"Channel Four News has unearthed footage of Corbyn in 2014 comparing the actions of Isis to US forces retaking the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004. “Yes they are brutal, yes some of what they have done is quite appalling, likewise what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling,” Corbyn told Russia Today.
Corbyn’s campaign, in response, said he regarded Isis as a “vicious, repugnant force that has to be stopped”
Any thoughts on how he proposes to stop them?
So even now, his campaign just repeats the criticism of ISIS and doesn't take back the comparison with the US? It's just like that IRA interview, where every bad thing the IRA does is brought up and he compares it to the British.
He seems to apply two princples in this area: 1. He is on the side of the oppressed 2. He is against the killing of civilians by any force no matter who.
In the IRA interview he did condemn the IRA killings but only alongside the killing of civilians by Unionists and by the British military. He wasn't going to agree to single out only the IRA for condemnation no matter how hard the interviewer pushed. He is even-handed in his condemnation.
My worry is that they may not drift right. The problem is on the whole housing issue.
Excellent post. You are right to bang that particular drum.
Regardless of party politics, the UK needs to rebalance the housing market.
The Tories need to take action because by not doing so, they are giving their opponents the makings of a powerful weapon against them.
The problem is that everyone really knows that something has to be done about Housing, the problem is that nobody, and i mean nobody, has a clue what that something might be...
The problem is not that something has to be done about housing, but many things. There are many problems, and people generally talk only of the issue that annoys or troubles them.
It is like squeezing a balloon: fixing one problem can (and will) accentuate problems other people have.
What is needed is a holistic look at housing and all the related problems, and to try and work out a structure that best fits our needs as a country and as individuals.
The only problem is that such changes and he resultant structure will p*ss just about everyone off. So we will just keep on squeezing at that old, tired balloon.
If only we could have a reform-minded Chancellor willing to take tough decisions getting a large political space to operate in by the opposition putting in someone unelectable as leader.
Would anyone be able to enlighten me on why the Independent Greeks are going to take a battering at the next election?
Well because they were created as a fanatical anti-bailout party when they originally split from ND, the only reason their mostly conservative voters tolerated a coalition with what was then a radical left Syriza was the common anti-bailout policies. Now that they have followed Tsipras into a u-turn, basically they have no reason to exist, a bit like the LD after they entered the coalition.
They will probably lose 2/3 of their voters and fall bellow the 3% threshold to enter parliament.
Thanks. I thought that would be the reason why.
Who do you think will pick up the anti bailout/eurosceptic votes?
Southam- really comrade, you have to row back from your personal abuse at Nick. It is unpleasant. Nick has been actively involved in London Labour politics for decades. He is hardly going to come onto a public forum and lay into the next leader of the Labour party. You are expecting too much.
Ooooh, look who Nick Palmer and the Useful Idiots voted for: a man who hangs out with people who relishes the deaths of British soldiers and then lies about it. Shameful. Nick, you've helped to kill the Labour party. Congratulations.
I, too, know London Labour politics pretty well and like Nick I know exactly who JC has been hanging out with for the last 40 years. I understand that back in the day you didn't get to be a Labour MP in Camden or Islington without supporting a united Ireland, but JC has gone way beyond that time and agsin. It defies belief Nick and so many others could have decided this man should be Labour's leader and the party's candidate for PM. I am doing them a favour describing them as idiots. The alternative is that they are perfectly relaxed about an spologist for murder and terrorism being in charge.
What happens if the other bit of Irelland doesn;t want to be united ?
The trouble with UKIP, is that they don't really provide a solution to the housing problem. So I can't see many of my generation turning to them.
I think there's a potential opening for UKIP. Just go for the massive house-building programme that we had in the 1930s and 1950s, and loosen planning controls. One thing we learned in May is that UKIP *doesn't* perform well among groups that will die in the ditch to prevent development. They are solidly Tory. UKIP's appeal is far more to the average C1/C2 voter.
UKIP didn't do badly with young voters. 10% of 18-45 year olds backed them, according to Ipsos MORI.
My worry is that they may not drift right. The problem is on the whole housing issue.
Excellent post. You are right to bang that particular drum.
Regardless of party politics, the UK needs to rebalance the housing market.
The Tories need to take action because by not doing so, they are giving their opponents the makings of a powerful weapon against them.
The problem is that everyone really knows that something has to be done about Housing, the problem is that nobody, and i mean nobody, has a clue what that something might be...
The problem is not that something has to be done about housing, but many things. There are many problems, and people generally talk only of the issue that annoys or troubles them.
It is like squeezing a balloon: fixing one problem can (and will) accentuate problems other people have.
What is needed is a holistic look at housing and all the related problems, and to try and work out a structure that best fits our needs as a country and as individuals.
The only problem is that such changes and he resultant structure will p*ss just about everyone off. So we will just keep on squeezing at that old, tired balloon.
If only we could have a reform-minded Chancellor willing to take tough decisions getting a large political space to operate in by the opposition putting in someone unelectable as leader.
There are very few here- Nick, you and a couple of others (Mike) who come out from their anonymity. And you (sean) are brave for speaking your mind. I like your honesty, and take no prisoners attitude (even if its me). PbCOM is great when you get zoned in at your most vitriolic- great stuff, and I'm sure many others here think the same.
But this isn't a literary community, it's a political one which is Nick's work place. When I worked I constantly had to sit through meetings with people who I'd rather just slapped a bit really. Could you imagine in our work places if we behaved as we thought. The world would end tomorrow.
Southam- really comrade, you have to row back from your personal abuse at Nick. It is unpleasant. Nick has been actively involved in London Labour politics for decades. He is hardly going to come onto a public forum and lay into the next leader of the Labour party. You are expecting too much.
Ooooh, look who Nick Palmer and the Useful Idiots voted for: a man who hangs out with people who relishes the deaths of British soldiers and then lies about it. Shameful. Nick, you've helped to kill the Labour party. Congratulations.
Nick's behaviour is repugnant, even by his low standards of arrant careerism. FFS he was a loyal, lickspittle follower of centrist, capitalist, Tony "invade Iraq" Blair, voting fiercely against any Iraq inquiry, etc.
Now he suddenly switches support to the quasi-Marxist co-chair of the Stop the War Coalition as leader of the Labour party? Whuh?
We are allowed to look at this, and puke.
Perhaps all this would be OK if Nick announced himself beforehand as a valueless, amoral drone merely intent on promotion (which is what he is), but he has all along claimed to be clever and principled (remember his "principled" stance in favour of referendums, until it didn't suit him?).
YUK. Enough. Why have we taken this moral dwarf seriously. He embodies all that was and is wrong with the Labour party 1997-2015 and emblematises the reason the party is danger of dying now.
I'm sorry to be so harsh on a fellow pb-er, but, meh.
'I understand that for those who have taken the highly dodgy / not dodgy (delete as appropriate) step to become become Registered Supporters that they will send you a paper form as well, but that you can vote online with the id codes in your email. I would expect the email to also come from the Electoral Reform Society.'
The email came direct from the Labour party with online voting instructions and no mention of any paper form.
Would anyone be able to enlighten me on why the Independent Greeks are going to take a battering at the next election?
Well because they were created as a fanatical anti-bailout party when they originally split from ND, the only reason their mostly conservative voters tolerated a coalition with what was then a radical left Syriza was the common anti-bailout policies. Now that they have followed Tsipras into a u-turn, basically they have no reason to exist, a bit like the LD after they entered the coalition.
They will probably lose 2/3 of their voters and fall bellow the 3% threshold to enter parliament.
Thanks. I thought that would be the reason why.
Who do you think will pick up the anti bailout/eurosceptic votes?
The voters from the Independent Greeks mostly will go to the Nazis, but some might go to the new left party.
The biggest problem in Greece is that there is no right-wing euroskeptic party that will lead Greece out of the euro, lower taxes from the ridiculous heights of the bailouts and allow some free markets to take advantage of the devaluation.
There is a big gap between the liberal ND and the Nazis.
Evening all. I think Labour's fundamental issue is that many of the issues it was created to be solved have...been solved.
We still talk about poverty, but compared to the 50s and 60s, we're collectively incredibly wealthy. I was _poor_ as a child. Outside loo, hiding from the rent man, hand-me-down clothes, not barefoot, but certainly threadbare and run down etc. We weren't the poorest in our village either.
I know this is shades of the four Yorkshireman sketch, but think how far we've progressed in every single sphere since then; single mothers, LGBT rights, workers' rights, housing quality and so on and so forth.
I find it disconcerting that many on the left still use language that harks back to the slums and rookeries of the early twentieth century. That immoderate language just makes them seem mad or at least, unbalanced.
ISTM that once large problems are fixed, far smaller or more specialised problems need to be magnified to maintain the profile of the people who obtained their profile by being outraged.
Hence the evidence-free outrage about Page 3 (but curiously nothing about the insidious Cosmopolitan) and the LBGTIQXYZ civil wars, and - for example - a consequent verbal assault on Helen Lewis of the New Statesman of all people.
Separate gender lavatories in British Universities suddenly become a crucial form of global oppression for everyone when the current fashionable outrage is about the rather small transsexual population.
There is also a wry amusement at some activists who have vanished up their own fundament:
That's an example of an indirect apology. JVG is happy abusing men, but when her method of abusing men is offensive to another group, it suddenly becomes unacceptable.
I think that many of the things that generate outrage among pressure groups are essentially rich peoples' problems. The Sun is read by working class people. Hence, showing a pair of tits is evil. Cosmopolitan is read by middle class women. Hence, in-depth discussions about anal sex are empowering.
I don't think it's about a pair of tits being evil, but more about female objectification.
On transsexuals, given that many transsexuals suffer discrimination and aren't rich, it certainly isn't rich peoples' problems. Sometimes, we have to care about things that don't interest Sun readers. Otherwise, we may as well let them run the country, and we'll find out how bad things get after that.
But, people objectify each other. You meet someone you're attracted to, and you wonder what they'd look like without any clothes on. That's just human nature.
The trouble with UKIP, is that they don't really provide a solution to the housing problem. So I can't see many of my generation turning to them.
I think there's a potential opening for UKIP. Just go for the massive house-building programme that we had in the 1930s and 1950s, and loosen planning controls. One thing we learned in May is that UKIP *doesn't* perform well among groups that will die in the ditch to prevent development. They are solidly Tory. UKIP's appeal is far more to the average C1/C2 voter.
UKIP didn't do badly with young voters. 10% of 18-45 year olds backed them, according to Ipsos MORI.
I agree UKIP are more likely to appeal to C1/C2 voters, however their biggest issue is that they are still essentially an Anti-EU/immigration protest party, and not an actual political party where hopes and dreams can be realised.
I'd be interested to compare students/graduates with people who did not go to university aged between 18 and 34. I bet the latter are well to the right of the former.
50 years ago, you'd assume a thirty year old professional from a wealthy home who went to a good university was right wing, while a thirty year old plumber who left school at 16 was left-wing. Now, you'd assume the reverse.
I believe this was my little PB meme, so let me note that speaking to wealthy young professionals of my acquaintance (mostly from London), it becomes almost as repetitive as a Philip Glass score to hear how many not only vote Conservative but identify with the party. It's the "in" party among that set. This is before they even move to the suburbs and have children. In the private sector, outside the professions wherein one writes for a living, I know more young Lib Dem than Labour voters!
So on this interesting thought experiment I think I wrote a month or two ago that the yawning pre-Powell gap between the 30-something graduate and the 30-something tradesman has narrowed - but it hasn't vanished or reversed. Class is still the strongest determinant of vote in England and Wales.
The trouble with UKIP, is that they don't really provide a solution to the housing problem. So I can't see many of my generation turning to them.
I think there's a potential opening for UKIP. Just go for the massive house-building programme that we had in the 1930s and 1950s, and loosen planning controls. One thing we learned in May is that UKIP *doesn't* perform well among groups that will die in the ditch to prevent development. They are solidly Tory. UKIP's appeal is far more to the average C1/C2 voter.
UKIP didn't do badly with young voters. 10% of 18-45 year olds backed them, according to Ipsos MORI.
If UKIP were smart they would link immigration and housing. If they could say something like "for every quarter million people that come here each year, we need to build an extra hundred thousand houses just to stay still", and just repeat that on a regular basis.
Southam- really comrade, you have to row back from your personal abuse at Nick. It is unpleasant. Nick has been actively involved in London Labour politics for decades. He is hardly going to come onto a public forum and lay into the next leader of the Labour party. You are expecting too much.
Ooooh, look who Nick Palmer and the Useful Idiots voted for: a man who hangs out with people who relishes the deaths of British soldiers and then lies about it. Shameful. Nick, you've helped to kill the Labour party. Congratulations.
I, too, know London Labour politics pretty well and like Nick I know exactly who JC has been hanging out with for the last 40 years. I understand that back in the day you didn't get to be a Labour MP in Camden or Islington without supporting a united Ireland, but JC has gone way beyond that time and agsin. It defies belief Nick and so many others could have decided this man should be Labour's leader and the party's candidate for PM. I am doing them a favour describing them as idiots. The alternative is that they are perfectly relaxed about an spologist for murder and terrorism being in charge.
What happens if the other bit of Irelland doesn;t want to be united ?
#Englisharrogance
The Camden and Islington Labour parties were very tied to the Irish community in the 60s, 70s and 80s, less do niw. But you didn't get to be a candidate or a plsyer without a commitment to a united Ireland. Thst was the reality of the machine: the Irish vote was very powerful. That said, I agree with you.
But, people objectify each other. You meet someone you're attracted to, and you wonder what they'd look like without any clothes on. That's just human nature.
Being attracted to someone and objectifying them isn't the same thing.
The trouble with UKIP, is that they don't really provide a solution to the housing problem. So I can't see many of my generation turning to them.
I think there's a potential opening for UKIP. Just go for the massive house-building programme that we had in the 1930s and 1950s, and loosen planning controls. One thing we learned in May is that UKIP *doesn't* perform well among groups that will die in the ditch to prevent development. They are solidly Tory. UKIP's appeal is far more to the average C1/C2 voter.
UKIP didn't do badly with young voters. 10% of 18-45 year olds backed them, according to Ipsos MORI.
Having a landlord as your housing spokesman is not the smartest thing to do.
There is huge potential for any party advocating mass house building. An interest rate rise would be nice as well. Should be some tasty discounts once all those zombie households start defaulting on their mortgage repayments.
'It seemed to me that Nick lost a lot of credibility on here as a result of his postings in the lead up to the election, and his subsequent post-result admission that he his apparent confidence had all been a big pretence as the election neared and it became apparent to him what was really happening on the ground.'
Spot on, he could have just as easily not commented during the campaign, but he chose the porkies route and now looks completely ridiculous.
"Channel Four News has unearthed footage of Corbyn in 2014 comparing the actions of Isis to US forces retaking the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004. “Yes they are brutal, yes some of what they have done is quite appalling, likewise what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling,” Corbyn told Russia Today.
Corbyn’s campaign, in response, said he regarded Isis as a “vicious, repugnant force that has to be stopped”
Any thoughts on how he proposes to stop them?
So even now, his campaign just repeats the criticism of ISIS and doesn't take back the comparison with the US? It's just like that IRA interview, where every bad thing the IRA does is brought up and he compares it to the British.
He seems to apply two princples in this area: 1. He is on the side of the oppressed 2. He is against the killing of civilians by any force no matter who.
In the IRA interview he did condemn the IRA killings but only alongside the killing of civilians by Unionists and by the British military. He wasn't going to agree to single out only the IRA for condemnation no matter how hard the interviewer pushed. He is even-handed in his condemnation.
Up to a point I agree, but would add that soldiers are just civilians in uniform, and often conscripted ones.
I would also ask the question: "who are the oppressed?" As Religious conservatism, and in particular Islamism is violently oppressive of women, gays, apostates, free thinkers and even people who would like to have a pint and listen to music. Muslims are some of the most oppressed people on earth, but the oppressors are not us feeble liberals in the west with our cartoons, or even neo-cons in the US State department. The oppressors are their own "community leaders" in the form of Hezbollah, Hamas and ISIS. A true left winger should be raising the peoples consciousness against these oppressors not sharing a platform with them.
Interesting yougov poll, while today's students are more leftwing than the national average on immigration, climate change, tuition fees, capital punishment and the EU. However on mainly economic issues like a 50% top tax rate, nationalisation of key utilities, the minimum wage and euthanasia they are to the right of the public https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/18/students-profile/
Fascinating. Given that this cohort will, inevitably, drift right on all these issues over time, it shows that THE position to be, politically, is economically quite hard right, yet socially fairly soft liberal. Which is precisely where Cameron's Tory party has positioned itself.
Gay marriage + low taxes.
I'd be interested to compare students/graduates with people who did not go to university aged between 18 and 34. I bet the latter are well to the right of the former.
50 years ago, you'd assume a thirty year old professional from a wealthy home who went to a good university was right wing, while a thirty year old plumber who left school at 16 was left-wing. Now, you'd assume the reverse.
My worry is that they may not drift right. The problem is on the whole housing issue. Typically, people become more conservative when they get their own physical stake in society. Once you have your own house, you want to protect property rights, you participate in local community and want to make sure its cohesive, you want law & order maintained, and you want the system to be preserved. Generation Rent threatens to upturn all this. It will be people going into their 30s and 40s whose main concern is the government protects them from the capitalist landlord class.
Thatcher knew it well when creating a property-owning democracy:
'Economics are the method: the object is to change the soul'.
That is indeed the worry. Fortunately, UKIP now provides an alternative for people who are disaffected but don't want to vote left.
Again depends on the issue, on immigration and the EU the plumber is likely to be more rightwing, on tax cuts for the wealthy the graduate is more likely to be rightwing, especially if they work in a well paid job in the private sector
For those who are not convinced that the email scandal is having any real effect on Hillary's chances, I recommend you take a gander at the charts towards the end of this article from the Washington Post:
Hillary's chances are more linked to whether she faces Donald Trump or not than her emails
Bollocks.
Not bollocks that she would beat Trump. I'd vote for her over Trump. Bollocks that that will ever be the choice.
Hillary is vulnerable in a straight fight with a moderate Republican, however Trump is now making that less likely
Now you are 100% on Trump, because he is ahead in a 17-horse race. You may have amnesia about your past certitudes, but I do not.
You show no knowledge of US politics nor of how to read polls at the different stages of the electoral cycle.
Well I am not going to stop debating you.
I show plenty of knowledge of US politics and the GOP does historically tend to pick the frontrunner
Well I am not going to stop debating you. You're not 'debating' anyone - you merely quote polls. We covered this before.
I show plenty of knowledge of US politics Bugger all actually. We covered this before too.
As opposed to your continued insistence that Hillary was dead in the water because of her emails with no polling evidence to support it
The fact I do not bow down and lick your boots at every opinion you come out with is no evidence at all for you to come out with a totally baseless statement like that!!
You just keep proving my point about your lack of understanding - Hillary's email problem has nothing to do with polls.
Hillary's email problem only occurs if the FBI indicts her, except for the collapse in her honest and trustworthy numbers. If you saw her Tuesday presser you know how worried the campaign is about that. It was a cringe worthy performance by Hillary.
State will continue monthly releasing of her emails until the end of January, which just reinforces the whole problem.
And with that I intend to waste no further time with you on US politics.
"It is genuinely impossible to know what he (Nick) really thinks."
Seriously. What a revelation! Do you not think that about any politician? I mean what does Cameron, hug a hoodie, the NHS is the greatest thing ever, Kidscape, bird blending wing farms, fox hunting, Bullingdon alumni really think? What does Osborne hang Mandela really think?
One person who we do know what he really thinks is Jezza- and look what we think of him.
Telling people what you really think isn't a good career choice for a politician. Better to be bland and boring, and keep what you really think to yourself.
Southam- really comrade, you have to row back from your personal abuse at Nick. It is unpleasant. Nick has been actively involved in London Labour politics for decades. He is hardly going to come onto a public forum and lay into the next leader of the Labour party. You are expecting too much.
Ooooh, look who Nick Palmer and the Useful Idiots voted for: a man who hangs out with people who relishes the deaths of British soldiers and then lies about it. Shameful. Nick, you've helped to kill the Labour party. Congratulations.
I, too, know London Labour politics pretty well and like Nick I know exactly who JC has been hanging out with for the last 40 years. I understand that back in the day you didn't get to be a Labour MP in Camden or Islington without supporting a united Ireland, but JC has gone way beyond that time and agsin. It defies belief Nick and so many others could have decided this man should be Labour's leader and the party's candidate for PM. I am doing them a favour describing them as idiots. The alternative is that they are perfectly relaxed about an spologist for murder and terrorism being in charge.
It seemed to me that Nick lost a lot of credibility on here as a result of his postings in the lead up to the election, and his subsequent post-result admission that he his apparent confidence had all been a big pretence as the election neared and it became apparent to him what was really happening on the ground. Before that, whilst many on here were often in disagreement with him on certain issues, and were somewhat sceptical that every contentious political issue was quite the storm in a teacup that he generally made it out to be, i think there was usually a perception that he was giving his honest opinion, even if it was misguided. Now it is genuinely impossible to know what he really thinks.
Southam- really comrade, you have to row back from your personal abuse at Nick. It is unpleasant. Nick has been actively involved in London Labour politics for decades. He is hardly going to come onto a public forum and lay into the next leader of the Labour party. You are expecting too much.
Ooooh, look who Nick Palmer and the Useful Idiots voted for: a man who hangs out with people who relishes the deaths of British soldiers and then lies about it. Shameful. Nick, you've helped to kill the Labour party. Congratulations.
I, too, know London Labour politics pretty well and like Nick I know exactly who JC has been hanging out with for the last 40 years. I understand that back in the day you didn't get to be a Labour MP in Camden or Islington without supporting a united Ireland, but JC has gone way beyond that time and agsin. It defies belief Nick and so many others could have decided this man should be Labour's leader and the party's candidate for PM. I am doing them a favour describing them as idiots. The alternative is that they are perfectly relaxed about an spologist for murder and terrorism being in charge.
What happens if the other bit of Irelland doesn;t want to be united ?
#Englisharrogance
The Camden and Islington Labour parties were very tied to the Irish community in the 60s, 70s and 80s, less do niw. But you didn't get to be a candidate or a plsyer without a commitment to a united Ireland. Thst was the reality of the machine: the Irish vote was very powerful. That said, I agree with you.
These days I'm sort of neutral on the subject. I have an Irish passport and am quite happy with the place ( I'm northern prod )
But I just can't see why the RoI would want to bankrupt itself with a bunch of handout junkies with chips on their shoulders. The North is just LaLa land. It's merseyside cubed..
If I was Labour I'd be worried about my finances. This will probably cost them more money than they were expecting to spend. Their trade union funding is about to be greatly restricted and 2016 will be a packed election year. Plus the Co-op Bank is struggling
For those who are not convinced that the email scandal is having any real effect on Hillary's chances, I recommend you take a gander at the charts towards the end of this article from the Washington Post:
Hillary's chances are more linked to whether she faces Donald Trump or not than her emails
Bollocks.
ever be the choice.
making that less likely
electoral cycle.
Well I am not going to stop debating you.
I show plenty of knowledge of US politics and the GOP does historically tend to pick the frontrunner
Well I am not going to stop debating you. You're not 'debating' anyone - you merely quote polls. We covered this before.
I show plenty of knowledge of US politics Bugger all actually. We covered this before too.
The fact I do not bow down and lick your boots at every opinion you come out with is no evidence at all for you to come out with a totally baseless statement like that!!
You just keep proving my point about your lack of understanding - Hillary's email problem has nothing to do with polls.
Hillary's email problem only occurs if the FBI indicts her, except for the collapse in her honest and trustworthy numbers. If you saw her Tuesday presser you know how worried the campaign is about that. It was a cringe worthy performance by Hillary.
State will continue monthly releasing of her emails until the end of January, which just reinforces the whole problem.
And with that I intend to waste no further time with you on US politics.
The problem for Hillary is not her emails, but her lack of campaigning, maybe she thinks she doesn't need to campaign to get the nomination, that it will simply fall on her hand like an apple or something. She is doing the same mistake that Burnham, Cooper and Kendall did here, complacency that leaves the field to the only guy that actually campaigns, in her case Sanders, in our case Corbyn.
My worry is that they may not drift right. The problem is on the whole housing issue.
Excellent post. You are right to bang that particular drum.
Regardless of party politics, the UK needs to rebalance the housing market.
The Tories need to take action because by not doing so, they are giving their opponents the makings of a powerful weapon against them.
The problem is that everyone really knows that something has to be done about Housing, the problem is that nobody, and i mean nobody, has a clue what that something might be...
Fact. Or, presumably, they do know what that something might be, but it is politically untenable.
Southam- really comrade, you have to row back from your personal abuse at Nick. It is unpleasant. Nick has been actively involved in London Labour politics for decades. He is hardly going to come onto a public forum and lay into the next leader of the Labour party. You are expecting too much.
Ooooh, look who Nick Palmer and the Useful Idiots voted for: a man who hangs out with people who relishes the deaths of British soldiers and then lies about it. Shameful. Nick, you've helped to kill the Labour party. Congratulations.
I, too, know London Labour politics pretty well and like Nick I know exactly who JC has been hanging out with for the last 40 years. I understand that back in the day you didn't get to be a Labour MP in Camden or Islington without supporting a united Ireland, but JC has gone way beyond that time and agsin. It defies belief Nick and so many others could have decided this man should be Labour's leader and the party's candidate for PM. I am doing them a favour describing them as idiots. The alternative is that they are perfectly relaxed about an spologist for murder and terrorism being in charge.
What happens if the other bit of Irelland doesn;t want to be united ?
#Englisharrogance
The Camden and Islington Labour parties were very tied to the Irish community in the 60s, 70s and 80s, less do niw. But you didn't get to be a candidate or a plsyer without a commitment to a united Ireland. Thst was the reality of the machine: the Irish vote was very powerful. That said, I agree with you.
These days I'm sort of neutral on the subject. I have an Irish passport and am quite happy with the place ( I'm northern prod )
But I just can't see why the RoI would want to bankrupt itself with a bunch of handout junkies with chips on their shoulders. The North is just LaLa land. It's merseyside cubed..
As someone from Merseyside I'm offended about how right you are.
Interesting yougov poll, while today's students are more leftwing than the national average on immigration, climate change, tuition fees, capital punishment and the EU. However on mainly economic issues like a 50% top tax rate, nationalisation of key utilities, the minimum wage and euthanasia they are to the right of the public https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/18/students-profile/
Fascinating. Given that this cohort will, inevitably, drift right on all these issues over time, it shows that THE position to be, politically, is economically quite hard right, yet socially fairly soft liberal. Which is precisely where Cameron's Tory party has positioned itself.
Gay marriage + low taxes.
My worry is that they may not drift right. The problem is on the whole housing issue. Typically, people become more conservative when they get their own physical stake in society. Once you have your own house, you want to protect property rights, you participate in local community and want to make sure its cohesive, you want law & order maintained, and you want the system to be preserved. Generation Rent threatens to upturn all this. It will be people going into their 30s and 40s whose main concern is the government protects them from the capitalist landlord class.
Thatcher knew it well when creating a property-owning democracy:
'Economics are the method: the object is to change the soul'.
Exactly. Given that young people are hardly right-wing economically, but just less left-wing that the public on certain issues, as soon as my generation find it difficult to have a stake in society, is when they will swing even more to the left economically. More graduates are having to take non-graduate jobs, especially given how competitive grad schemes are. I know as a graduate I'll most likely be going into a non-graduate job if I'm lucky, and that it'll be great if I even get to earn an average salary one day, let alone get a mortgage (if it can happen).
One thing I would like the Labour party to be giving serious attention to is how we absorb all the would-be immigrants, whether they are asylum-seekers or economic migrants. It seems to me the only long-term answer is that the whole indigenous population will be compelled to accept a significantly lower standard of living all round.
If we are to accept all the people who wish to come here we do need to prepare ourselves for the inevitable impacts. As with everything, it's going to be those at the bottom of society who will suffer the most. I reckon it will be much better to grasp the nettle & start giving it serious thought.
If I was Labour I'd be worried about my finances. This will probably cost them more money than they were expecting to spend. Their trade union funding is about to be greatly restricted and 2016 will be a packed election year. Plus the Co-op Bank is struggling
I think the 3 pounders will cover the cost of the ballots.
But, people objectify each other. You meet someone you're attracted to, and you wonder what they'd look like without any clothes on. That's just human nature.
Being attracted to someone and objectifying them isn't the same thing.
I don't see how you can distinguish between objectification on the one hand and viewing another person as highly sexually desirable and wondering what they'd be like in bed on the other. At any rate, it seems a very fine, hair-splitting sort of distinction.
Has there been any explanation why the bin driver that lied repeatedly and was responsible for the deaths of 6 people is not being prosecuted?
I don't think so. He appeared as a witness in the Fatal Accident Inquiry today, and declined to answer almost every question to avoid incriminating himself
If I was Labour I'd be worried about my finances. This will probably cost them more money than they were expecting to spend. Their trade union funding is about to be greatly restricted and 2016 will be a packed election year. Plus the Co-op Bank is struggling
I think the 3 pounders will cover the cost of the ballots.
Re Cornwall, I had heard that they will be reducing the number of councillors there in a few years, down from something like 120. It certainly is an interesting council given those seat numbers - perfect.
I presume UKIP will lose this particular seat - they seem at something of a low ebb at the moment, but presumably will have another burst come any Euro activity.
For those who are not convinced that the email scandal is having any real effect on Hillary's chances, I recommend you take a gander at the charts towards the end of this article from the Washington Post:
Hillary's chances are more linked to whether she faces Donald Trump or not than her emails
Bollocks.
Not bollocks that she would beat Trump. I'd vote for her over Trump. Bollocks that that will ever be the choice.
Hillary is vulnerable in a straight fight with a moderate Republican, however Trump is now making that less likely
Now you are 100% on Trump, because he is ahead in a 17-horse race. You may have amnesia about your past certitudes, but I do not.
You show no knowledge of US politics nor of how to read polls at the different stages of the electoral cycle.
Well I r
Well I am not going to stop debating you. You're not 'debating' anyone - you merely quote polls. We covered this before.
I show plenty of knowledge of US politics Bugger all actually. We covered this before too.
As opposed to your continued insistence that Hillary was dead in the water because of her emails with no polling evidence to support it
The fact I do not bow down and lick your boots at every opinion you come out with is no evidence at all for you to come out with a totally baseless statement like that!!
You just keep proving my point about your lack of understanding - Hillary's email problem has nothing to do with polls.
Hillary's email problem only occurs if the FBI indicts her, except for the collapse in her honest and trustworthy numbers. If you saw her Tuesday presser you know how worried the campaign is about that. It was a cringe worthy performance by Hillary.
State will continue monthly releasing of her emails until the end of January, which just reinforces the whole problem.
And with that I intend to waste no further time with you on US politics.
Surely the correct way to resolve this dispute is by a wager?
The trouble with UKIP, is that they don't really provide a solution to the housing problem. So I can't see many of my generation turning to them.
I think there's a potential opening for UKIP. Just go for the massive house-building programme that we had in the 1930s and 1950s, and loosen planning controls. One thing we learned in May is that UKIP *doesn't* perform well among groups that will die in the ditch to prevent development. They are solidly Tory. UKIP's appeal is far more to the average C1/C2 voter.
UKIP didn't do badly with young voters. 10% of 18-45 year olds backed them, according to Ipsos MORI.
Having a landlord as your housing spokesman is not the smartest thing to do.
There is huge potential for any party advocating mass house building. An interest rate rise would be nice as well. Should be some tasty discounts once all those zombie households start defaulting on their mortgage repayments.
An interest rate rise would reduce the amount first time buyers would be able to borrow form banks, and thus put them off voting for your party.
More graduates are having to take non-graduate jobs, especially given how competitive grad schemes are. I know as a graduate I'll most likely be going into a non-graduate job if I'm lucky, and that it'll be great if I even get to earn an average salary one day, let alone get a mortgage (if it can happen).
What job, if any, a graduate gets is largely a function of what degree they did, where they did it and how good a degree they actually got. Someone with a first in engineering from somewhere like Warwick is not going to have a problem with getting a graduate level job. Someone with a 2:2 in Performing Arts and Business Studies from London Met is going to find the employment market tougher. As the old joke has it:
The engineering graduate asks, "How does that work?" The mathematics graduate asks, "Why does that work?" The liberal arts graduate asks, "Do you want fries with that?"
As for your own circumstances, the world hasn't changed that much in the past few years and surely you had some idea of what you were going to do for a living before you went off to study History and Politics. So what has happened that makes your original game plan invalid and for you now to public fret about being able to get a decent job?
But, people objectify each other. You meet someone you're attracted to, and you wonder what they'd look like without any clothes on. That's just human nature.
Being attracted to someone and objectifying them isn't the same thing.
I don't see how you can distinguish between objectification on the one hand and viewing another person as highly sexually desirable and wondering what they'd be like in bed on the other. At any rate, it seems a very fine, hair-splitting sort of distinction.
Objectification is when you remove any 'human' characteristics that are a part of someone's personality/persona/mannerisms, and purely see them as object to use for own pleasure. When I've been attracted to someone, I've certainly not seen them like that.
The problem for Hillary is not her emails, but her lack of campaigning, maybe she thinks she doesn't need to campaign to get the nomination, that it will simply fall on her hand like an apple or something. She is doing the same mistake that Burnham, Cooper and Kendall did here, complacency that leaves the field to the only guy that actually campaigns, in her case Sanders, in our case Corbyn.
Speedy, actually I think you are making a mistake in likening the US presidential nomination to the farce that is the Labour leadership competition.
The emails are an electoral problem for her as they are confirming an existing set of negative public perceptions of her (regarding herself to be above the law, surrounded by fawning lackeys who will not tell her the truth, too arrogant and detached) which is driving down her negatives on trustworthiness in a truly dramatic fashion.
The email saga also then, along with the Clinton Foundationgate issues, feeds into the lack of campaigning as her minders want to keep her away from the Press so that she can't mess up.
"Channel Four News has unearthed footage of Corbyn in 2014 comparing the actions of Isis to US forces retaking the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004. “Yes they are brutal, yes some of what they have done is quite appalling, likewise what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling,” Corbyn told Russia Today.
Corbyn’s campaign, in response, said he regarded Isis as a “vicious, repugnant force that has to be stopped”
Any thoughts on how he proposes to stop them?
So even now, his campaign just repeats the criticism of ISIS and doesn't take back the comparison with the US? It's just like that IRA interview, where every bad thing the IRA does is brought up and he compares it to the British.
He seems to apply two princples in this area: 1. He is on the side of the oppressed 2. He is against the killing of civilians by any force no matter who.
In the IRA interview he did condemn the IRA killings but only alongside the killing of civilians by Unionists and by the British military. He wasn't going to agree to single out only the IRA for condemnation no matter how hard the interviewer pushed. He is even-handed in his condemnation.
The problem is, the IRA were both morally wrong and the worst offenders, in terms of killing.
It's like saying you regard all killings in WWII as equally bad.
But, people objectify each other. You meet someone you're attracted to, and you wonder what they'd look like without any clothes on. That's just human nature.
Being attracted to someone and objectifying them isn't the same thing.
He didn't say they were. But it's true: sometimes you objectify someone you are attracted to, even if most of the time you treat them as the three dimensional person they are.
And you can't deny that magazines like Cosmopolitan have photos of shirtless gym-toned men all over them, so their readers can objectify them.
My worry is that they may not drift right. The problem is on the whole housing issue.
Excellent post. You are right to bang that particular drum.
Regardless of party politics, the UK needs to rebalance the housing market.
The Tories need to take action because by not doing so, they are giving their opponents the makings of a powerful weapon against them.
The problem is that everyone really knows that something has to be done about Housing, the problem is that nobody, and i mean nobody, has a clue what that something might be...
Fact. Or, presumably, they do know what that something might be, but it is politically untenable.
Nice crummy Tower Blocks, straight from the 70's that will be a magnet for crime amid other things:
For those who are not convinced that the email scandal is having any real effect on Hillary's chances, I recommend you take a gander at the charts towards the end of this article from the Washington Post:
Hillary's chances are more linked to whether she faces Donald Trump or not than her emails
Bollocks.
Bollocks that that will ever be the choice.
Hillary is vulnerable in a straight fight with a moderate Republican, however Trump is now making that less likely
Now you are 100% on Trump, because he is ahead in a 17-horse race. You may have amnesia about your past certitudes, but I do not.
You show no knowledge of US politics nor of how to read polls at the different stages of the electoral cycle.
Well I am not going to stop debating you.
I show plenty of knowledge of US politics and the GOP does historically tend to pick the frontrunner
Well I am not going to stop debating you. You're not 'debating' anyone - you merely quote polls. We covered this before.
I show plenty of knowledge of US politics Bugger all actually. We covered this before too.
The fact I do not bow down and lick your boots at every opinion you come out with is no evidence at all for you to come out with a totally baseless statement like that!!
You just keep proving my point about your lack of understanding - Hillary's email problem has nothing to do with polls.
State will continue monthly releasing of her emails until the end of January, which just reinforces the whole problem.
And with that I intend to waste no further time with you on US politics.
Of course it has to do with polls as as I have already told you you can only be barred from running for the presidency for Treason or bribery, unless Hillary is convicted of those offences there is no constitutional bar to her running. Nixon was neither honest nor trustworthy, he still won in 1968 and 1972, Hillary still, on average, leads most national polls.
If you continue to post exaggerated statements I will continue to dispute them whether you like it or not
"It is genuinely impossible to know what he (Nick) really thinks."
Seriously. What a revelation! Do you not think that about any politician? I mean what does Cameron, hug a hoodie, the NHS is the greatest thing ever, Kidscape, bird blending wing farms, fox hunting, Bullingdon alumni really think? What does Osborne hang Mandela really think?
One person who we do know what he really thinks is Jezza- and look what we think of him.
Telling people what you really think isn't a good career choice for a politician. Better to be bland and boring, and keep what you really think to yourself.
Leaving aside the fact that realistically Nick's political career is over, I agree that one must always treat what a politician says with a pinch of salt. However Nick isn't obliged to post on this site, so you can't have it both ways. Either he is on here posting broadly his honest opinions (subject to the tribal distortions that afflicts all posters on this site that allows them to take completely contradictory positions dependent on 'circumstance'), or he is here to disseminate. And if the latter (although it is difficult to understand the motivation now, maybe once he was assigned the role by the Labour leadership and has never been able to relinquish it?) then he has every expectation that he is not going to get cut much slack.
For those who are not convinced that the email scandal is having any real effect on Hillary's chances, I recommend you take a gander at the charts towards the end of this article from the Washington Post:
Hillary's chances are more linked to whether she faces Donald Trump or not than her emails
Bollocks.
ever be the choice.
making that less likely
electoral cycle.
Well I am not going to stop debating you.
I show plenty of knowledge of US politics and the GOP does historically tend to pick the frontrunner
Well I am not going to stop debating you. You're not 'debating' anyone - you merely quote polls. We covered this before.
I show plenty of knowledge of US politics Bugger all actually. We covered this before too.
The fact I do not bow down and lick your boots at every opinion you come out with is no evidence at all for you to come out with a totally baseless statement like that!!
You just keep proving my point about your lack of understanding - Hillary's email problem has nothing to do with polls.
Hillary's email problem only occurs if the FBI indicts her, except for the collapse in her honest and trustworthy numbers. If you saw her Tuesday presser you know how worried the campaign is about that. It was a cringe worthy performance by Hillary.
State will continue monthly releasing of her emails until the end of January, which just reinforces the whole problem.
And with that I intend to waste no further time with you on US politics.
The problem for Hillary is not her emails, but her lack of campaigning, maybe she thinks she doesn't need to campaign to get the nomination, that it will simply fall on her hand like an apple or something. She is doing the same mistake that Burnham, Cooper and Kendall did here, complacency that leaves the field to the only guy that actually campaigns, in her case Sanders, in our case Corbyn.
"Channel Four News has unearthed footage of Corbyn in 2014 comparing the actions of Isis to US forces retaking the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004. “Yes they are brutal, yes some of what they have done is quite appalling, likewise what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling,” Corbyn told Russia Today.
Corbyn’s campaign, in response, said he regarded Isis as a “vicious, repugnant force that has to be stopped”
Any thoughts on how he proposes to stop them?
So even now, his campaign just repeats the criticism of ISIS and doesn't take back the comparison with the US? It's just like that IRA interview, where every bad thing the IRA does is brought up and he compares it to the British.
He seems to apply two princples in this area: 1. He is on the side of the oppressed 2. He is against the killing of civilians by any force no matter who.
In the IRA interview he did condemn the IRA killings but only alongside the killing of civilians by Unionists and by the British military. He wasn't going to agree to single out only the IRA for condemnation no matter how hard the interviewer pushed. He is even-handed in his condemnation.
Up to a point I agree, but would add that soldiers are just civilians in uniform, and often conscripted ones.
I would also ask the question: "who are the oppressed?" As Religious conservatism, and in particular Islamism is violently oppressive of women, gays, apostates, free thinkers and even people who would like to have a pint and listen to music. Muslims are some of the most oppressed people on earth, but the oppressors are not us feeble liberals in the west with our cartoons, or even neo-cons in the US State department. The oppressors are their own "community leaders" in the form of Hezbollah, Hamas and ISIS. A true left winger should be raising the peoples consciousness against these oppressors not sharing a platform with them.
You are right except for your final sentence. True left wingers are not interested in raising these peoples' conciousness. They are pawns. They not only want to keep them enslaved they want to enslave the rest of us as well.
I hope they honour any 48 hour maximum working week regulations, and we wouldnt want to take on anyone with a zero hours contract. And we have to have regular consultations with the unions to ensure that the workforce is represented. Lets make sure we hire up a bunch of people who cant read English also, in the name of diversity.
"Channel Four News has unearthed footage of Corbyn in 2014 comparing the actions of Isis to US forces retaking the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004. “Yes they are brutal, yes some of what they have done is quite appalling, likewise what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling,” Corbyn told Russia Today.
Corbyn’s campaign, in response, said he regarded Isis as a “vicious, repugnant force that has to be stopped”
Any thoughts on how he proposes to stop them?
So even now, his campaign just repeats the criticism of ISIS and doesn't take back the comparison with the US? It's just like that IRA interview, where every bad thing the IRA does is brought up and he compares it to the British.
He seems to apply two princples in this area: 1. He is on the side of the oppressed 2. He is against the killing of civilians by any force no matter who.
In the IRA interview he did condemn the IRA killings but only alongside the killing of civilians by Unionists and by the British military. He wasn't going to agree to single out only the IRA for condemnation no matter how hard the interviewer pushed. He is even-handed in his condemnation.
The problem is, the IRA were both morally wrong and the worst offenders, in terms of killing.
It's like saying you regard all killings in WWII as equally bad.
Indeed. Corbyn's apparent moral equivalence thinking needs calling out for the nonsense it is.
Has there been any explanation why the bin driver that lied repeatedly and was responsible for the deaths of 6 people is not being prosecuted?
I don't think so. He appeared as a witness in the Fatal Accident Inquiry today, and declined to answer almost every question to avoid incriminating himself
I read somewhere that he had applied recently to have his license returned.
I read about today's proceedings too. He was read the names of the men, women and children he killed, and he declined to comment. This kind of thing just makes me feel sad for being human really.
One thing I would like the Labour party to be giving serious attention to is how we absorb all the would-be immigrants, whether they are asylum-seekers or economic migrants. It seems to me the only long-term answer is that the whole indigenous population will be compelled to accept a significantly lower standard of living all round.
If we are to accept all the people who wish to come here we do need to prepare ourselves for the inevitable impacts. As with everything, it's going to be those at the bottom of society who will suffer the most. I reckon it will be much better to grasp the nettle & start giving it serious thought.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.
I think the ideal situation would be to restrict freedom of movement within the EU, and in regard to migrant crisis to develop a long-term solution where migrants' countries can become habitable again. However the former isn't possible, but I think Labour really need to start acknowledging the issue of immigration if they want the electorate to even consider them remotely credible.
But, people objectify each other. You meet someone you're attracted to, and you wonder what they'd look like without any clothes on. That's just human nature.
Being attracted to someone and objectifying them isn't the same thing.
He didn't say they were. But it's true: sometimes you objectify someone you are attracted to, even if most of the time you treat them as the three dimensional person they are.
And you can't deny that magazines like Cosmopolitan have photos of shirtless gym-toned men all over them, so their readers can objectify them.
BIB: Then that's wrong.
On Comso: I've never denied objectification works both ways, however generally women are far more objectified than men.
But, people objectify each other. You meet someone you're attracted to, and you wonder what they'd look like without any clothes on. That's just human nature.
Being attracted to someone and objectifying them isn't the same thing.
I don't see how you can distinguish between objectification on the one hand and viewing another person as highly sexually desirable and wondering what they'd be like in bed on the other. At any rate, it seems a very fine, hair-splitting sort of distinction.
Objectification is when you remove any 'human' characteristics that are a part of someone's personality/persona/mannerisms, and purely see them as object to use for own pleasure. When I've been attracted to someone, I've certainly not seen them like that.
If you're genuinely attracted to someone you see them as more than an object, but certainly lust for that person is a strong part of that attraction.
For those who are not convinced that the email scandal is having any real effect on Hillary's chances, I recommend you take a gander at the charts towards the end of this article from the Washington Post:
Hillary's chances are more linked to whether she faces Donald Trump or not than her emails
Bollocks.
ever be the choice.
making that less likely
electoral cycle.
Well I am not going to stop debating you.
I show plenty of knowledge of US politics and the GOP does historically tend to pick the frontrunner
Well I am not going to stop debating you. You're not 'debating' anyone - you merely quote polls. We covered this before.
I show plenty of knowledge of US politics Bugger all actually. We covered this before too.
!!
Hillary's email problem only occurs if the FBI indicts her, except for the collapse in her honest and trustworthy numbers. If you saw her Tuesday presser you know how worried the campaign is about that. It was a cringe worthy performance by Hillary.
State will continue monthly releasing of her emails until the end of January, which just reinforces the whole problem.
And with that I intend to waste no further time with you on US politics.
The problem for Hillary is not her emails, but her lack of campaigning, maybe she thinks she doesn't need to campaign to get the nomination, that it will simply fall on her hand like an apple or something. She is doing the same mistake that Burnham, Cooper and Kendall did here, complacency that leaves the field to the only guy that actually campaigns, in her case Sanders, in our case Corbyn.
She still turned up to the Iowa State Fair
First time she did something after she declared her candidacy 4 months ago, and she did that probably because she was forced to by Bernie Sanders leaping ahead in Iowa.
More graduates are having to take non-graduate jobs, especially given how competitive grad schemes are. I know as a graduate I'll most likely be going into a non-graduate job if I'm lucky, and that it'll be great if I even get to earn an average salary one day, let alone get a mortgage (if it can happen).
What job, if any, a graduate gets is largely a function of what degree they did, where they did it and how good a degree they actually got. Someone with a first in engineering from somewhere like Warwick is not going to have a problem with getting a graduate level job. Someone with a 2:2 in Performing Arts and Business Studies from London Met is going to find the employment market tougher. As the old joke has it:
The engineering graduate asks, "How does that work?" The mathematics graduate asks, "Why does that work?" The liberal arts graduate asks, "Do you want fries with that?"
As for your own circumstances, the world hasn't changed that much in the past few years and surely you had some idea of what you were going to do for a living before you went off to study History and Politics. So what has happened that makes your original game plan invalid and for you now to public fret about being able to get a decent job?
Tbh, like a lot of people my age when I first went uni I did not have a clear career path. The advice I was given in school, was that if you even want to compete in the job market you need a degree.
Southam- really comrade, you have to row back from your personal abuse at Nick. It is unpleasant. Nick has been actively involved in London Labour politics for decades. He is hardly going to come onto a public forum and lay into the next leader of the Labour party. You are expecting too much.
Ooooh, look who Nick Palmer and the Useful Idiots voted for: a man who hangs out with people who relishes the deaths of British soldiers and then lies about it. Shameful. Nick, you've helped to kill the Labour party. Congratulations.
I, too, know London Labour politics pretty well and like Nick I know exactly who JC has been hanging out with for the last 40 years. I understand that back in the day you didn't get to be a Labour MP in Camden or Islington without supporting a united Ireland, but JC has gone way beyond that time and agsin. It defies belief Nick and so many others could have decided this man should be Labour's leader and the party's candidate for PM. I am doing them a favour describing them as idiots. The alternative is that they are perfectly relaxed about an spologist for murder and terrorism being in charge.
What happens if the other bit of Irelland doesn;t want to be united ?
#Englisharrogance
The Camden and Islington Labour parties were very tied to the Irish community in the 60s, 70s and 80s, less do niw. But you didn't get to be a candidate or a plsyer without a commitment to a united Ireland. Thst was the reality of the machine: the Irish vote was very powerful. That said, I agree with you.
These days I'm sort of neutral on the subject. I have an Irish passport and am quite happy with the place ( I'm northern prod )
But I just can't see why the RoI would want to bankrupt itself with a bunch of handout junkies with chips on their shoulders. The North is just LaLa land. It's merseyside cubed..
As someone from Merseyside I'm offended about how right you are.
But, people objectify each other. You meet someone you're attracted to, and you wonder what they'd look like without any clothes on. That's just human nature.
Being attracted to someone and objectifying them isn't the same thing.
I don't see how you can distinguish between objectification on the one hand and viewing another person as highly sexually desirable and wondering what they'd be like in bed on the other. At any rate, it seems a very fine, hair-splitting sort of distinction.
Objectification is when you remove any 'human' characteristics that are a part of someone's personality/persona/mannerisms, and purely see them as object to use for own pleasure. When I've been attracted to someone, I've certainly not seen them like that.
If you're genuinely attracted to someone you see them as more than an object, but certainly lust for that person is a strong part of that attraction.
Lusting after someone isn't the same as seeing them as an object though.
But, people objectify each other. You meet someone you're attracted to, and you wonder what they'd look like without any clothes on. That's just human nature.
Being attracted to someone and objectifying them isn't the same thing.
I don't see how you can distinguish between objectification on the one hand and viewing another person as highly sexually desirable and wondering what they'd be like in bed on the other. At any rate, it seems a very fine, hair-splitting sort of distinction.
Objectification is when you remove any 'human' characteristics that are a part of someone's personality/persona/mannerisms, and purely see them as object to use for own pleasure. When I've been attracted to someone, I've certainly not seen them like that.
If you're genuinely attracted to someone you see them as more than an object, but certainly lust for that person is a strong part of that attraction.
But, people objectify each other. You meet someone you're attracted to, and you wonder what they'd look like without any clothes on. That's just human nature.
Being attracted to someone and objectifying them isn't the same thing.
I don't see how you can distinguish between objectification on the one hand and viewing another person as highly sexually desirable and wondering what they'd be like in bed on the other. At any rate, it seems a very fine, hair-splitting sort of distinction.
Objectification is when you remove any 'human' characteristics that are a part of someone's personality/persona/mannerisms, and purely see them as object to use for own pleasure. When I've been attracted to someone, I've certainly not seen them like that.
This is a somewhat arbitrary distinction. Is someone in a loving, thoughtful relationship thinking about their partner's personality at the peak of a raunchy session in bed? Does someone look at a photo of a scantily clad attractive member of the opposite sex and not think they have any human characteristics? I would guess girls that have a warm smile or a mischievous look in their eyes are more often chosen for Page 3.
If, like me, you were disappointed with the result of the May 2015 election, you might have joined the Labour Party. Doing AS Politics increased my interest in the subject and instead of boring my mates constantly about everything to do with politics, I decided I could channel my energy into doing some party politics. It seemed like a brilliant idea so I signed up to become a Labour Party member, excited at the possible prospects of what it would entail. A few months later and it remains the stupidest thing I’ve done all year.
More graduates are having to take non-graduate jobs, especially given how competitive grad schemes are. I know as a graduate I'll most likely be going into a non-graduate job if I'm lucky, and that it'll be great if I even get to earn an average salary one day, let alone get a mortgage (if it can happen).
What job, if any, a graduate gets is largely a function of what degree they did, where they did it and how good a degree they actually got. Someone with a first in engineering from somewhere like Warwick is not going to have a problem with getting a graduate level job. Someone with a 2:2 in Performing Arts and Business Studies from London Met is going to find the employment market tougher. As the old joke has it:
The engineering graduate asks, "How does that work?" The mathematics graduate asks, "Why does that work?" The liberal arts graduate asks, "Do you want fries with that?"
As for your own circumstances, the world hasn't changed that much in the past few years and surely you had some idea of what you were going to do for a living before you went off to study History and Politics. So what has happened that makes your original game plan invalid and for you now to public fret about being able to get a decent job?
Tbh, like a lot of people my age when I first went uni I did not have a clear career path. The advice I was given in school, was that if you even want to compete in the job market you need a degree.
And sadly you don't in all cases. I'm afraid your generation has been disgracefully misled. There are now more 21 yr olds with degrees than had 5 GSCE's in the early 80's ( my day!). However, we weren't 44k on average in debt for that peer group status.
The trouble with UKIP, is that they don't really provide a solution to the housing problem. So I can't see many of my generation turning to them.
I think there's a potential opening for UKIP. Just go for the massive house-building programme that we had in the 1930s and 1950s, and loosen planning controls. One thing we learned in May is that UKIP *doesn't* perform well among groups that will die in the ditch to prevent development. They are solidly Tory. UKIP's appeal is far more to the average C1/C2 voter.
UKIP didn't do badly with young voters. 10% of 18-45 year olds backed them, according to Ipsos MORI.
Having a landlord as your housing spokesman is not the smartest thing to do.
There is huge potential for any party advocating mass house building. An interest rate rise would be nice as well. Should be some tasty discounts once all those zombie households start defaulting on their mortgage repayments.
An interest rate rise would reduce the amount first time buyers would be able to borrow form banks, and thus put them off voting for your party.
Hopefully a mixture of interest rate rises and mass house building would mean that whilst first time buyers can borrow less, house prices would be considerably cheaper.
"Channel Four News has unearthed footage of Corbyn in 2014 comparing the actions of Isis to US forces retaking the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004. “Yes they are brutal, yes some of what they have done is quite appalling, likewise what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling,” Corbyn told Russia Today.
Corbyn’s campaign, in response, said he regarded Isis as a “vicious, repugnant force that has to be stopped”
Any thoughts on how he proposes to stop them?
So even now, his campaign just repeats the criticism of ISIS and doesn't take back the comparison with the US? It's just like that IRA interview, where every bad thing the IRA does is brought up and he compares it to the British.
He seems to apply two princples in this area: 1. He is on the side of the oppressed 2. He is against the killing of civilians by any force no matter who.
In the IRA interview he did condemn the IRA killings but only alongside the killing of civilians by Unionists and by the British military. He wasn't going to agree to single out only the IRA for condemnation no matter how hard the interviewer pushed. He is even-handed in his condemnation.
The problem is, the IRA were both morally wrong and the worst offenders, in terms of killing.
Not in terms of 'civilians'.
Of those killed by British security forces: 187 (~51.5%) were civilians
Of those killed by republican paramilitaries: 723 (~35%) were civilians
Of those killed by loyalist paramilitaries: 877 (~85.4%) were civilians
If, like me, you were disappointed with the result of the May 2015 election, you might have joined the Labour Party. Doing AS Politics increased my interest in the subject and instead of boring my mates constantly about everything to do with politics, I decided I could channel my energy into doing some party politics. It seemed like a brilliant idea so I signed up to become a Labour Party member, excited at the possible prospects of what it would entail. A few months later and it remains the stupidest thing I’ve done all year.
But, people objectify each other. You meet someone you're attracted to, and you wonder what they'd look like without any clothes on. That's just human nature.
Being attracted to someone and objectifying them isn't the same thing.
I don't see how you can distinguish between objectification on the one hand and viewing another person as highly sexually desirable and wondering what they'd be like in bed on the other. At any rate, it seems a very fine, hair-splitting sort of distinction.
Objectification is when you remove any 'human' characteristics that are a part of someone's personality/persona/mannerisms, and purely see them as object to use for own pleasure. When I've been attracted to someone, I've certainly not seen them like that.
This is a somewhat arbitrary distinction. Is someone in a loving, thoughtful relationship thinking about their partner's personality at the peak of a raunchy session in bed? Does someone look at a photo of a scantily clad attractive member of the opposite sex and not think they have any human characteristics? I would guess girls that have a warm smile or a mischievous look in their eyes are more often chosen for Page 3.
Not necessarily that they think of their personality, but they certainly won't believe that their partner exists purely for their entertainment and pleasure.
On page 3, most of the girls pose in a generically provocative way - and given the focus is on their tits anyway, their personal characteristics hardly matter to readers.
"Channel Four News has unearthed footage of Corbyn in 2014 comparing the actions of Isis to US forces retaking the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004. “Yes they are brutal, yes some of what they have done is quite appalling, likewise what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling,” Corbyn told Russia Today.
Corbyn’s campaign, in response, said he regarded Isis as a “vicious, repugnant force that has to be stopped”
Any thoughts on how he proposes to stop them?
So even now, his campaign just repeats the criticism of ISIS and doesn't take back the comparison with the US? It's just like that IRA interview, where every bad thing the IRA does is brought up and he compares it to the British.
He seems to apply two princples in this area: 1. He is on the side of the oppressed 2. He is against the killing of civilians by any force no matter who.
In the IRA interview he did condemn the IRA killings but only alongside the killing of civilians by Unionists and by the British military. He wasn't going to agree to single out only the IRA for condemnation no matter how hard the interviewer pushed. He is even-handed in his condemnation.
The problem is, the IRA were both morally wrong and the worst offenders, in terms of killing.
It's like saying you regard all killings in WWII as equally bad.
All the killings of innocent civilians in the Irish "Troubles" were morally wrong. The IRA killed about 2,000 people of whom about 35% were civilians. The Loyalist paramilitary groups killed about 1,000 people of whom about 85% were civilians. British security forces killed about 360 people of whom about 50% were civilians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles#Casualties
All the mass killings of innocent civilians in WWII were atrocious and equally bad.
More graduates are having to take non-graduate jobs, especially given how competitive grad schemes are. I know as a graduate I'll most likely be going into a non-graduate job if I'm lucky, and that it'll be great if I even get to earn an average salary one day, let alone get a mortgage (if it can happen).
What job, if any, a graduate gets is largely a function of what degree they did, where they did it and how good a degree they actually got. Someone with a first in engineering from somewhere like Warwick is not going to have a problem with getting a graduate level job. Someone with a 2:2 in Performing Arts and Business Studies from London Met is going to find the employment market tougher. As the old joke has it:
The engineering graduate asks, "How does that work?" The mathematics graduate asks, "Why does that work?" The liberal arts graduate asks, "Do you want fries with that?"
As for your own circumstances, the world hasn't changed that much in the past few years and surely you had some idea of what you were going to do for a living before you went off to study History and Politics. So what has happened that makes your original game plan invalid and for you now to public fret about being able to get a decent job?
Tbh, like a lot of people my age when I first went uni I did not have a clear career path. The advice I was given in school, was that if you even want to compete in the job market you need a degree.
I originally did a degree in History but it added little to my future earnings beyond A Levels and ultimately I have got my present role from an MSc. If you want to make money do well at school and go to a Russell Group University and study a STEM subject, medicine, law or economics (ideally with some extracurricular activities too). We still need liberal arts graduates in the media, to teach and research, to preserve our cultural heritage and museums and work in the arts etc but with a few exceptions an arts degree will not make you rich
Not necessarily that they think of their personality, but they certainly won't believe that their partner exists purely for their entertainment and pleasure.
At the moment of lust, I don't think most people entertain complex thoughts. I also don't think a Sun reader believes a Page 3 girl exists purely for their entertainment and pleasure.
My worry is that they may not drift right. The problem is on the whole housing issue.
Excellent post. You are right to bang that particular drum.
Regardless of party politics, the UK needs to rebalance the housing market.
The Tories need to take action because by not doing so, they are giving their opponents the makings of a powerful weapon against them.
The problem is that everyone really knows that something has to be done about Housing, the problem is that nobody, and i mean nobody, has a clue what that something might be...
Fact. Or, presumably, they do know what that something might be, but it is politically untenable.
Nice crummy Tower Blocks, straight from the 70's that will be a magnet for crime amid other things:
We *need* a Housing *Market*. Currently we don't have one that functions.
But the problems with the market that are being addressed are London problems.
Around here you can buy a new house with a deposit of perhaps 5k using the govt schemes.
It's about availability of everything from land to bricks to developers who can finance, all killed by an awful planning system and millions of new neighbour haters ie NIMBYs.
But Osbo did launch a huge assault on larger personal landlords in the budget, which will make a big difference in London by 2020.
Corbyn recycling dinosaur age solutions would not help, but he will not get a chance.
More graduates are having to take non-graduate jobs, especially given how competitive grad schemes are. I know as a graduate I'll most likely be going into a non-graduate job if I'm lucky, and that it'll be great if I even get to earn an average salary one day, let alone get a mortgage (if it can happen).
What job, if any, a graduate gets is largely a function of what degree they did, where they did it and how good a degree they actually got. Someone with a first in engineering from somewhere like Warwick is not going to have a problem with getting a graduate level job. Someone with a 2:2 in Performing Arts and Business Studies from London Met is going to find the employment market tougher. As the old joke has it:
The engineering graduate asks, "How does that work?" The mathematics graduate asks, "Why does that work?" The liberal arts graduate asks, "Do you want fries with that?"
As for your own circumstances, the world hasn't changed that much in the past few years and surely you had some idea of what you were going to do for a living before you went off to study History and Politics. So what has happened that makes your original game plan invalid and for you now to public fret about being able to get a decent job?
Tbh, like a lot of people my age when I first went uni I did not have a clear career path. The advice I was given in school, was that if you even want to compete in the job market you need a degree.
Same here (though just pure History for me...though my dissertations were on factional politics). A lot of the Canadian graduates at my Uni already had degrees and said they needed more than 1 just to compete back home!
Personally I knew it might not help with a specific job path, but I went with history because I love history, simple as. Not sensible perhaps, but there you go, we cannot all do engineering and mathematics.
"Channel Four News has unearthed footage of Corbyn in 2014 comparing the actions of Isis to US forces retaking the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004. “Yes they are brutal, yes some of what they have done is quite appalling, likewise what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling,” Corbyn told Russia Today.
Corbyn’s campaign, in response, said he regarded Isis as a “vicious, repugnant force that has to be stopped”
Any thoughts on how he proposes to stop them?
So even now, his campaign just repeats the criticism of ISIS and doesn't take back the comparison with the US? It's just like that IRA interview, where every bad thing the IRA does is brought up and he compares it to the British.
He seems to apply two princples in this area: 1. He is on the side of the oppressed 2. He is against the killing of civilians by any force no matter who.
In the IRA interview he did condemn the IRA killings but only alongside the killing of civilians by Unionists and by the British military. He wasn't going to agree to single out only the IRA for condemnation no matter how hard the interviewer pushed. He is even-handed in his condemnation.
The problem is, the IRA were both morally wrong and the worst offenders, in terms of killing.
It's like saying you regard all killings in WWII as equally bad.
Indeed. Corbyn's apparent moral equivalence thinking needs calling out for the nonsense it is.
I think it's a problem with taking too firm a stance on something which is morally complicated, such that he has an automatic stance rather than merely leaning in specific directions. Eg, like many people, he may believe 'killing is bad', which is fine, but sometimes sides in a conflict are not equally culpable. Sometimes they are, but while condemning both sides may be the right thing sometimes, if that is presented as though it is always the morally superior position that would be wrong I think, it's just comforting for not taking a stance (by not really thinking about the issues) while presenting as though you have one.
For those who are not convinced that the email scandal is having any real effect on Hillary's chances, I recommend you take a gander at the charts towards the end of this article from the Washington Post:
Hillary's chances are more linked to whether she faces Donald Trump or not than her emails
Bollocks.
ever be the choice.
making that less likely
electoral cycle.
Well I am not going to stop debating you.
I show plenty of knowledge of US politics and the GOP does historically tend to pick the frontrunner
Well I am not going to stop debating you. You're not 'debating' anyone - you merely quote polls. We covered this before.
I show plenty of knowledge of US politics Bugger all actually. We covered this before too.
!!
And with that I intend to waste no further time with you on US politics.
The problem for Hillary is not her emails, but her lack of campaigning, maybe she thinks she doesn't need to campaign to get the nomination, that it will simply fall on her hand like an apple or something. She is doing the same mistake that Burnham, Cooper and Kendall did here, complacency that leaves the field to the only guy that actually campaigns, in her case Sanders, in our case Corbyn.
She still turned up to the Iowa State Fair
First time she did something after she declared her candidacy 4 months ago, and she did that probably because she was forced to by Bernie Sanders leaping ahead in Iowa.
Goodnight.
I think she still has a lead in Iowa, though in NH Sanders is now ahead in the latest poll, night
"Channel Four News has unearthed footage of Corbyn in 2014 comparing the actions of Isis to US forces retaking the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004. “Yes they are brutal, yes some of what they have done is quite
Any thoughts on how he proposes to stop them?
So even now, his campaign just repeats the criticism of ISIS and doesn't take back the comparison with the US? It's just like that IRA interview, where every bad thing the IRA does is brought up and he compares it to the British.
He seems to apply two princples in this area: 1. He is on the side of the oppressed 2. He is against the killing of civilians by any force no matter who.
In the IRA interview he did condemn the IRA killings but only alongside the killing of civilians by Unionists and by the British military. He wasn't going to agree to single out only the IRA for condemnation no matter how hard the interviewer pushed. He is even-handed in his condemnation.
Up to a point I agree, but would add that soldiers are just civilians in uniform, and often conscripted ones.
I would also ask the question: "who are the oppressed?" As Religious conservatism, and in particular Islamism is violently oppressive of women, gays, apostates, free thinkers and even people who would like to have a pint and listen to music. Muslims are some of the most oppressed people on earth, but the oppressors are not us feeble liberals in the west with our cartoons, or even neo-cons in the US State department. The oppressors are their own "community leaders" in the form of Hezbollah, Hamas and ISIS. A true left winger should be raising the peoples consciousness against these oppressors not sharing a platform with them.
You are right except for your final sentence. True left wingers are not interested in raising these peoples' conciousness. They are pawns. They not only want to keep them enslaved they want to enslave the rest of us as well.
As I pointed out a week or so ago, the communists are the soft soggy central ground between the extremes of bourgois democracy on one hand and anarcho-syndicalism on the left. I would place Corbyn in the Bourgois democracy category myself. ;-)
John Loony seems to be an authority on far left splinter groups, I am not sure who best flies the flag locally for anarcho-syndicalism. It always strikes me as something rather more popular in the med, perhaps because of the history of conservative religious authority there.
But, people objectify each other. You meet someone you're attracted to, and you wonder what they'd look like without any clothes on. That's just human nature.
Being attracted to someone and objectifying them isn't the same thing.
I don't see how you can distinguish between objectification on the one hand and viewing another person as highly sexually desirable and wondering what they'd be like in bed on the other. At any rate, it seems a very fine, hair-splitting sort of distinction.
Objectification is when you remove any 'human' characteristics that are a part of someone's personality/persona/mannerisms, and purely see them as object to use for own pleasure. When I've been attracted to someone, I've certainly not seen them like that.
If you're genuinely attracted to someone you see them as more than an object, but certainly lust for that person is a strong part of that attraction.
Lusting after someone isn't the same as seeing them as an object though.
I think the Greeks came up with the correct distinction. Agape, pure, selfless love, focused on the well-being of the other person. And Eros, sexual desire. I felt both, when I met my future wife, 16 years ago. And the latter involves inevitably, objectification, IMHO.
"Channel Four News has unearthed footage of Corbyn in 2014 comparing the actions of Isis to US forces retaking the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004. “Yes they are brutal, yes some of what they have done is quite appalling, likewise what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling,” Corbyn told Russia Today.
Corbyn’s campaign, in response, said he regarded Isis as a “vicious, repugnant force that has to be stopped”
Any thoughts on how he proposes to stop them?
So even now, his campaign just repeats the criticism of ISIS and doesn't take back the comparison with the US? It's just like that IRA interview, where every bad thing the IRA does is brought up and he compares it to the British.
He seems to apply two princples in this area: 1. He is on the side of the oppressed 2. He is against the killing of civilians by any force no matter who.
In the IRA interview he did condemn the IRA killings but only alongside the killing of civilians by Unionists and by the British military. He wasn't going to agree to single out only the IRA for condemnation no matter how hard the interviewer pushed. He is even-handed in his condemnation.
The problem is, the IRA were both morally wrong and the worst offenders, in terms of killing.
It's like saying you regard all killings in WWII as equally bad.
Indeed. Corbyn's apparent moral equivalence thinking needs calling out for the nonsense it is.
Any war will cause suffering for civilians as an incidental outcome. It is incumbent on the combatants in any war to minimise that suffering within the context of their military objectives. The organisations that Corbyn cosies up to fail to do that, in fact they actively seek to increase civilian involvement and suffering. And in the extreme case of organisations like ISIS they don't even do so under the cover/excuse of war the suffering of (certain categories of) civilians is an objective in itself. Pacifism for people like Corbyn is just an easy political posture to blame the US/UK for the civilian suffering in any wars they are involved in, and is easily undermined in many cases where Western involvement has been for the purpose of relieving civilian suffering, when Corbyn is shown to be woefully inconsistent.
"Channel Four News has unearthed footage of Corbyn in 2014 comparing the actions of Isis to US forces retaking the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004. “Yes they are brutal, yes some of what they have done is quite appalling, likewise what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling,” Corbyn told Russia Today.
Corbyn’s campaign, in response, said he regarded Isis as a “vicious, repugnant force that has to be stopped”
Any thoughts on how he proposes to stop them?
So even now, his campaign just repeats the criticism of ISIS and doesn't take back the comparison with the US? It's just like that IRA interview, where every bad thing the IRA does is brought up and he compares it to the British.
He seems to apply two princples in this area: 1. He is on the side of the oppressed 2. He is against the killing of civilians by any force no matter who.
In the IRA interview he did condemn the IRA killings but only alongside the killing of civilians by Unionists and by the British military. He wasn't going to agree to single out only the IRA for condemnation no matter how hard the interviewer pushed. He is even-handed in his condemnation.
The problem is, the IRA were both morally wrong and the worst offenders, in terms of killing.
Not in terms of 'civilians'.
Of those killed by British security forces: 187 (~51.5%) were civilians
Of those killed by republican paramilitaries: 723 (~35%) were civilians
Of those killed by loyalist paramilitaries: 877 (~85.4%) were civilians
Apocalypse- immigration is desirable on so many levels. It has single handedly been responsible for delivering us economic growth over the last few decades. The Tories know this as much as Labour.
Our great NHS would be on it's arse without attracting staff from outside the EU.
Labour has simply been (slightly) more honest about the benefits of immigration compared to our Tory comrades- and seemingly has paid an electoral price.
We need ever more numbers of immigrants in ever more increasing numbers to manage our ageing population and skills shortage.
The African migrant crisis is a mere distraction for the issue that the UK has to open its arms to immigrants of all nations (even those outside the EU) to prosper.
One thing I would like the Labour party to be giving serious attention to is how we absorb all the would-be immigrants, whether they are asylum-seekers or economic migrants. It seems to me the only long-term answer is that the whole indigenous population will be compelled to accept a significantly lower standard of living all round.
If we are to accept all the people who wish to come here we do need to prepare ourselves for the inevitable impacts. As with everything, it's going to be those at the bottom of society who will suffer the most. I reckon it will be much better to grasp the nettle & start giving it serious thought.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.
I think the ideal situation would be to restrict freedom of movement within the EU, and in regard to migrant crisis to develop a long-term solution where migrants' countries can become habitable again. However the former isn't possible, but I think Labour really need to start acknowledging the issue of immigration if they want the electorate to even consider them remotely credible.
To give a large chunk of their readers a pretty smiling girl next door to look at To make them feel like she could be their secret girlfriend To make a joke about some random subject
I really do think some females and others miss the point a lot - it's never ever bothered me.
But, people objectify each other. You meet someone you're attracted to, and you wonder what they'd look like without any clothes on. That's just human nature.
Being attracted to someone and objectifying them isn't the same thing.
I don't see how you can distinguish between objectification on the one hand and viewing another person as highly sexually desirable and wondering what they'd be like in bed on the other. At any rate, it seems a very fine, hair-splitting sort of distinction.
Objectification is when you remove any 'human' characteristics that are a part of someone's personality/persona/mannerisms, and purely see them as object to use for own pleasure. When I've been attracted to someone, I've certainly not seen them like that.
This is a somewhat arbitrary distinction. Is someone in a loving, thoughtful relationship thinking about their partner's personality at the peak of a raunchy session in bed? Does someone look at a photo of a scantily clad attractive member of the opposite sex and not think they have any human characteristics? I would guess girls that have a warm smile or a mischievous look in their eyes are more often chosen for Page 3.
Not necessarily that they think of their personality, but they certainly won't believe that their partner exists purely for their entertainment and pleasure.
On page 3, most of the girls pose in a generically provocative way - and given the focus is on their tits anyway, their personal characteristics hardly matter to readers.
Head of armed forces, General Sir Nicholas Houghton, to be criticised by #Chilcot inquiry
In 2054, presumably.
Stunning,
So the leak implicates the soldier, he is named in advance, before report is issued etc...etc.....etc oh and connected to Cameron .....oh FFS !!!!! Do they think we are stupid.
You can hear the whitewash buckets officially being stirred as we blog. This sort of thing really pisses me off.
Not necessarily that they think of their personality, but they certainly won't believe that their partner exists purely for their entertainment and pleasure.
At the moment of lust, I don't think most people entertain complex thoughts. I also don't think a Sun reader believes a Page 3 girl exists purely for their entertainment and pleasure.
Is it really a complex thought not to see your partner as just there for your pleasure? I don't think it is.
And after seeing Sun readers viewing Page 3 girls, I'd yes, they do believe that girl does exist purely for their entertainment and pleasure.
But, people objectify each other. You meet someone you're attracted to, and you wonder what they'd look like without any clothes on. That's just human nature.
Being attracted to someone and objectifying them isn't the same thing.
I don't see how you can distinguish between objectification on the one hand and viewing another person as highly sexually desirable and wondering what they'd be like in bed on the other. At any rate, it seems a very fine, hair-splitting sort of distinction.
Objectification is when you remove any 'human' characteristics that are a part of someone's personality/persona/mannerisms, and purely see them as object to use for own pleasure. When I've been attracted to someone, I've certainly not seen them like that.
If you're genuinely attracted to someone you see them as more than an object, but certainly lust for that person is a strong part of that attraction.
Lusting after someone isn't the same as seeing them as an object though.
I think the Greeks came up with the correct distinction. Agape, pure, selfless love, focused on the well-being of the other person. And Eros, sexual desire. I felt both, when I met my future wife, 16 years ago. And the latter involves inevitably, objectification, IMHO.
I think we'll agree to disagree, as I don't believe sexual desire does involve objectification.
Apocalypse- immigration is desirable on so many levels. It has single handedly been responsible for delivering us economic growth over the last few decades. The Tories know this as much as Labour.
Our great NHS would be on it's arse without attracting staff from outside the EU.
Labour has simply been (slightly) more honest about the benefits of immigration compared to our Tory comrades- and seemingly has paid an electoral price.
We need ever more numbers of immigrants in ever more increasing numbers to manage our ageing population and skills shortage.
The African migrant crisis is a mere distraction for the issue that the UK has to open its arms to immigrants of all nations (even those outside the EU) to prosper.
One thing I would like the Labour party to be giving serious attention to is how we absorb all the would-be immigrants, whether they are asylum-seekers or economic migrants. It seems to me the only long-term answer is that the whole indigenous population will be compelled to accept a significantly lower standard of living all round.
If we are to accept all the people who wish to come here we do need to prepare ourselves for the inevitable impacts. As with everything, it's going to be those at the bottom of society who will suffer the most. I reckon it will be much better to grasp the nettle & start giving it serious thought.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.
I think the ideal situation would be to restrict freedom of movement within the EU, and in regard to migrant crisis to develop a long-term solution where migrants' countries can become habitable again. However the former isn't possible, but I think Labour really need to start acknowledging the issue of immigration if they want the electorate to even consider them remotely credible.
"Channel Four News has unearthed footage of Corbyn in 2014 comparing the actions of Isis to US forces retaking the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004. “Yes they are brutal, yes some of what they have done is quite appalling, likewise what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling,” Corbyn told Russia Today.
Corbyn’s campaign, in response, said he regarded Isis as a “vicious, repugnant force that has to be stopped”
Any thoughts on how he proposes to stop them?
So even now, his campaign just repeats the criticism of ISIS and doesn't take back the comparison with the US? It's just like that IRA interview, where every bad thing the IRA does is brought up and he compares it to the British.
He seems to apply two princples in this area: 1. He is on the side of the oppressed 2. He is against the killing of civilians by any force no matter who.
In the IRA interview he did condemn the IRA killings but only alongside the killing of civilians by Unionists and by the British military. He wasn't going to agree to single out only the IRA for condemnation no matter how hard the interviewer pushed. He is even-handed in his condemnation.
The problem is, the IRA were both morally wrong and the worst offenders, in terms of killing.
Not in terms of 'civilians'.
Of those killed by British security forces: 187 (~51.5%) were civilians
Of those killed by republican paramilitaries: 723 (~35%) were civilians
Of those killed by loyalist paramilitaries: 877 (~85.4%) were civilians
"Channel Four News has unearthed footage of Corbyn in 2014 comparing the actions of Isis to US forces retaking the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004. “Yes they are brutal, yes some of what they have done is quite appalling, likewise what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling,” Corbyn told Russia Today.
Corbyn’s campaign, in response, said he regarded Isis as a “vicious, repugnant force that has to be stopped”
Any thoughts on how he proposes to stop them?
So even now, his campaign just repeats the criticism of ISIS and doesn't take back the comparison with the US? It's just like that IRA interview, where every bad thing the IRA does is brought up and he compares it to the British.
He seems to apply two princples in this area: 1. He is on the side of the oppressed 2. He is against the killing of civilians by any force no matter who.
In the IRA interview he did condemn the IRA killings but only alongside the killing of civilians by Unionists and by the British military. He wasn't going to agree to single out only the IRA for condemnation no matter how hard the interviewer pushed. He is even-handed in his condemnation.
The problem is, the IRA were both morally wrong and the worst offenders, in terms of killing.
Not in terms of 'civilians'.
Of those killed by British security forces: 187 (~51.5%) were civilians
Of those killed by republican paramilitaries: 723 (~35%) were civilians
Of those killed by loyalist paramilitaries: 877 (~85.4%) were civilians
Comments
1. He is on the side of the oppressed
2. He is against the killing of civilians by any force no matter who.
In the IRA interview he did condemn the IRA killings but only alongside the killing of civilians by Unionists and by the British military. He wasn't going to agree to single out only the IRA for condemnation no matter how hard the interviewer pushed. He is even-handed in his condemnation.
Who do you think will pick up the anti bailout/eurosceptic votes?
#Englisharrogance
UKIP didn't do badly with young voters. 10% of 18-45 year olds backed them, according to Ipsos MORI.
when do we sack Osborne ?
But this isn't a literary community, it's a political one which is Nick's work place. When I worked I constantly had to sit through meetings with people who I'd rather just slapped a bit really. Could you imagine in our work places if we behaved as we thought. The world would end tomorrow.
labourelections@electoralreform.co.uk
The biggest problem in Greece is that there is no right-wing euroskeptic party that will lead Greece out of the euro, lower taxes from the ridiculous heights of the bailouts and allow some free markets to take advantage of the devaluation.
There is a big gap between the liberal ND and the Nazis.
And is 18-45 really young? 18-24 more like.
So on this interesting thought experiment I think I wrote a month or two ago that the yawning pre-Powell gap between the 30-something graduate and the 30-something tradesman has narrowed - but it hasn't vanished or reversed. Class is still the strongest determinant of vote in England and Wales.
There is huge potential for any party advocating mass house building. An interest rate rise would be nice as well. Should be some tasty discounts once all those zombie households start defaulting on their mortgage repayments.
'It seemed to me that Nick lost a lot of credibility on here as a result of his postings in the lead up to the election, and his subsequent post-result admission that he his apparent confidence had all been a big pretence as the election neared and it became apparent to him what was really happening on the ground.'
Spot on, he could have just as easily not commented during the campaign, but he chose the porkies route and now looks completely ridiculous.
I would also ask the question: "who are the oppressed?" As Religious conservatism, and in particular Islamism is violently oppressive of women, gays, apostates, free thinkers and even people who would like to have a pint and listen to music. Muslims are some of the most oppressed people on earth, but the oppressors are not us feeble liberals in the west with our cartoons, or even neo-cons in the US State department. The oppressors are their own "community leaders" in the form of Hezbollah, Hamas and ISIS. A true left winger should be raising the peoples consciousness against these oppressors not sharing a platform with them.
Hillary's email problem only occurs if the FBI indicts her, except for the collapse in her honest and trustworthy numbers. If you saw her Tuesday presser you know how worried the campaign is about that. It was a cringe worthy performance by Hillary.
State will continue monthly releasing of her emails until the end of January, which just reinforces the whole problem.
And with that I intend to waste no further time with you on US politics.
Seriously. What a revelation! Do you not think that about any politician? I mean what does Cameron, hug a hoodie, the NHS is the greatest thing ever, Kidscape, bird blending wing farms, fox hunting, Bullingdon alumni really think? What does Osborne hang Mandela really think?
One person who we do know what he really thinks is Jezza- and look what we think of him.
Telling people what you really think isn't a good career choice for a politician. Better to be bland and boring, and keep what you really think to yourself.
But I just can't see why the RoI would want to bankrupt itself with a bunch of handout junkies with chips on their shoulders. The North is just LaLa land. It's merseyside cubed..
Do you happen to have the pre-season results to hand?
*innocent face*
She is doing the same mistake that Burnham, Cooper and Kendall did here, complacency that leaves the field to the only guy that actually campaigns, in her case Sanders, in our case Corbyn.
'@HTScotPol: How's this for cosy? Scotland's top cop and his 'overseer' issue joint statement in defence of @policescotland http://t.co/B7ykcq7cIB
Has there been any explanation why the bin driver that was responsible for the deaths of 6 people is not being prosecuted?
If we are to accept all the people who wish to come here we do need to prepare ourselves for the inevitable impacts. As with everything, it's going to be those at the bottom of society who will suffer the most. I reckon it will be much better to grasp the nettle & start giving it serious thought.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.
I presume UKIP will lose this particular seat - they seem at something of a low ebb at the moment, but presumably will have another burst come any Euro activity.
The engineering graduate asks, "How does that work?"
The mathematics graduate asks, "Why does that work?"
The liberal arts graduate asks, "Do you want fries with that?"
As for your own circumstances, the world hasn't changed that much in the past few years and surely you had some idea of what you were going to do for a living before you went off to study History and Politics. So what has happened that makes your original game plan invalid and for you now to public fret about being able to get a decent job?
so not Tony Blair then ?
I think theyve missed the point,
The emails are an electoral problem for her as they are confirming an existing set of negative public perceptions of her (regarding herself to be above the law, surrounded by fawning lackeys who will not tell her the truth, too arrogant and detached) which is driving down her negatives on trustworthiness in a truly dramatic fashion.
The email saga also then, along with the Clinton Foundationgate issues, feeds into the lack of campaigning as her minders want to keep her away from the Press so that she can't mess up.
It's like saying you regard all killings in WWII as equally bad.
In 2054, presumably.
And you can't deny that magazines like Cosmopolitan have photos of shirtless gym-toned men all over them, so their readers can objectify them.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scotstounhill_tower_blocks.jpg
If you continue to post exaggerated statements I will continue to dispute them whether you like it or not
Leaving aside the fact that realistically Nick's political career is over, I agree that one must always treat what a politician says with a pinch of salt. However Nick isn't obliged to post on this site, so you can't have it both ways. Either he is on here posting broadly his honest opinions (subject to the tribal distortions that afflicts all posters on this site that allows them to take completely contradictory positions dependent on 'circumstance'), or he is here to disseminate. And if the latter (although it is difficult to understand the motivation now, maybe once he was assigned the role by the Labour leadership and has never been able to relinquish it?) then he has every expectation that he is not going to get cut much slack.
I read about today's proceedings too. He was read the names of the men, women and children he killed, and he declined to comment. This kind of thing just makes me feel sad for being human really.
On Comso: I've never denied objectification works both ways, however generally women are far more objectified than men.
Goodnight.
Speke?
He's a 3D person married to someone else - but for the purposes of eye candy - golly. He also likes furry quadrupeds
Ian Somerhalder
0.1choice
Of those killed by British security forces:
187 (~51.5%) were civilians
Of those killed by republican paramilitaries:
723 (~35%) were civilians
Of those killed by loyalist paramilitaries:
877 (~85.4%) were civilians
http://tinyurl.com/ozlfr62
On page 3, most of the girls pose in a generically provocative way - and given the focus is on their tits anyway, their personal characteristics hardly matter to readers.
All the mass killings of innocent civilians in WWII were atrocious and equally bad.
We *need* a Housing *Market*. Currently we don't have one that functions.
But the problems with the market that are being addressed are London problems.
Around here you can buy a new house with a deposit of perhaps 5k using the govt schemes.
It's about availability of everything from land to bricks to developers who can finance, all killed by an awful planning system and millions of new neighbour haters ie NIMBYs.
But Osbo did launch a huge assault on larger personal landlords in the budget, which will make a big difference in London by 2020.
Corbyn recycling dinosaur age solutions would not help, but he will not get a chance.
Personally I knew it might not help with a specific job path, but I went with history because I love history, simple as. Not sensible perhaps, but there you go, we cannot all do engineering and mathematics.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism
John Loony seems to be an authority on far left splinter groups, I am not sure who best flies the flag locally for anarcho-syndicalism. It always strikes me as something rather more popular in the med, perhaps because of the history of conservative religious authority there.
Fuck off divvie that's plain offensive.
Our great NHS would be on it's arse without attracting staff from outside the EU.
Labour has simply been (slightly) more honest about the benefits of immigration compared to our Tory comrades- and seemingly has paid an electoral price.
We need ever more numbers of immigrants in ever more increasing numbers to manage our ageing population and skills shortage.
The African migrant crisis is a mere distraction for the issue that the UK has to open its arms to immigrants of all nations (even those outside the EU) to prosper.
To give a large chunk of their readers a pretty smiling girl next door to look at
To make them feel like she could be their secret girlfriend
To make a joke about some random subject
I really do think some females and others miss the point a lot - it's never ever bothered me.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2015/08/20/brian-mitchell-to-rgiii-shut-the-hell-up-and-start-playing-football/
So the leak implicates the soldier, he is named in advance, before report is issued etc...etc.....etc oh and connected to Cameron .....oh FFS !!!!! Do they think we are stupid.
You can hear the whitewash buckets officially being stirred as we blog. This sort of thing really pisses me off.
And after seeing Sun readers viewing Page 3 girls, I'd yes, they do believe that girl does exist purely for their entertainment and pleasure.
Do you think Lee Rigby should be regarded in that light?