATO [in the 1980s], which was the last time that the Left in this country thought we could win. It bothers me enormously to lose. … And I’ve spent many years, with colleagues, devoting almost all of our political activity to thinking how we can win … The things I say in the mass media and how I say them require a great many hours’ work where we think about how to move through an absolutely hostile terrain. … We were in Latin America and we watched and watched how they did things there to win.
> 
> http://leftunity.org/understanding-...ign=understanding-podemos-23-radical-populism




More on why Podemos and Spain may be different from here.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You introduce dull hackery and spin in defence of your bubble and its interests.You then play an anti-sun card to defend yourself. It's transparent. You've have no political sense.



The Miliband reaction was a "bubble" response - a tweeted picture of a house with flag and van "I've never been so incensed by anything ever - I'm incadescent" - yes, whatever.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2014)

articul8 said:


> The Miliband reaction was a "bubble" response - a tweeted picture of a house with flag and van "I've never been so incensed by anything ever - I'm incadescent" - yes, whatever.


Odd how you can't recognise both your response and everything you say as part of that bubble too. You've lost this one big time and made yourself look like an out of touch cunt. And yet, you keep picking at it. This is a week now. And each time you manage to fuck it up and make yourself look even worse. We can almost time it.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 27, 2014)

"lost" where?  Here?!  Oh I'm mortified... <goes off to sob quietly in a corner>


----------



## brogdale (Nov 27, 2014)

I wonder if anyone in the bubble considered that the last week of the by-election campaign coincided with 2 internationals?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2014)

articul8 said:


> "lost" where?  Here?!  Oh I'm mortified... <goes off to sob quietly in a corner>


Nah, if you're/you've lost here it's an indication that you're lost everywhere outside of the bubble. As if this defensive blubbing.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2014)

articul8 said:


> "lost" where?  Here?!  Oh I'm mortified... <goes off to sob quietly in a corner>


You'd think you could win _somewhere _with such a devastating and popular case though?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Nah, if you're/you've lost here it's an indication that you're lost everywhere outside of the bubble. As if this defensive blubbing.


Bubble = Westminster, media, me and everyone I know
Not Bubble = anyone who disagrees with me; Urban75; the working class.

Whatever a few sour-faced malodorous cranks on a bulletin board determine, thus thinks everyone outside of the Bubble.   Anyone who has the temerity to agree with me - whoever or wherever they are - are ipso facto Bubblists.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Nov 27, 2014)

articul8 said:


> "lost" where?  Here?!


*waves*


----------



## cesare (Nov 27, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Bubble = Westminster, media, me and everyone I know
> Not Bubble = anyone who disagrees with me; Urban75; the working class.
> 
> Whatever a few sour-faced malodorous cranks on a bulletin board determine, thus thinks everyone outside of the Bubble.   Anyone who has the temerity to agree with me - whoever or wherever they are - are ipso facto Bubblists.


General Election turn out suggests that the view of Parliamentarians as being in a bubble divorced from reality is wider than this bulletin board.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 27, 2014)

articul8 said:


> a few sour-faced malodorous cranks on a bulletin board



how rude


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Bubble = Westminster, media, me and everyone I know
> Not Bubble = anyone who disagrees with me; Urban75; the working class.
> 
> Whatever a few sour-faced malodorous cranks on a bulletin board determine, thus thinks everyone outside of the Bubble.   Anyone who has the temerity to agree with me - whoever or wherever they are - are ipso facto Bubblists.


You're such a great politician, a great thinker and a master strategist too.

That summation above is substantially correct yes. Apart from one point - being outside of the bubble doesn't make you right in itself. It helps though. And it certainly helps in spotting bubble bullshit. Which is what you've served up for 8 days straight on this issue. Without even knowing, worse, in fact whilst speaking for the labour left.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 27, 2014)

you manage to echo the Labour leadership and the Sun, but you are speaking for the non-bubble everyman.  Oh yes.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2014)

No I'm not. What an odd post.


----------



## coley (Nov 27, 2014)

Bubbling bubbler spotted on bulletin board


----------



## chilango (Nov 27, 2014)




----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 28, 2014)




----------



## gosub (Nov 28, 2014)

http://www.islingtontribune.com/news/2014/nov/my-sister-emily-thornberry-no-snob-says-red-van-ben


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2014)

gosub said:


> http://www.islingtontribune.com/news/2014/nov/my-sister-emily-thornberry-no-snob-says-red-van-ben


Excellent - person very close to person defends person. Thanks for that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No, it's you losing every fucking argument then arguing you were right to lose them. Oh master strategist.



To be fair, part of being remembered by history as a master strategist is spinning defeats into victories. Kesselring did it a couple of times. Of course, he did follow up those defeats with thumping victories, whereas articul8...well, victory is a stranger to his door.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2014)

cesare said:


> General Election turn out suggests that the view of Parliamentarians as being in a bubble divorced from reality is wider than this bulletin board.



My folks, who are in their 70s and don't really follow politics, thought "bubble" was the perfect description of how Westminster and the media operate, given how divorced from everyday reality so much policy and _reportage_ is.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 28, 2014)

gosub said:


> http://www.islingtontribune.com/news/2014/nov/my-sister-emily-thornberry-no-snob-says-red-van-ben



It is a little amusing that his support is qualified by a mere 26 years absentia. It is possible she has changed just a tad in the interim.

Jeremy Corbyn has played down the issue too and appeared supportive. Local loyalties, or maybe he does think the tweet issue was bollocks as it was. 

The most damning thing I've heard is the house purchase, which is, as it stands, shocking for an MP.


----------



## killer b (Nov 28, 2014)

Shocking? Really?


----------



## co-op (Nov 28, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


>



Or the west London version


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 28, 2014)

killer b said:


> Shocking? Really?



Yeah, reprehensible if you like. Perhaps you don't find it shocking though. Worrying if true.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Yeah, reprehensible if you like. Perhaps you don't find it shocking though. Worrying if true.


It is true. I gave you the link.


----------



## killer b (Nov 28, 2014)

michael buble's greatest hits?


----------



## killer b (Nov 28, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Yeah, reprehensible if you like. Perhaps you don't find it shocking though. Worrying if true.


it isn't at all shocking. Agree it's reprehensible though.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It is true. I gave you the link.



I was referring to KB's post


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 29, 2014)

co-op said:


> Or the west London version


Are they Greeks?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 29, 2014)

I don't see any gifts


----------



## co-op (Nov 29, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Are they Greeks?



Sikhs.


----------



## gosub (Nov 29, 2014)

gosub said:


> http://www.islingtontribune.com/news/2014/nov/my-sister-emily-thornberry-no-snob-says-red-van-ben


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...nobs-Im-a-white-van-man-says-MPs-brother.html


----------



## Wilf (Nov 29, 2014)

gosub said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...nobs-Im-a-white-van-man-says-MPs-brother.html


He does seem to have 'dressed up' for that photo/story. He now works for a charity related to construction but not, presumably, doing it.  He also lives in a £1,000,000 house, according to the story.


----------



## treelover (Nov 29, 2014)

gosub said:


> http://www.islingtontribune.com/news/2014/nov/my-sister-emily-thornberry-no-snob-says-red-van-ben



Always baffled when someone very left wing moves to the U.S


----------



## treelover (Nov 29, 2014)

Wilf said:


> He does seem to have 'dressed up' for that photo/story. He now works for a charity related to construction but not, presumably, doing it.  He also lives in a £1,000,000 house, according to the story.




The R/W press are really going to dig for stories about him.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 29, 2014)

co-op said:


> Sikhs.


why are you posting pictures of Sikhs on a thread about Rochester and Strood?


----------



## co-op (Nov 29, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> why are you posting pictures of Sikhs on a thread about Rochester and Strood?





chilango said:


>



=



co-op said:


>



In west London anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2014)

We're not all cockneys you know.


----------



## treelover (Nov 29, 2014)

> My local paper @*IslingtonTrib* has an exclusive interview with my builder brother - who puts the record straight > http://www.islingtontribune.com/news/2014/nov/my-sister-emily-thornberry-no-snob-says-red-van-ben…



ET is not going away by the look of it


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 29, 2014)

bubble and squeek = Sikh? Never heard that one before...


----------



## co-op (Nov 29, 2014)

No cockneys here, born in Hammersmith, me.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2014)

co-op said:


> No cockneys here, born in Hammersmith, me.


You're all fucking cockneys to me.


----------



## co-op (Nov 29, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> bubble and squeek = Sikh? Never heard that one before...



Then you've not dallied in Southall, Hanwell, West Ealing.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 29, 2014)

co-op said:


> Then you've not dallied in Southall, Hanwell, West Ealing.


I try to avoid West London as much as possible


----------



## co-op (Nov 29, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You're all fucking cockneys to me.



*hokey cokeys*


----------



## treelover (Nov 29, 2014)

Btw, why are so many Guido posters obliquely referring to Jack Dromey, what has he done?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 29, 2014)

treelover said:


> Btw, why are so many Guido posters obliquely referring to Jack Dromey, what has he done?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 29, 2014)

treelover said:


> ET is not going away by the look of it



ET is not going home


----------



## treelover (Nov 29, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


>



Sorry, still don't know, none the wiser.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 29, 2014)

treelover said:


> Sorry, still don't know, none the wiser.


Its and oblique reference to one of the things they could be talking about (not having read them)

Think about the well known phrase the character would be saying in that shot


----------



## Wilf (Nov 29, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Its and oblique reference to one of the things they could be talking about (not having read them)
> 
> Think about the well known phrase the character would be saying in that shot


----------



## articul8 (Nov 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> We're not all cockneys you know.


Says the Worzel


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Says the Worzel



This is what being a Fabian has gotten you: The inability to spell even a simple word like "wurzel".


----------



## articul8 (Dec 1, 2014)

I am not a fucking Fabian.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 1, 2014)

I believe wurzel/worzel can be spelt either way


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 1, 2014)

That's the kind of fence-sitting you'd expect from a Lib Dem.  It's a 'U', definitely. Adge said so.


----------



## coley (Dec 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> This is what being a Fabian has gotten you: The inability to spell even a simple word like "wurzel".


Or he might come from around here


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 1, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> That's the kind of fence-sitting you'd expect from a Lib Dem.  It's a 'U', definitely. Adge said so.



Jon Pertwee might diagree


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 1, 2014)

coley said:


> Or he might come from around here


who is Zel?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I am not a fucking Fabian.



If your politics were described to someone politically-aware, but who didn't know you, "Fabian" is the tag they'd give you. *You* may not acknowledge it, but it's accurate.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

I don't think you believe that, you are just winding me up.  If you do you have a) totally mis-read my politics or b) totally misunderstood the Fabian approach or quite possibly c) both.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I don't think you believe that, you are just winding me up.  If you do you have a) totally mis-read my politics or b) totally misunderstood the Fabian approach or quite possibly c) both.


You're a rad-fab. That pretty much sums it up. The fabs always had a rad-fab wing. They later turned into stal-rad-fabs. The rad-fab-caps. So beware. And try and have a look from outside the rad-fab bubble.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

Who do you mean?  LIke GDH Cole and Harold Laski?  Actually, I do have some time for them.  They didn't share much in common with the Webbs though.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I am not a fucking Fabian.


Your tag line 'Guilty of Idealism' suggests you might be & tbf you are not alone in being guilty of that. I'm sure plenty of us want a Labour government elected that will actually be socialist but of course we have to be careful what we wish for because a Labour majority may/will in reality just be Tory lite with no fundamental change, but of course we live in hope. I think the Tory claim of a 'recovery' is plainly unravelling as the job creation they boast of is mostly poorly paid jobs not providing the tax revenue to pay down deficit & everybody knows they are worse off so I don't think Labour have no chance of forming the next government, & fwiw I think that will still be the least worst option that is actually possible. I've always understood the Fabian society to be a socialist talking shop that promotes gradual change which is a more likely scenario than revolutionary change in this country.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Who do you mean?  LIke GDH Cole and Harold Laski?  Actually, I do have some time for them.  They didn't share much in common with the Webbs though.


This is why you don't know that you're a fabian.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> This is why you don't know that you're a fabian.


still not convinced - I don't think that even a leftist policy/programme is something that emerges from politicians/intellectuals and is implemented by them in the interests of the working class.  Socialist ideas do arise out of the experience of the class itself - but there is, in a class society, a function for organic intellectuals in Gramsci's sense.  But this is a different concept of that relation than the Webbs (or even some of the more radical Fabians) had.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> still not convinced - I don't think that even a leftist policy/programme is something that emerges from politicians/intellectuals and is implemented by them in the interests of the working class.  Socialist ideas do arise out of the experience of the class itself - but there is, in a class society, a function for organic intellectuals in Gramsci's sense.  But this is a different concept of that relation than the Webbs (or even some of the more radical Fabians) had.


Fabian is not convinced that he's a fabian. Boy in the bubble proclaims he's on top of the world ma.

You don't half talk some wank designed to surround you with politics and intellectual justifications for it. I just think you're a sell out two faced cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

Marvelous he declares, get you _declares_, himself an organic intellectual in the gramscian sense.

It's beyond funny.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Your tag line 'Guilty of Idealism' suggests you might be & tbf you are not alone in being guilty of that. I'm sure plenty of us want a Labour government elected that will actually be socialist but of course we have to be careful what we wish for because a Labour majority may/will in reality just be Tory lite with no fundamental change, but of course we live in hope. I think the Tory claim of a 'recovery' is plainly unravelling as the job creation they boast of is mostly poorly paid jobs not providing the tax revenue to pay down deficit & everybody knows they are worse off so I don't think Labour have no chance of forming the next government, & fwiw I think that will still be the least worst option that is actually possible. I've always understood the Fabian society to be a socialist talking shop that promotes gradual change which is a more likely scenario than revolutionary change in this country.



I think that sadly even a Labour-led government would be committed to austerity spending plans although the attacks on the working class - though they would continue - would be offset to a greater degree than under the Tories by some elements of progressive taxation.  But I still think it's worth electing a Labour government as it would in pretty short order start to betray the expectations of people who look to it to offer some meaningful alternative.  So there's scope for some quite convulsive moves from within the wider party.   

To be honest I'm not at all confident that there will be a Labour majority though.  Particularly if Murphy wins the Scottish leadership.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Marvelous he declares, get you _declares_, himself an organic intellectual in the gramscian sense.


err - I didn't declare any such thing!?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I just think you're a sell out two faced cunt.



Yes I'm a sellout two faced cunt who took at £15k pay cut to work in a job working for some of the most militant unions in the country.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I think that sadly even a Labour-led government would be committed to austerity spending plans although the attacks on the working class - though they would continue - would be offset to a greater degree than under the Tories by some elements of progressive taxation.  But I still think it's worth electing a Labour government as it would in pretty short order start to betray the expectations of people who look to it to offer some meaningful alternative.  So there's scope for some quite convulsive moves from within the wider party.
> 
> To be honest I'm not at all confident that there will be a Labour majority though.  Particularly if Murphy wins the Scottish leadership.


Ah offset.

Yeah,waht happened after the last time the bottom fell out the labout vote? You argued vote labout or the tories might get in. Then you extended it to join labout because i'm great and not a tory. And this game will play.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> err - I didn't declare any such thing!?


Yes you did.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yes you did.


where?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Yes I'm a sellout two faced cunt who took at £15k pay cut to work in a job working for some of the most militant unions in the country.


Ah isn't it great to be sitting in the rooms of the powerful - to be in parliament and see all your heroes.

Are you really socrude that everything revolves around money?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Ah offset.
> 
> Yeah,waht happened after the last time the bottom fell out the labout vote? You argued vote labout or the tories might get in. Then you extended it to join labout because i'm great and not a tory. And this game will play.



No, I think there is every chance of something breaking for good this time - especially if Labour ends up leaning on the rump Lib Dems in a coalition.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> where?


Exactly fucking here.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Ah isn't it great to be sitting in the rooms of the powerful - to be in parliament and see all your heroes.
> 
> Are you really socrude that everything revolves around money?


people don't generally sell out to feel worse off?!


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Exactly fucking here.





> Socialist ideas do arise out of the experience of the class itself - but there is, in a class society, a function for organic intellectuals in Gramsci's sense



I didn't declare anything about myself.  The statement above holds irrespective of what I may or may not represent.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No, I think there is every chance of something breaking for good this time - especially if Labour ends up leaning on the rump Lib Dems in a coalition.


Oh, _*you *_think that.  With your and their record. You and your lib-dem mates have thought that since well before 1983 - ta for thatcher btw.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Oh, _*you *_think that.  With your and their record. You and your lib-dem mates have thought that since well before 1983 - ta for thatcher btw.


you misread what I mean here.  I don't support Labour getting involved in such a coalition after 2015.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> people don't generally sell out to feel worse off?!


They might plan accordingly though - so yeah a sell out political tax avoider.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I didn't declare anything about myself.  The statement above holds irrespective of what I may or may not represent.


You didn't need to. No one else mentioned organic intellectuals. They called you a cunt and you defended organic intellectuals in response. You arrogant shit.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> They might plan accordingly though - so yeah a sell out political tax avoider.


plan accordingly?  tax avoider? what the fuck is all this?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> you misread what I mean here.  I don't support Labour getting involved in such a coalition after 2015.


Well fucking great. What a rad-fab.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> plan accordingly?  tax avoider? what the fuck is all this?


You think that you're the cleverest cunt going - can't you plan a career? One that has moved you far closer to job-opping people in power than the last one?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No, I think there is every chance of something breaking for good this time - especially if Labour ends up leaning on the rump Lib Dems in a coalition.


Didn't you predict 7 of the last three crisis?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

Have you thought about seeing a therapist?  You have anger issues.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Have you thought about seeing a therapist?  You have anger issues.


Medicalising opposition - the rad-fab-stal position i talked about earlier.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Didn't you predict 7 of the last three crisis?


No.  I thought the conditions existed for the Socialist Alliance to work.  I'm not convinced that I was wrong in that objectively speaking, but the left conspired to fuck it up, especially the SWP.  Things are shaping up differently now.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No.  I thought the conditions existed for the Socialist Alliance to work.  I'm not convinced that I was wrong in that objectively speaking, but the left conspired to fuck it up, especially the SWP.  Things are shaping up differently now.


Dammit, you were right to be wrong yet again. This time is different from all the other times that were the same that goons like you said were different though.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No.  I thought the conditions existed for the Socialist Alliance to work.  I'm not convinced that I was wrong in that objectively speaking, but the left conspired to fuck it up, especially the SWP.  Things are shaping up differently now.


You do know that no one takes anything you say about politics seriously? How did that happen? I mean,  you're the expert right?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You do know that no one takes anything you say about politics seriously? How did that happen?


It's funny how so-called "anarchists" are some of the most herd-minded, comformist group-thinkers out-there.  It's how these boards work.  People are gobby and dismissive in inverse proportion to their ability to contribute anything worthwhile of their own.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Dammit, you were right to be wrong yet again. This time is different from all the other times that were the same that goons like you said were different though.


Your alternative scenario being - the left is fucked.  the left will only get more fucked.  Well, thanks for that.  Now what?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> It's funny how so-called "anarchists" are some of the most herd-minded, comformist group-thinkers out-there.  It's how these boards work.  People are gobby and dismissive in inverse proportion to their ability to contribute anything worthwhile of their own.


_I am the breaker of history._

Lad, get a fucking hold of yourself.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

Again, I haven't said any such thing.  But look forward to an answer to ^


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Your alternative scenario being - the left is fucked.  the left will only get more fucked.  Well, thanks for that.  Now what?


The alternative scenarios are you 
a) stop being wrong so often
b) stop arguing that you were right to be wrong so often 
c) Stop insisting right now that you are right.


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 2, 2014)




----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

I have said there are possibilities of something happening.  If/when it doesn't in the event happen, that doesn't make me wrong.  The onus is on you to demonstrate not only that it didn't in the event happen, but that I was wrong about the possibility of it happening.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I have said there are possibilities of something happening.  If it doesn't in the event happen, that doesn't make me wrong.


No, you said these things

a) would happen

then when they didn't

b) i was right to be wrong about them happening.

You're doing it now. Just how thin is your skeleton?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

What "things" are we talking about?  NIck Griffin posing a real threat in Barking (said months out from the election, and only disproved by massive community campaign) The rise of the Socialist Alliance (was always conditional about that)?  AV referendum (underestimated scale of the nO vote but not the fact of it).   

Not the world's worst political errors.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> What "things" are we talking about?  NIck Griffin posing a real threat in Barking (said months out from the election, and only disproved by massive community campaign) The rise of the Socialist Alliance (was always conditional about that)?  AV referendum (underestimated scale of the nO vote but not the fact of it).
> 
> Not the world's worst political errors.



You list one. You were wrong. But, as in so many other things, you argue that you were right to be wrong. The people who were right at the start - well, they were wrong to be right and doing being right out of malevolent motivations You've given some examples last hour.

You're drowning. Save your life, forget your glittering insider career.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

Back on topic


> We asked her ‘What are you going to do next?’ expecting to hear she was going to lunch or something, and she said ‘I’m going to become head of the NUS, then I’m going to be a barrister and then an MP’.


was this supposed to be helping?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/28/emily-thornberry--van-driver-brother-ben


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Back on topic
> 
> was this supposed to be helping?
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/28/emily-thornberry--van-driver-brother-ben


You haven't even read the thread have you - the bit where her entrepreneur milionaire brother is exposed as not being quite what he seems have you?

_I just love that labour party you're having btw._


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Back on topic
> 
> was this supposed to be helping?
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/28/emily-thornberry--van-driver-brother-ben


Helping who?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You haven't even read the thread have you - the bit where her entrepreneur milionaire brother is exposed as not being quite what he seems have you?
> 
> _I just love that labour party you're having btw._


Where? Millionaire?  Living in a million pound house might not mean all that much in Islington to be fair.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I think that sadly even a Labour-led government would be committed to austerity spending plans although the attacks on the working class - though they would continue - would be offset to a greater degree than under the Tories by some elements of progressive taxation.  But I still think it's worth electing a Labour government as it would in pretty short order start to betray the expectations of people who look to it to offer some meaningful alternative.  So there's scope for some quite convulsive moves from within the wider party.
> 
> .


 I realise you've been busy in the last hour , but another q for you: if I've got this right, you are aware Labour will carry on attacking the working class - *and you want to be actively part of that*?

If anything, the second bit's even more fucked up - you support more pain being inflicted, _*in order to change your own party.*_ Fuck_*.*_


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Where? Millionaire?  Living in a million pound house might not mean all that much in Islington to be fair.


Great - Buy to let is fine, being a snobby anti-working class liberal is fine, not reading the thread whilst replying is fine, not bothering to do a seconds research is fine.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Great - Buy to let is fine, being a snobby anti-working class liberal is fine, not reading the thread whilst replying is fine, not bothering to do a seconds research is fine.


I have read the thread - it doesn't say what you say it says (not for the first time).  Nor have I justified buy-to-let, or snobby anti-working class attitudes.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

Wilf said:


> I realise you've been busy in the last hour , but another q for you: if I've got this right, you are aware Labour will carry on attacking the working class - *and you want to be actively part of that*?
> 
> If anything, the second bit's even more fucked up - you support more pain being inflicted, _*in order to change your own party.*_ Fuck_*.*_


Have you missed the whole post-2010 thing? I get that it's boring but he has urged people to vote and join labour because they will disappointed and then force their way through to a new formation. I'm not making this up.

He also argues that labour are the only hope and that it's possible to change labour.

None of this is made up. It sounds like it is i know.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I have read the thread - it doesn't say what you say it says (not for the first time).  Nor have I justified buy-to-let, or snobby anti-working class attitudes.


So the bit where you didn't read the two consecutively linked articles about that thing you just linked to - you read them? Don't lie.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

Wilf said:


> I realise you've been busy in the last hour , but another q for you: if I've got this right, you are aware Labour will carry on attacking the working class - *and you want to be actively part of that*?
> 
> If anything, the second bit's even more fucked up - you support more pain being inflicted, _*in order to change your own party.*_ Fuck_*.*_



Listening to the debate on the Counter Terrorism Bill but Hazel Blears is speaking so need to pass the time doing something else.  I think Labour will slacken the pace of the attacks, and its victory will punish the architects of austerity.   This, inadequate as it is, is better than nothing.  Then the battle will move on to fighting the Labour leadership.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So the bit where you didn't read the two consecutively linked articles about that thing you just linked to - you read them? Don't lie.


yes, but they didn't have the line about heading up NUS, which is why I quoted this one.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> yes, but they didn't have the line about heading up NUS, which is why I quoted this one.


It's neither relevant nor telling  nor did you highlight it.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

I thought it telling, and I highlighted it by quoting it.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I think Labour will slacken the pace of the attacks, and its victory will punish the architects of austerity.


who and how will be punishing the architects of austerity?  i didnt quite follow that....


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I thought it telling, and I highlighted it by quoting it.


Not any of the stuff about her bother and his fake white van-ness?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

ska invita said:


> who and how will be punishing the architects of austerity?  i didnt quite follow that....


Or who they will be.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 2, 2014)

slackening the pace of austerity will punish the architects of austerity....onwards to victory!


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

ska invita said:


> who and how will be punishing the architects of austerity?  i didnt quite follow that....



OK maybe not all the architects, but at least the people responsible for delivering it five years.  Is a Labour government really no better than five more years of Tories in charge?  It would not reverse the attacks, but it would could potentially slow the pace a bit and deflect the attacks from the working poor to some extent - which is all that's achievable at this stage electorally.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> OK maybe not all the architects, but at least the people responsible for delivering it five years.  Is a Labour government really no better than five more years of Tories in charge?  It would not reverse the attacks, but it would could potentially slow the pace a bit and deflect the attacks from the working poor to some extent - which is all that's achievable at this stage electorally.


SMASHING THROUGH LABOUR TO A NEW FORMATION AND OTHER BOLLOCKS I LIE TO MYSELF ABOUT AND OTHER TIMES I'VE READ ABOUT.

Or voting and joining labour.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> OK maybe not all the architects, but at least the people responsible for delivering it five years.  Is a Labour government really no better than five more years of Tories in charge?  It would not reverse the attacks, but it would could potentially slow the pace a bit and deflect the attacks from the working poor to some extent - which is all that's achievable at this stage electorally.


sounds very punishing


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> OK maybe not all the architects, but at least the people responsible for delivering it five years.  Is a Labour government really no better than five more years of Tories in charge?  It would not reverse the attacks, but it would could potentially slow the pace a bit and deflect the attacks from the working poor to some extent - which is all that's achievable at this stage electorally.


Which would make your plan to REVEAL the true nature of labour and thus to politically reconstitute the working class once they have seen the light to be a bit of  rhetorical bollocks designed to make you think that you're still a hard lefter - would it not?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

No, there is more scope for build in pressure on/in/against Labour than the Tories as there's a sense that we would expect no less from Tories.  Whilst people don't expect much from Labour they may get even less in the current context.  The straw that breaks the camels back?


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> OK maybe not all the architects, but at least the people responsible for delivering it five years.  Is a Labour government really no better than five more years of Tories in charge?  It would not reverse the attacks, but it would could potentially slow the pace a bit and deflect the attacks from the working poor to some extent - which is all that's achievable at this stage electorally.



'Slow the pace and deflect the attacks from the working poor to some extent.' Bit of a slip mate.  "On the working poor" is what you meant.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No, there is more scope for build in pressure on/in/against Labour than the Tories as there's a sense that we would expect no less from Tories.  Whilst people don't expect much from Labour they may get even less in the current context.  The straw that breaks the camels back?



That back that was about to break in 79, 83,87, 92,97, 2001,2005,2010.

The same madness that the far-right have about the tories splitting and reconstituting around them.

And you know what, it's the same trot drivel you now condemn that you used to parrot quite freely.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> 'Slow the pace and deflect the attacks from the working poor to some extent.' Bit of a slip mate.  "On the working poor" is what you meant.


I noted the working poor bit too - not for the first time.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

That is their language not mine


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> That is their language not mine


No it's your language - you just offered it as reason to vote labour. And that just reveals that the purported divide between _them _(labour leaders) and _you _(rank and file snobby anti-working class liberals) doesn't exist. All one team.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That back that was about to break in 79, 83,87, 92,97, 2001,2005,2010.
> 
> The same madness that the far-right have about the tories splitting and reconstituting around them.
> 
> And you know what, it's the same trot drivel you now condemn that you used to parrot quite freely.


What makes you so sure Labour can't go the way of PASOK?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

No I used that phrase because that is what Labour will try to do not what it should do


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> What makes you so sure Labour can't go the way of PASOK?


You're the freak who says it's going to happen every election so the class must go through the cleansing fire of voting for it to break its illusions but also on the other hand it can do all these really good things.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> What makes you so sure Labour can't go the way of PASOK?



They might do, but does that mean the British left would go the way of Syrizia?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No I used that phrase because that is what Labour will try to do not what it should do


No, you used that phrase because you talk in politician bollocks speak and you placed in bang in series of what you think are real reasons to vote for labour.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> They might do, but does that mean the British left would go the way of Syrizia?


Which is...? That has still to be determined


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> They might do, but does that mean the British left would go the way of Syrizia?


Because her ladyship went to greece and decided.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No, you used that phrase because you talk in politician bollocks speak and you placed in bang in series of what you think are real reasons to vote for labour.


No I was talking about what a Labour government would do, so of course I based that on their ideas (not mine)


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No I was talking about what a Labour government would do, so of course I based that on their ideas (not mine)


So, exactly as i said then. You politician cunt.

a)We will help the working poor. Vote for us.
b)Oh the working poor is is?
c) Not me, that's the language of hate.
d)But you said it?
e) Of course we will and are here to help the working poor. That's why you should vote for us


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

Labour wil help the working poor. This is good but too limited - what about people who can't work for whatever reason?  They will not get as much.


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No I was talking about what a Labour government would do, so of course I based that on their ideas (not mine)



Again! Not even wrong, wrong about being wrong. Jesus H.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Again! Not even wrong, wrong about being wrong. Jesus H.


What?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Labour wil help the working poor. This I'd good but too limited - what about people who can't work for whatever reason?  They will not get as much.


Did you really just type this drivel Is that commons beer subsidised for everyone?


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Labour wil help the working poor. This I'd good but too limited - what about people who can't work for whatever reason?  They will not get as much.



What?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Which is...? That has still to be determined



I dunno - sorry if I misunderstood I thought you meant if Labour go the way of PASOK it opens up space for a formation to their left to appear and win support (even if only in polls) of course such an idea ignores the fact that Syriza didn't just come from nothing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Labour wil help the working poor. This is good but too limited - what about people who can't work for whatever reason?  They will not get as much.


do you remember the labour government lowering the tax rate for the low paid to 10%?

and do you remember them doubling it to 20%?

what will "the labour government" do for the working poor? fucking platitudes?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Labour wil help the working poor. This is good but too limited - what about people who can't work for whatever reason?  They will not get as much.


You're actually now arguing what your little internal abour sect argues against what the leadership ssays after saying that what the leadership says is a reason for voting labour and this following you saying the reason to vote labour is to destroy it because it cannot provide any benefits and all the thickos will then be forced to see though it but here are the benefits of voting for it.

You're a fucking mess, an incoherent disgrace.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No I was talking about what a Labour government would do, so of course I based that on their ideas (not mine)


that's because while they don't have a clew you don't have any ideas.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> What makes you so sure Labour can't go the way of PASOK?


what makes you so sure the labour party can't go the way of the nsdap, ie into the dustbin of history?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Did you really just type this drivel Is that commons beer subsidised for everyone?


Sober tonight!  I simply meant its true they will help the working poor but that is too limited - what about the rest, people who can't work, their families etc


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I dunno - sorry if I misunderstood I thought you meant if Labour go the way of PASOK it opens up space for a formation to their left to appear and win support (even if only in polls) of course such an idea ignores the fact that Syriza didn't just come from nothing.


It might - on the other hand Labour might just tank without the upside.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> It might - on the other hand Labour might just tank without the upside.


there's no might about it


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Sober tonight!  I simply meant its true they will help the working poor but that is too limited - what about the rest, people who can't work, their families etc


sober tonight? now there's something as rare as a funny joke from jimmy carr.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> sober tonight? now there's something as rare as a funny joke from jimmy carr.


Sadly this is true


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Labour wil help the working poor. This is good but too limited - what about people who can't work for whatever reason?  They will not get as much.



You've got a knack of saying things which are the complete opposite of what you think you're saying.



articul8 said:


> It might - on the other hand Labour might just tank without the upside.



Who knows? Is that it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 2, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> You've got a knack of saying things which are the complete opposite of what you think you're saying.
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows? Is that it?


why should articul8 know? he's only a paid-up member of the labour party.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> It might - on the other hand Labour might just tank without the upside.



Indeed but why would you want that?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Indeed but why would you want that?


He explicitly claims he wants that to happen. This is the measure of his confusion.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He explicitly claims he wants that to happen. This is the measure of his confusion.


he's all over the shop, like kinnock walking on a beach.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> he's all over the shop, like kinnock walking on a beach.


Like Kinnock wanking on a bench more like.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Like Kinnock wanking on a bench more like.


oh dear

pass the mind bleach


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 2, 2014)

that footage is so much better with the 'niel kinnock, falling endlessly into the sea' poetry v/o


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He explicitly claims he wants that to happen. This is the measure of his confusion.


but that doesn't make any sense within the context of his declared politics... not if there's not going to be an alternative...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> but that doesn't make any sense within the context of his declared politics... not if there's not going to be an alternative...


Of course it doesn't make any sense. That's why he's getting hammered.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Of course it doesn't make any sense. That's why he's getting hammered.


Of course I want alternative. But first we need the circumstances in which an alternative becomes possible


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Of course I want alternative. But first we need the circumstances in which an alternative becomes possible


Let's make sure they don't happen by joining and voting for labour and chucking all sorts of buckets of abuse on people that point out this basis fucking contradiction.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

a) Destroy labour because they're shit
b) how?
c) By voting labour.
d) Won't this help labour?
e) Yes, and as it should, because they are better and that's why you should vote for them
f) Destroy labour because they're shit


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

This is a contradiction in the situation - it's objective


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

Labour is both less shit than the Tories but still shit


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> This is a contradiction in the situation - it's objective


There's a contradiction in the bollocks you talk.

Great - now you're the living expression of the breakdown of left-wing political parties rather than a tawdry play both sides hack.

Not content with consistently being right to be wrong, you're now right to be all the above -  as a demand of history.


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Sacking Emily Thornberry was a massive own goal, that only adds to the impression that Labour has a problem with snobbish liberal attitudes to the w/c in general.   The bloke was a racist cunt anyway!



You said that.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Of course I want alternative. But first we need the circumstances in which an alternative becomes possible



Why would destroying Labour help? Also what does an alternative mean to you?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> You said that.


And..?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

> Great - now you're the living expression of the breakdown of left-wing political parties rather than a tawdry play both sides hack.
> 
> Not content with consistently being right to be wrong, you're now right to be all the above -  as a demand of history.


Yes, reality reaches its fullest, though imperfect, expression in my thought - I'm very Hegelian


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Yes, reality reaches its fullest, though imperfect, expression in my thought - I'm very Hegelian


Thought? I think you overestimate wanking on a park bench.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Why would destroying Labour help? Also what does an alternative mean to you?


Labour will destroy itself or transform itself utterly - it can't just subsist.  Your second question is very interesting.  It means more than just another set of politicians promising things they can't start, or have no intention of, delivering.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Labour will destroy itself or transform itself utterly - it can't just subsist.  Your second question is very interesting.  It means more than just another set of politicians promising things they can't, or have no intention of, delivering.


Excellent - it faced the same choices from you in 1945, 1951, 1955, 1959, 1964, 1966 and every election onwards.

Which of these times were you right?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Excellent - it faced the same choices from you in 1945, 1951, 1955, 1959, 1964, 1966 and every election onwards.
> 
> Which of these times were you right?


That social democrats parties can and have navigated choppy waters doesn't mean they can't sink in future or that the waters they are entering aren't particularly dangerous


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> That social democrats parties can and have navigated choppy waters doesn't mean they can't sink in future or that the waters they are entering aren't particularly dangerous



No, but they can quite clearly subsist through all sorts which is not what you said


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> That social democrats parties can and have navigated choppy waters doesn't mean they can't sink in future or that the waters they are entering aren't particularly dangerous



Here's some examples of where the one facing these imperatives - the ones people like me outlined existed in every period post 45 - didn't do either of the things that they must have done. You know, for history to be right and all that - rather that a rote phrase about disconnection.

You can't even face the history of the varied positions you try and maintain never mind work out the consequences. Joker. Absolute fucking joker.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> No, but they can quite clearly subsist through all sorts which is not what you said


Well yes there's nothing automatic here.  But where in Europe are social democratic parties thriving?  Perhaps this time they aren't waving but drowning?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Well yes there's nothing automatic here.  But where in Europe are social democratic parties thriving?  Perhaps this time they aren't waving but drowning?



_Well yes, of course i was right to be wrong again - anyway that's what i said in the first place if you think about it.
_
Imagine being the person really thinking that this is what thought is about? What historical comparison is. Then look into the face of a clown.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

Labour can't subsist indefinitely but nor is its implosion automatic.  Both statements hold.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Labour can't subsist indefinitely but nor is its implosion automatic.  Both statements hold.


Your previous statement said that it will implode or change utterly. You now say it won't implode and doesn't need to change utterly to avoid implosion. This within five minutes.

You utter fucking wreck of a man. Why don't people trust you?


----------



## campanula (Dec 2, 2014)

sheesh, one on level, I can sort of enjoy this...but then again, it gets a bit fucking tedious. pitiful waffle, articul8...but vicious sniping, Butchers, does not endear me either.  Time to fuck off back to suburban urban and cooking, I suspect.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Your previous statement said that it will implode or change utterly. You now say it won't implode and doesn't need to change utterly to avoid implosion. This within five minutes.
> 
> You utter fucking wreck of a man. Why don't people trust you?


It will implode or change but it can prolong the timeframe to a limited extent so there is no straightforward automaticity involved.  This is not such an original position...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> It will implode or change but it can prolong this timeframe to a limited extent so there is no straightforward automaticity involved.  This is not such an original position...


Excellent - you have  all of time to be both right/wrong.

Why do you write like somehow history has trapped you btw? It offers others potential, power, but you - a trapped cover your back hacky cowardfullness.


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Labour will destroy itself or transform itself utterly - it can't just subsist.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





articul8 said:


> It will implode or change but it can prolong the timeframe to a limited extent so there is no straightforward automaticity involved.  This is not such an original position...



What?


----------



## Wilf (Dec 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Listening to the debate on the Counter Terrorism Bill but Hazel Blears is speaking so need to pass the time doing something else.  I think Labour will slacken the pace of the attacks, and its victory will punish the architects of austerity.   This, inadequate as it is, is better than nothing.  Then the battle will move on to fighting the Labour leadership.


You mean _you_ will slacken the pace of the attacks - _you_ choose to be part of this, this is _you_.  And who are these architects of austerity that you are punishing - isn't Ed Balls planning further cuts to balance the budget?  Again, _you_.

And the idea that you are planning all these attacks to make your party_ a bit less right wing_ is _really_ fucked up.


----------



## Sue (Dec 2, 2014)

This truly is the thread that keeps on giving in a car crash kind of a way.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 2, 2014)

Just wondering about your timescales artic: you'll be actively supporting labour to come back to power in 2015 to do cuts? This will lead to disillusionment and, presumably, Labour losing in 2020?  Labour then turns to, fuck knows, John McDonnell - and the new age begins May 2025?  Fucking hell, a Specsaver is haunting Europe.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 3, 2014)

I will be campaigning for the election of a Labour government whilst at the same time (since I am not the leadership) arguing that to fulfil the needs of working class communities it will have to break from austerity.  If Labour loses, or fails to win a majority there will be some serious choices ahead.  If it wins, future battles will be inevitable.


----------



## co-op (Dec 3, 2014)

Sue said:


> This truly is the thread that keeps on giving in a car crash kind of a way.



It made me look up "subsist". I'm going to casually drop it into conversation today, see how it goes.


----------



## campanula (Dec 3, 2014)

but it isn't just a bit of tinkering around the edges of policy we require, articul8, is it?  The government does not have or generate money - we do - the payers of tax. I am an idiot but even I can see that without liquidity in the system (money to spend) the economy is going to continue to tank, tax receipts (for future spending) will not be available and Labour's refusal to countenance a complete reversal of austerity and a rebalancing of equity changes nothing. The same deep structural issues remain however much waffling on about the cost of living blah blah. The electorate are not complete idiots either and we are not remotely convinced that a tiny delay in yet more market orientated punishment will begin to address the fundamental issues facing us, those not living within the elite bubble but us normal, struggling people facing housing, transport, health and education fails....while Labour appears to have not one single plausible idea to actually address any of the malaise (presumably because they are not feeling the pain).

Pertsonally, the option I would like to see on a ballot paper in May is 'none of the above' as a true register of the contempt many of us feel for the parliamentary class. Merely refusing to vote is practically a gift for a putative govt since we have seen, in the clearest possible demonstration, that old-fashioned things like mandates and manifestos are laughably regarded as an decorative but unneccessary garnish on the daily fare of contempt and hypocrisy.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 3, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I will be campaigning for the election of a Labour government whilst at the same time (since I am not the leadership) arguing that to fulfil the needs of working class communities it will have to break from austerity.  If Labour loses, or fails to win a majority there will be some serious choices ahead.  If it wins, future battles will be inevitable.


Just seems to me that membership and active support for something you know will hit the working class hard is, well, just that, just what it is.  It's also your version of that deeply horrible idea that the people have to suffer more before they seek change - and it's an entirely Labour Left version in that it focuses the whole process on securing change by way of the Parliamentary leadership. 

You're either doing austerity or you're opposing it. You will be doing it.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I will be campaigning for the election of a Labour government whilst at the same time (since I am not the leadership) arguing that to fulfil the needs of working class communities it will have to break from austerity.  If Labour loses, or fails to win a majority there will be some serious choices ahead.  If it wins, future battles will be inevitable.


_And then i became all things to all men at all times.

*19*For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. *20*And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; *21*To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. *22*To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. *23*And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you._


----------



## articul8 (Dec 3, 2014)

campanula said:


> Pertsonally, the option I would like to see on a ballot paper in May is 'none of the above' as a true register of the contempt many of us feel for the parliamentary class. Merely refusing to vote is practically a gift for a putative govt since we have seen, in the clearest possible demonstration, that old-fashioned things like mandates and manifestos are laughably regarded as an decorative but unneccessary garnish on the daily fare of contempt and hypocrisy.


what would that achieve, beyond making you feel that little bit more smug?  If the net result was that we ended up with a Tory majority government because of people acting in this way, it would just mean that we'd get full on austerity, rather than austerity-lite.   Well done.  

Of course the "need" for austerity is structural, and won't go away because some people feel sorrier about making cuts.  But that is an argument that is best made when a Labour government is in power....


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

_Vote for our austerity then trust my little band of powerless people in the party to challenge it for you. Also, we can't win the argument in the party against austerit which is another reason to vote for us because we'll lose it and things will get worse then people will not vote labour anymore and anew better thing will happen. So vote labour. Because we're shit. But also, because we're good. In fact, you should join nevermind just voting, because we can change it. Which we can't. Which is why you should vote labour. 

Got it?_


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 3, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I will be campaigning for the election of a Labour government whilst at the same time (since I am not the leadership) arguing that to fulfil the needs of working class communities it will have to break from austerity.  If Labour loses, or fails to win a majority there will be some serious choices ahead.  If it wins, future battles will be inevitable.


 
So to paraphrase: 'I will be campaigning for the Labour Party whilst (impotently) arguing that it should be something else'.

This doesn't even have the intellecual coherence of the threadbare 'I will be campaigning for the Labour Party to expose them in office before the working class'.

It is genuinely incredible.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## articul8 (Dec 3, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So to paraphrase: 'I will be campaigning for the Labour Party whilst (impotently) arguing that it should be something else'.


It's present position is an uneasy compromise between Blairites who genuinely want to further the neoliberal restructing of the economy and society and want to use austerity to do that, and people with genuine links to the labour movement who want to advance the living standards of their communities.  This tension will only be exacerbated by the experience of government.  I'm not saying there's anything automatic, or even likely, about the side of the angels winning out.  But it's a battle that will be fought out, and even marginal gains if that's all that comes out of it are better than nothing.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

articul8 said:


> It's present position is an uneasy compromise between Blairites who genuinely want to further the neoliberal restructing of the economy and society and want to use austerity to do that, and people with genuine links to the labour movement who want to advance the living standards of their communities.  This tension will only be exacerbated by the experience of government.  I'm not saying there's anything automatic, or even likely, about the side of the angels winning out.  But it's a battle that will be fought out, and even marginal gains if that's all that comes out of it are better than nothing.


_Uneasy_? What a disingenuous self-serving characterisation. There are not two sides, though it profits you to pretend so - there is one and it has owned the party for 30 plus years. 

and at the start of that 30 years clowns like you argued that a breach was coming, a final crisis, _the party must split, that's why we must stick with it.
_
30 years later and the same old songs.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 3, 2014)

articul8 said:


> It's present position is an *uneasy compromise between Blairites who genuinely want to further the neoliberal restructing of the economy and society and want to use austerity to do that, and people with genuine links to the labour movement who want to advance the living standards of their communities*.  This tension will only be exacerbated by the experience of government.  I'm not saying there's anything automatic, or even likely, about the side of the angels winning out.  But it's a battle that will be fought out, and even marginal gains if that's all that comes out of it are better than nothing.


 
Do you really believe that? Where is there any evidence of this 'uneasy compromise' as opposed say to evidence of the victory of TINA managerialism (just with more or less enthusiastic faces)?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Louis will back me up on this i think, i've been going through a now passed on comrades stuff this last few weeks - i saw a Labour Party Young Socialists thing arguing in almost the same words as articul8's nonsense above - that a split must come because labour will be forced to do bad things (albeit he actually is even more naive and thinks that they can do good things if enough people join) and the class and thus members will move on. _From 1985_. Now given that LPYS was then basically militant, and militant were the planting bed for young articul8 i think we can see he hasn't grown out of his youthful trot utopian visions. The rest of us, well we've had some experience since then. The class are still with labour and labour did many many very bad things. The unions (which he schematically uses a shorthand for w/c) are still with labour. And him, he's still with labour too. But this split, it's def coming this time.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 3, 2014)

Who do you think was after throwing Ed Mili overboard, if he was just representing the monolithic consensus of the party as a whole?  It's precisely because he's relatively weak and subject to pressure from both right and left that certain limited concessions have been forced out of them (capping rent increases, energy prices, action on zero hours contracts, a commitment to minimum wage increases).  Ok these are all very far from the demands we want to see realised, and are critically flawed by the overall commitment to austerity and the public sector pay freeze.  But there is a genuine debate about the direction we should be going in, and the current position is just what I described, an inadequate and uneasy compromise.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Louis will back me up on this i think, i've been going through a now passed on comrades stuff this last few weeks - i saw a Labour Party Young Socialists thing arguing in almost the same words as articul8's nonsense above - that a split must come because labour will be forced to do bad things (albeit he actually is even more naive and thinks that they can do good things if enough people join) and the class and thus members will move on. _From 1985_. Now given that LPYS was then basically militant, and militant were the planting bed for young articul8 i think we can see he hasn't grown out of his youthful trot utopian visions. The rest of us, well we've had some experience since then. The class are still with labour and labour did many many very bad things. The unions (which he schematically uses a shorthand for w/c) are still with labour. And him, he's still with labour too. But this split, it's def coming this time.


Perhaps.  I just don't see what the alternative is.  A new workers party?  Not much sign of that?  The Greens?  Where they get a sniff of power it's the same story.  "None of the above"?  And then?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Who do you think was after throwing Ed Mili overboard, if he was just representing the monolithic consensus of the party as a whole?  It's precisely because he's relatively weak and subject to pressure from both right and left that certain limited concessions have been forced out of them (capping rent increases, energy prices, action on zero hours contracts, a commitment to minimum wage increases).  Ok these are all very far from the demands we want to see realised, and are critically flawed by the overall commitment to austerity and the public sector pay freeze.  But there is a genuine debate about the direction we should be going in, and the current position is just what I described, an inadequate and uneasy compromise.


Excellent now Ed Miliband represents these  "people with genuine links to the labour movement who want to advance the living standards of their communities." (And last week it was you who wanted to get rid of him remember?) rather than a simple top=down manager of neo-liberalism and future austerity that he has shown himself to be be , that he has promised to be and that the labour party and wider state and capital demands he be. You really are living in some cloud cuckoo land.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 3, 2014)

The only tension there is focuses on how best to engage with the market and it is not a tension between pro-market neo-liberals on the one hand and radical social democrats on the other.

The tension that exists is between pro-market neo-liberals on the one hand and defeated, pessimistic market agnostics on the other (and I'm probably being generous describing them as agnostics).

Louis MacNeice


----------



## articul8 (Dec 3, 2014)

> Excellent now Ed Miliband represents these "people with genuine links to the labour movement who want to advance the living standards of their communities." (And last week it was you who wanted to get rid of him remember?) rather than a simple top=down manager of neo-liberalism and future austerity that he has shown himself to be be , that he has promised to be and that the labour party and wider state and capital demands he be. You really are living in some cloud cuckoo land.


No I didn't!!!!  I just said he'd fucked up re Emily Thornberry.  And of course I never said he "represents" pro-w/c forces .  I said he feels a degree of pressure from them. Not the same thing at all.   Of course he also feels pressure from the City and the interests of big capital.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Perhaps.  I just don't see what the alternative is.  A new workers party?  Not much sign of that?  The Greens?  Where they get a sniff of power it's the same story.  "None of the above"?  And then?


Go on, say TUSC- i dare you.

Here we have it - he claims to want to smash the labour party to pieces but is too scared to take a step outside of it. Despite saying for decades that this is what will happen. It didn't. Well it must happen next time. It didn't. It will next time. It didn't. next time for sure. It didn't. 2015 is the year it will happen. This is what we must do all we can to help make sure that it doesn't happen because we must cling to labour. Cling to labour to smash it.

Ta for ignoring all the points in that post in favour of the above btw


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No I didn't!!!!  I just said he'd fucked up re Emily Thornberry.  And of course I never said he "represents" pro-w/c forces .  I said he feels a degree of pressure from them. Not the same thing at all.   Of course he also feels pressure from the City and the interests of big capital.


Even better, you suggest that Ed Miliband is under pressure from people/forces which you think demonstrates a real living internal conflict between:



> Blairites who genuinely want to further the neoliberal restructing of the economy and society and want to use austerity to do that, and people with genuine links to the labour movement who want to advance the living standards of their communities.



but neither of them should be understood to represent one side or another of your argument.

You can't even keep it straight for five minutes. Disgusting twisting spinning and open lies.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Who do you think was after throwing Ed Mili overboard, if he was just representing the monolithic consensus of the party as a whole?  It's precisely because he's relatively weak and subject to pressure from both right and left that certain limited concessions have been forced out of them (capping rent increases, energy prices, action on zero hours contracts, a commitment to minimum wage increases).  Ok these are all very far from the demands we want to see realised, and are critically flawed by the overall commitment to austerity and the public sector pay freeze.  But there is a genuine debate about the direction we should be going in, and the current position is just what I described, an inadequate and uneasy compromise.


Nice use of _after _btw - you been watching your celtic  tapes and youtubing the wolfetones again. Don't do it in your palace of work - you'll get lifted.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Go on, say TUSC- i dare you.
> 
> Here we have it - he claims to want to smash the labour party to pieces but is too scared to take a step outside of it. Despite saying for decades that this is what will happen. It didn't. Well it must happen next time. It didn't. It will next time. It didn't. next time for sure. It didn't. 2015 is the year it will happen. This is what we must do all we can to help make sure that it doesn't happen because we must cling to labour. Cling to labour to smash it.
> 
> Ta for ignoring all the points in that post in favour of the above btw


Ignoring what?  and TUSC I don't see taking off, mainly because people are either wanting to get rid of the Tories, sick to death of politicians and anyone who makes political promises, or else blaming everything on the immigrants/muslims/illuminati whatever.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Nice use of _after _btw - you been watching your celtic  tapes and youtubing the wolfetones again. Don't do it in your palace of work - you'll get lifted.


err, no.  It's not a particularly odd expression? (although as it happens the young wolfe tones are playing the pub on my street on Friday).


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Ignoring what?  and TUSC I don't see taking off, mainly because people are either wanting to get rid of the Tories, sick to death of politicians and anyone who makes political promises, or else blaming everything on the immigrants/muslims/illuminati whatever.


I couldn't care less about the TUSC - you however often use it to throw sand in peoples eyes when you've ran out of road.

The bits you ignored mainly concerned how in every single period for the last 30 years - fallow or ploughed - you and your tradition have prophesied that a final split with labour must come, that the w/c would not vote for a party that hurt it. Yet it hasn't and they have. And that in each period you have argued that this time it's different. That things have changed. But they hadn't and didn't. And that the logic you glean from this _analysis_ suggests courses of action that can only work against what you claim must come.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

articul8 said:


> err, no.  It's not a particularly odd expression? (although as it happens the young wolfe tones are playing the pub on my street on Friday).


I didn't say it was odd - i suggested it was a measured use designed to appeal to your own sense of post-war anglo-irsh secretly catholic w/cness as against your actual real life conditions of being a sell out cunt sitting in a palace working for people in an union that you've never done the sort of work that the members have.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 3, 2014)

I can tell you that I'm sitting in a cold office in Clapham.  A palace it ain't


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I can tell you that I'm sitting in a cold office in Clapham.  A palace it ain't


Nah, that'll be later when you meet _the boys. _And carry their bags.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 3, 2014)

campanula said:


> The government does not have or generate money - we do - the payers of tax.



Simply not true. It's the opposite in fact. The government are the issuer of the currency and without their spending there would be no taxes to collect. It's exactly the reverse of the way a household works. For us, we need to generate income before we can spend it, but on aggregate, for the government, they need to spend before they can collect. 

It's like a football club that says to itself "_Oh shit! We can't hand out tickets this month because we didn't collect enough of them in last month. Where are all the tickets going to come from?!_". Which is silly; they are the ones that print the tickets, and they need to get the tickets out there first before they are collected. It's the same with the government in regards to money because it's the government (well, the state) that issues the stuff.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Simply not true. It's the opposite in fact. The government are the issuer of the currency and without their spending there would be no taxes to collect. It's exactly the reverse of the way a household works. For us, we need to generate income before we can spend it, but on aggregate, for the government, they need to spend before they can collect.
> 
> It's like a football club that says to itself "_Oh shit! We can't hand out tickets this month because we didn't collect enough of them in last month. Where are all the tickets going to come from?!_". Which is silly; they are the ones that print the tickets, and they need to get the tickets out there first before they are collected. It's the same with the government in regards to money because it's the government (well, the state) that issues the stuff.


When you say money, you literally just mean money rather than than the series of use-values that produce and reproduce us right?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> When you say money, you literally just mean money rather than than the series of use-values that produce and reproduce us right?



I mean literally money.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> I mean literally money.


Then this press conference is over.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> When you say money, you literally just mean money rather than than the series of use-values that produce and reproduce us right?


How are we to understand the interrelation between the two?  How does the money supply relate the overall production of value?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

articul8 said:


> How are we to understand the interrelation between the two?  How does the money supply relate the overall production of value?


Fuck off.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 3, 2014)

He doesn't like being asked questions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2014)

articul8 said:


> It's funny how so-called "anarchists" are some of the most herd-minded, comformist group-thinkers out-there.  It's how these boards work.  People are gobby and dismissive in inverse proportion to their ability to contribute anything worthwhile of their own.



The above is why so many posters in P & P, regardless of their political positioning, think you have all the political acumen of a glass of Warninks' Advocaat mixed with piss.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Have you missed the whole post-2010 thing? I get that it's boring but he has urged people to vote and join labour because they will disappointed and then force their way through to a new formation. I'm not making this up.
> 
> He also argues that labour are the only hope and that it's possible to change labour.
> 
> None of this is made up. It sounds like it is i know.



"We" can supposedly change Labour from the inside, even though from Kinnock-onward, the party hierarchs removed every single mechanism by which grass roots pressure could be brought to bear. That he still preaches what he does despite those pesky facts point him up as either dishonest, or so stunningly naive that I believe that I have a bridge I can sell him...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> 'Slow the pace and deflect the attacks from the working poor to some extent.' Bit of a slip mate.  "On the working poor" is what you meant.



Unsurprising that Labour see "efficiency savings" in persecuting the non-working poor, just like the cuntalition do. The added bonnus being they can frighten some of us into suicide.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No, there is more scope for build in pressure on/in/against Labour than the Tories as there's a sense that we would expect no less from Tories.  Whilst people don't expect much from Labour they may get even less in the current context.  The straw that breaks the camels back?



There's *no* scope. Name me one party mechanism by which members or the electorate can exercise pressure against the party!
We both know that all we ("the people") have is our vote, and that you and your ilk will say anything, *claim* anything, in order to secure power.
You're a disgustingly dishonest shitcunt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That back that was about to break in 79, 83,87, 92,97, 2001,2005,2010.
> 
> The same madness that the far-right have about the tories splitting and reconstituting around them.
> 
> And you know what, it's the same trot drivel you now condemn that you used to parrot quite freely.



From Trot to "Fear not! Labour will save you!".


----------



## articul8 (Dec 3, 2014)

"Labour will save you" - where have I ever uttered anything like that?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2014)

Sue said:


> This truly is the thread that keeps on giving in a car crash kind of a way.



It's kind of beautiful in its' awfulness.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I will be campaigning for the election of a Labour government whilst at the same time (since I am not the leadership) arguing that to fulfil the needs of working class communities it will have to break from austerity.  If Labour loses, or fails to win a majority there will be some serious choices ahead.  If it wins, future battles will be inevitable.



And those "serious choices" will *not* revolve around fulfilling the needs of working class communities, they will revolve (as has become usual) around the desires of a narrow section of the electorate characterised as "swing voters in marginal constituencies".
As for "breaking from austerity", Balls' rhetoric about matching Cuntalition spending plans ensures, along with the massive extra borrowing Osborne has constructed, that "austerity" *can't* be broken from, even if radically-redistributive tax legislation is enacted.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2014)

articul8 said:


> It's present position is an uneasy compromise between Blairites who genuinely want to further the neoliberal restructing of the economy and society and want to use austerity to do that, and people with genuine links to the labour movement who want to advance the living standards of their communities.  This tension will only be exacerbated by the experience of government.  I'm not saying there's anything automatic, or even likely, about the side of the angels winning out.  But it's a battle that will be fought out, and even marginal gains if that's all that comes out of it are better than nothing.



The only way the above works is if you take union sponsorship to mean " people with genuine links to the labour movement who want to advance the living standards of their communities". Any other way, it falls down.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2014)

articul8 said:


> "Labour will save you" - where have I ever uttered anything like that?



What is any of your "vote Labour without illusions" bullshit if it isn't "Labour will save you", you muppet? You promise "something better" in return for people voting your party into power. At this juncture many people want to be saved from the Tories. Do the exceedingly-simple maths.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 3, 2014)

articul8 I was a kind of Bennite 30 years ago (never really a Bennite, always knew he was a daft bastard, but the label will do). Looking back, I cringe about the assumptions I and that politics carried around - assumptions about class and the party, the 'resolutionary' nature of the politics, the general shitness of the whole thing. Not only was it shit, it hoovered up lots of people who might otherwise have done something effective, might have been creative, all the obvious stuff.  You choose to repeat all those mistakes in the most unlikely circumstances, circumstances where there has been 30 years of evidence that your chosen vessel, Labour, is a key agent of neo-liberalism.  I've no real interest in abusing you, I'm just *astonished* that anyone could be so naive.  It really is an absurd politics, even if it does seem to be a rationalistion of your own position as a player in the whole thing.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 3, 2014)

Interesting that I'm being attacked as BOTH utterly naive AND incredibly cynical.  Actually my expectations of what electing a Labour government will *in itself* achieve are pretty low (moving from austerity to austerity-lite).  But at the same time with a small or non-existent majority an informal coalition of left labour, greens and SNP could exert some influence in a positive direction.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Interesting that I'm being attacked as BOTH utterly naive AND incredibly cynical.  Actually my expectations of what electing a Labour government will *in itself* achieve are pretty low (moving from austerity to austerity-lite).  But at the same time with a small or non-existent majority an informal coalition of left labour, greens and SNP could exert some influence in a positive direction.


But i thought labour would be forced to be shit and thus provoke a mass leave-ation or become really good. Can't you remember your own schemes? You were bigging them up only yesterday. But they're not your schemes - they're the schemes of ted grant 50 years ago. They the mad dream of leon trotsky seeing mass class parties split asunder in the 1917-21 period and then projected onto the future. The 100 years inbetween don't count.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Interesting that I'm being attacked as BOTH utterly naive AND incredibly cynical.  Actually my expectations of what electing a Labour government will *in itself* achieve are pretty low (moving from austerity to austerity-lite).  But at the same time with a small or non-existent majority an informal coalition of left labour, greens and SNP could exert some influence in a positive direction.


Interesting in the sense of being accurate and getting closer to the powerful boys.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 3, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Interesting that I'm being attacked as BOTH utterly naive AND incredibly cynical.  Actually my expectations of what electing a Labour government will *in itself* achieve are pretty low (moving from austerity to austerity-lite).  But at the same time with a small or non-existent majority an informal coalition of left labour, greens and SNP could exert some influence in a positive direction.


 Maybe you manage to combine the 2. Just been a sanctions demo in Middlesbrough - austerity, lite or otherwise.  You'll be carrying on with austerity and sanctions after 2015 if you win - not them, YOU. You'll posture against it, you might even do the odd demo yourself - but who will you be demonstrating against?  You're like an anti-monarchy campaigner, spending your time and energy bringing charles to the throne ..... because you know he'll be shit.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 3, 2014)

To be honest, this does feel a bit like the days of challenging jazzz.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Wilf said:


> To be honest, this does feel a bit like the days of challenging jazzz.





Spoiler: challenigng jazz


----------



## articul8 (Dec 3, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Maybe you manage to combine the 2. Just been a sanctions demo in Middlesbrough - austerity, lite or otherwise.  You'll be carrying on with austerity and sanctions after 2015 if you win - not them, YOU. You'll posture against it, you might even do the odd demo yourself - but who will you be demonstrating against?  You're like an anti-monarchy campaigner, spending your time and energy bringing charles to the throne ..... because you know he'll be shit.


It won't be me.  I will be opposing sanctions, and have already attacked them in print, including when they were being introduced by Purnell.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 3, 2014)

articul8 said:


> It won't be me.  I will be opposing sanctions, and have already attacked them in print, including when they were being introduced by Purnell.


 What % of your subs did you withhold?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2014)

Wilf said:


> What % of your subs did you withhold?


i bet it's 0%.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 3, 2014)

'Here, have my money - but don't spend it on anything I wouldn't approve of"


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2014)

Wilf said:


> 'Here, have my money - but don't spend it on anything I wouldn't approve of"


i think his position is more a case of "here, have my money"


----------



## Wilf (Dec 3, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i think his position is more a case of "here, have my money"


 'Here Ed, take my soul - I like you 6% better than Purnell.  However, I do reserve the right to not like you when you do all the things you've said you will do'


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2014)

Wilf said:


> 'Here Ed, take my soul - I like you 6% better than Purnell.  However, I do reserve the right to not like you when you do all the things you've said you will do'


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 3, 2014)

In a massive victory for the forces of anti-snobbery Ed appoints a Lord, Lord Bach, as Shadow Attorney General. Hooray!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30310735


----------



## Wilf (Dec 3, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> In a massive victory for the forces of anti-snobbery Ed appoints a Lord, Lord Bach, as Shadow Attorney General. Hooray!
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30310735


I almost didn't need to go to wiki, but yes... westminster school, oxford, the bar, head of chambers, house of lords... he's probably got enough connections to be excused chairing the nonce inquiry.


----------



## campanula (Dec 3, 2014)

articul8 said:


> what would that achieve, beyond making you feel that little bit more smug?  If the net result was that we ended up with a Tory majority government because of people acting in this way, it would just mean that we'd get full on austerity, rather than austerity-lite.   Well done.
> 
> No Articul8 - it would not make me feel smug but it would give me a chance to state my dismay and disgust...because simply not voting is regarded (by the political class) as apathy rather than anger. We only have the power to agree with a selection of poor choices - ie. no choice at all really. I think it is valuable that a message is sent that we, the people are emphatically not happy with these 'choices' presented to us...and it also underlines the flimsy legitimacy of politicians claiming  the rights to represent us.


----------



## Quartz (Dec 3, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> In a massive victory for the forces of anti-snobbery Ed appoints a Lord, Lord Bach, as Shadow Attorney General. Hooray!
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30310735



He's a life peer, not a hereditary one. Which means he's an arse-licker or rich donor or both.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2014)

Quartz said:


> He's a life peer, not a hereditary one. Which means he's an arse-licker or rich donor or both.


whereas being a hereditary peer meant you were an arse-licker or the descendant of arse-lickers.


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 3, 2014)

Quartz said:


> He's a life peer, not a hereditary one. Which means he's an arse-licker or rich donor or both.



When I see a Peer I see respect.


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 3, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> When I see a Peer I see respect.



Sorry, I meant 'Pier'. I like them a lot espesh with the ice creams and dodgems n stuff. Respect.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

When i see a tendentious misquote i keep on using it.


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> When i see a tendentious misquote i keep on using it.



Cheer up m8.


----------

