politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Hobson’s choice – the issues facing the Labour movement

_Anazina_ said:

JosiasJessop said:

NickPalmer said:

This rather overstates the horror that most people on the left feel about ex-Communists. Nowadays Communist parties barely exist and few people care whether someone used to support them - it's like previously believing in Santa, as Healey put it. There is little in the abstract concept that left-wingers would disagree with in principle (from each according to ability, to each according to need - the way one personally should try to live and treat one's family and friends, IMO), but we varied in how quickly we noticed that it doesn't work in government. I still find the Morning Star quite useful (and they are nowadays not a mouthpiece for one party but for any old left-wing faction) because they cover issues that few other newspapers care about - oppression of trade unionists around the world, etc.

People who say they'd support a Labour government but would be highly critical friends and might vote against a particular policy are in principle fine with me (depending on the details). The position is different if someone stands on a Labour platform, gets Labour votes, but says they won't support a Labour government. I think they are deceiving the electorate, the party and themselves, and should quit.

A clarification: it's like believing in a Santa that has killed millions and not noticeably improved the world in any way. It's like believing in a Santa that is lying in a p*ss-laden gutter, eight cans of Tennants Extra lying by its side.

Communism matters, because it is an evil system wrapped up in a comfort blanket that is liked by likewise evil people and idiots.

Nope. That's ludicrous pearl-clutching hyperbole.

I much prefer (I think) Sir John Major's definition: "It's a noble idea. It just doesn't work."

It's not a noble idea. It's an idea that appeals to people who enjoy violence and are good at it. That's why communist societies are good at waging war.

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1103617923233402880

malcolmg said:

Pulpstar said:

another_richard said:

I've read here that if the Deal passes May should then resign and let a 'true believer' do future negotiations.

But which 'true believer' is willing to do the work and take the responsibility, to do the proper preparation and give the necessary attention to detail.

Michael Gove.

For all our sakes hopefully not that lying snake oil salesman

I'm not even sure that Michael Gove believes in it anymore. After-all, he might be a complete tosser, but he isn't entirely stupid.

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1103617732896083968

Now you are just having a laugh Dan.

David Miliband was last matched for next Prime Minister at 44, despite not being an MP or even in this country. For comparison, Chuka Umunna MP, spokesman for the nascent TIGs, was last matched at 75.

One of life's imponderables, I guess.

philiph said:

Brom said:

Good to see the EU and Barnier getting a battering on the BBC comments. It does feel like the tide is turning and people realise they are in no way being constructive in these negotiations and are even making Mrs May look flexible.

I thought the (to paraphrase)

'Report back to us within 48 hours with new and acceptable solutions'

comment that was splashed about yesterday was presented in a way that made the EU look arrogant and inflexible.
Not what they should be doing if they have any interest in public perception of the EU, even if they are exasperated.

How many times do you think they need to spell out to the UK morons negotiating what their position is and ask them to come back with something that a 2 year old could manage.

JosiasJessop said:

_Anazina_ said:

JosiasJessop said:

NickPalmer said:

This rather overstates the horror that most people on the left feel about ex-Communists. Nowadays Communist parties barely exist and few people care whether someone used to support them - it's like previously believing in Santa, as Healey put it. There is little in the abstract concept that left-wingers would disagree with in principle (from each according to ability, to each according to need - the way one personally should try to live and treat one's family and friends, IMO), but we varied in how quickly we noticed that it doesn't work in government. I still find the Morning Star quite useful (and they are nowadays not a mouthpiece for one party but for any old left-wing faction) because they cover issues that few other newspapers care about - oppression of trade unionists around the world, etc.

People who say they'd support a Labour government but would be highly critical friends and might vote against a particular policy are in principle fine with me (depending on the details). The position is different if someone stands on a Labour platform, gets Labour votes, but says they won't support a Labour government. I think they are deceiving the electorate, the party and themselves, and should quit.

A clarification: it's like believing in a Santa that has killed millions and not noticeably improved the world in any way. It's like believing in a Santa that is lying in a p*ss-laden gutter, eight cans of Tennants Extra lying by its side.

Communism matters, because it is an evil system wrapped up in a comfort blanket that is liked by likewise evil people and idiots.

Nope. That's ludicrous pearl-clutching hyperbole.

I much prefer (I think) Sir John Major's definition: "It's a noble idea. It just doesn't work."

It really isn't ludicrous. Communism has killed many millions - probably far more than fascism (although such counts are often ludicrous in themselves - best just to say they're both evil).

Yet unlike fascism, you have people defending communism to the hilt as if it was just some youthful folly. It isn't. It's sick - and it's even more sick to compare it so something like Santa.

Fascism, in theory as well as practice, is abhorrent. Communism as practiced has been abhorrent, but the theory is not. The question for me has been whether the practice follows directly from the theory or whether this was a case of opportunists using the rhetoric to justify their personal barbarism.

Resolving this question is made more difficult because so many people excuse the practice of Communism in order to defend the theory.

philiph said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Tissue_Price said:

another_richard said:

Tissue_Price said:

stodge said:

another_richard said:

I've read here that if the Deal passes May should then resign and let a 'true believer' do future negotiations.

But which 'true believer' is willing to do the work and take the responsibility, to do the proper preparation and give the necessary attention to detail.

I don't believe that. I think if the WA passes, May will be lauded as the new incarnation of the Blessed Margaret and the ERG, having tasted the public mood of relief and adulation, will come crawling for her forgiveness and mercy.

All talk of her walking away will disappear like the morning mist on a summer's day and she will bask in the glow of the affection of the Mail, Express, Sun and (apparently) all right-thinking British people everywhere.

I think the relevant Conservative MPs suspect that as well, hence the briefings about getting a commitment from her to step down in order to win their vote for the MV (MV3, by the sounds of it).

But who do they to replace May with ?

I don't think they know, which is because I don't think the desire to replace her is that much to do with Brexit either.

EDIT: plus of course that wing doesn't necessarily have enough votes to get whichever candidate onto the ballot paper anyway.

And I don't think the membership are blindly going to vote for the "most Brexit" candidate - though there are certain Remainer candidates whom I believe would almost certainly lose regardless of opponent (a la Ken Clarke).

The Leave victory at EUref may have led to an early "Brexit" for England in Euro2016, but it inspired Wales to reach the semis, and perhaps even more importantly, it inspired Team GB at both the 2016 Olympics and the Paralympics to unparalleled gold medal glory!

And let's not forget England's semi-final appearance at World Cup 2018!

Regarding the next Con leader, I would divide the contenders into 4 categories:

Hardline remainers e.g. Greening, Rudd
Pragmatic remainers e.g. Javed, Hunt
Pragmatic leavers e.g. Gove, Leadsom
Hardline leavers e.g. Boris, Raab

In my view, the MPs will block a hardline leaver and the members will never vote for a hardline remainer sio we are left with the middle 2 categories.

I think Gove is a good bet.

He may be a good bet, but a bad choice.
A doer not a leader, more on the May / Brown axis than the Blair / Cameron axis, which I think produces the better PM

Considering how the Blair and Cameron premierships ended, perhaps we should recalibrate our scales before weighing good prime ministers.

GarethoftheVale2 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Tissue_Price said:

another_richard said:

Tissue_Price said:

stodge said:

another_richard said:

I've read here that if the Deal passes May should then resign and let a 'true believer' do future negotiations.

But which 'true believer' is willing to do the work and take the responsibility, to do the proper preparation and give the necessary attention to detail.

I don't believe that. I think if the WA passes, May will be lauded as the new incarnation of the Blessed Margaret and the ERG, having tasted the public mood of relief and adulation, will come crawling for her forgiveness and mercy.

All talk of her walking away will disappear like the morning mist on a summer's day and she will bask in the glow of the affection of the Mail, Express, Sun and (apparently) all right-thinking British people everywhere.

I think the relevant Conservative MPs suspect that as well, hence the briefings about getting a commitment from her to step down in order to win their vote for the MV (MV3, by the sounds of it).

But who do they to replace May with ?

I don't think they know, which is because I don't think the desire to replace her is that much to do with Brexit either.

EDIT: plus of course that wing doesn't necessarily have enough votes to get whichever candidate onto the ballot paper anyway.

And I don't think the membership are blindly going to vote for the "most Brexit" candidate - though there are certain Remainer candidates whom I believe would almost certainly lose regardless of opponent (a la Ken Clarke).

The Leave victory at EUref may have led to an early "Brexit" for England in Euro2016, but it inspired Wales to reach the semis, and perhaps even more importantly, it inspired Team GB at both the 2016 Olympics and the Paralympics to unparalleled gold medal glory!

And let's not forget England's semi-final appearance at World Cup 2018!

Regarding the next Con leader, I would divide the contenders into 4 categories:

Hardline remainers e.g. Greening, Rudd
Pragmatic remainers e.g. Javed, Hunt
Pragmatic leavers e.g. Gove, Leadsom
Hardline leavers e.g. Boris, Raab

In my view, the MPs will block a hardline leaver and the members will never vote for a hardline remainer sio we are left with the middle 2 categories.

I think Gove is a good bet.

There’s someone very ostentatiously trying to occupy that ground at the moment who you haven’t mentioned.

Forget Brexit, we've just had the most ferocious "Merge in turn" debate..

OblitusSumMe said:

Fascism, in theory as well as practice, is abhorrent. Communism as practiced has been abhorrent, but the theory is not. The question for me has been whether the practice follows directly from the theory or whether this was a case of opportunists using the rhetoric to justify their personal barbarism.

Resolving this question is made more difficult because so many people excuse the practice of Communism in order to defend the theory.

I think it's a theory that will always corrupt people into abhorrent acts if they get power. That's why it's more dangerous than fascism: people believe there's a veneer of good around it, yet it always ends in evil. Whilst fascists are obviously shits.

malcolmg said:

philiph said:

Brom said:

Good to see the EU and Barnier getting a battering on the BBC comments. It does feel like the tide is turning and people realise they are in no way being constructive in these negotiations and are even making Mrs May look flexible.

I thought the (to paraphrase)

'Report back to us within 48 hours with new and acceptable solutions'

comment that was splashed about yesterday was presented in a way that made the EU look arrogant and inflexible.
Not what they should be doing if they have any interest in public perception of the EU, even if they are exasperated.

How many times do you think they need to spell out to the UK morons negotiating what their position is and ask them to come back with something that a 2 year old could manage.

To the people negotiating as often as they like. I'm not convinced the way they do it in public helps the path they wish to follow.

DecrepitJohnL said:

philiph said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Tissue_Price said:

another_richard said:

Tissue_Price said:

stodge said:

another_richard said:

I've read here that if the Deal passes May should then resign and let a 'true believer' do future negotiations.

l.

I don't believe that. I think if the WA passes, May will be lauded as the new incarnation of the Blessed Margaret and the ERG, having tasted the public mood of relief and adulation, will come crawling for her forgiveness and mercy.

All talk of her walking away will disappear like the morning mist on a summer's day and she will bask in the glow of the affection of the Mail, Express, Sun and (apparently) all right-thinking British people everywhere.

I think the relevant Conservative MPs suspect that as well, hence the briefings about getting a commitment from her to step down in order to win their vote for the MV (MV3, by the sounds of it).

But who do they to replace May with ?

I don't think they know, which is because I don't think the desire to replace her is that much to do with Brexit either.

EDIT: plus of course that wing doesn't necessarily have enough votes to get whichever candidate onto the ballot paper anyway.

And I don't think the membership are blindly going to vote for the "most Brexit" candidate - though there are certain Remainer candidates whom I believe would almost certainly lose regardless of opponent (a la Ken Clarke).

The Leave victory at EUref may have led to an early "Brexit" for England in Euro2016, but it inspired Wales to reach the semis, and perhaps even more importantly, it inspired Team GB at both the 2016 Olympics and the Paralympics to unparalleled gold medal glory!

And let's not forget England's semi-final appearance at World Cup 2018!

Regarding the next Con leader, I would divide the contenders into 4 categories:

Hardline remainers e.g. Greening, Rudd
Pragmatic remainers e.g. Javed, Hunt
Pragmatic leavers e.g. Gove, Leadsom
Hardline leavers e.g. Boris, Raab

In my view, the MPs will block a hardline leaver and the members will never vote for a hardline remainer sio we are left with the middle 2 categories.

I think Gove is a good bet.

He may be a good bet, but a bad choice.
A doer not a leader, more on the May / Brown axis than the Blair / Cameron axis, which I think produces the better PM

Considering how the Blair and Cameron premierships ended, perhaps we should recalibrate our scales before weighing good prime ministers.

No doubt they both screwed up, but both head and shoulders above May / Brown.

Mr philiph, May and Brown present a low bar

Anorak said:

OblitusSumMe said:

JosiasJessop said:

_Anazina_ said:

Nope. That's ludicrous pearl-clutching hyperbole.

I much prefer (I think) Sir John Major's definition: "It's a noble idea. It just doesn't work."

It really isn't ludicrous. Communism has killed many millions - probably far more than fascism (although such counts are often ludicrous in themselves - best just to say they're both evil).

Yet unlike fascism, you have people defending communism to the hilt as if it was just some youthful folly. It isn't. It's sick - and it's even more sick to compare it so something like Santa.

Fascism, in theory as well as practice, is abhorrent. Communism as practiced has been abhorrent, but the theory is not. The question for me has been whether the practice follows directly from the theory or whether this was a case of opportunists using the rhetoric to justify their personal barbarism.

Resolving this question is made more difficult because so many people excuse the practice of Communism in order to defend the theory.

Communist theory does not take human nature into account. It's as simple as that.

I don't agree with that argument. I think capitalism encourages our worst impulses - selfishness, fear, etc - and in principle you could encourage our better impulses - empathy, cooperation, etc

Chris said:

SandyRentool said:

"Greggs vegan sausage roll boosts sales"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47480247

I always knew that mincing up vegans and turning them into sausage rolls was a good idea.

Careful. There's a test case before an employment tribunal which may result in veganism becoming a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46385597

That's really good news. Next step: get 'gastronome' registered as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, so that it becomes a breach of my human rights not to serve me excellent food and fine claret.

Nigel_Foremain said:

MarqueeMark said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1103616002569441280

Jennie Formby, he's looking at you....

Sadly he wont necessarily be looking at the man who is ultimately and genuinely responsible, Jeremy Corbyn

Taking out Formby might be viewed as a necessary step to removing Corbyn. With the slight issue that unless the rules are changed, her replacement is likely to be cut from similar cloth.

Sean_F said:

OblitusSumMe said:

JosiasJessop said:

_Anazina_ said:

JosiasJessop said:

NickPalmer said:

This rather overstates the horrhat few other newspapers care about - oppression of trade unionists around the world, etc.

People who say they'd support a Labour government but would be highly critical friends and might vote against a particular policy are in principle fine with me (depending on the details). The position is different if someone stands on a Labour platform, gets Labour votes, but says they won't support a Labour government. I think they are deceiving the electorate, the party and themselves, and should quit.

A clarification: it's like believing in a Santa that has killed millions and not noticeably improved the world in any way. It's like believing in a Santa that is lying in a p*ss-laden gutter, eight cans of Tennants Extra lying by its side.

Communism matters, because it is an evil system wrapped up in a comfort blanket that is liked by likewise evil people and idiots.

Nope. That's ludicrous pearl-clutching hyperbole.

I much prefer (I think) Sir John Major's definition: "It's a noble idea. It just doesn't work."

It really isn't ludicrous. Communism has killed many millions - probably far more than fascism (although such counts are often ludicrous in themselves - best just to say they're both evil).

Yet unlike fascism, you have people defending communism to the hilt as if it was just some youthful folly. It isn't. It's sick - and it's even more sick to compare it so something like Santa.

Fascism, in theory as well as practice, is abhorrent. Communism as practiced has been abhorrent, but the theory is not. The question for me has been whether the practice follows directly from the theory or whether this was a case of opportunists using the rhetoric to justify their personal barbarism.

Resolving this question is made more difficult because so many people excuse the practice of Communism in order to defend the theory.

Communism requires the extermination of class enemies, so to that extent, violence is inherent in the ideology.

Anti-semitism and waging wars of imperial aggression are not part of the theory, but seem to be part of the practice.

I don't think it is required. In principle compared to capitalism where a small minority exert control over a majority, you would expect the rule of the majority over the minority to be inherently less violent.

OblitusSumMe said:

Anorak said:

Communist theory does not take human nature into account. It's as simple as that.

I don't agree with that argument. I think capitalism encourages our worst impulses - selfishness, fear, etc - and in principle you could encourage our better impulses - empathy, cooperation, etc

Communism requires highly centralised control. Inevitably this hands power to a small number of people. Human nature takes it's course, as that power is sought and gained by exactly the *wrong* people to have it.

Whether capitalism encourages our worst impulses or not is a completely separate discussion.

OblitusSumMe said:

Sean_F said:

OblitusSumMe said:

JosiasJessop said:

_Anazina_ said:

JosiasJessop said:

NickPalmer said:

This rather overstates the horrhat few other newspapers care about - oppression of trade unionists around the world, etc.

People who say they'd support a Labour government but would be highly critical friends and might vote against a particular policy are in principle fine with me (depending on the details). The position is different if someone stands on a Labour platform, gets Labour votes, but says they won't support a Labour government. I think they are deceiving the electorate, the party and themselves, and should quit.

A clarification: it's like believing in a Santa that has killed millions and not noticeably improved the world in any way. It's like believing in a Santa that is lying in a p*ss-laden gutter, eight cans of Tennants Extra lying by its side.

Communism matters, because it is an evil system wrapped up in a comfort blanket that is liked by likewise evil people and idiots.

Nope. That's ludicrous pearl-clutching hyperbole.

I much prefer (I think) Sir John Major's definition: "It's a noble idea. It just doesn't work."

It really isn't ludicrous. Communism has killed many millions - probably far more than fascism (although such counts are often ludicrous in themselves - best just to say they're both evil).

Yet unlike fascism, you have people defending communism to the hilt as if it was just some youthful folly. It isn't. It's sick - and it's even more sick to compare it so something like Santa.

Fascism, in theory as well as practice, is abhorrent. Communism as practiced has been abhorrent, but the theory is not. The question for me has been whether the practice follows directly from the theory or whether this was a case of opportunists using the rhetoric to justify their personal barbarism.

Resolving this question is made more difficult because so many people excuse the practice of Communism in order to defend the theory.

Communism requires the extermination of class enemies, so to that extent, violence is inherent in the ideology.

Anti-semitism and waging wars of imperial aggression are not part of the theory, but seem to be part of the practice.

I don't think it is required. In principle compared to capitalism where a small minority exert control over a majority, you would expect the rule of the majority over the minority to be inherently less violent.

I think all communist regimes that I recall tend to be run by a very small minority, and often with a "hard man" as leader.

Nigel_Foremain said:

MarqueeMark said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1103616002569441280

Jennie Formby, he's looking at you....

Sadly he wont necessarily be looking at the man who is ultimately and genuinely responsible, Jeremy Corbyn

I suppose the hope is to dismantle his support network he has built around him.

The prospect of that happening might keep a few more in the tent. For now. I think Lord Falconer's role is pivotal. If he finds the system has been rigged to prevent clear-cut anti-semites being removed from membership (as it currently looks like from the outside), then there have to be significant resignations. Of course, Corbyn willl fight to the last to prevent that. On one side the membership. On the other - the MPs.

Unstoppable object, say hello to irresistible force.....

williamglenn said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Tissue_Price said:

another_richard said:

Tissue_Price said:

stodge said:

another_richard said:

I've read here that if the Deal passes May should then resign and let a 'true believer' do future negotiations.

But which 'true believer' is willing to do the work and take the responsibility, to do the proper preparation and give the necessary attention to detail.

I don't believe that. I think if the WA passes, May will be lauded as the new incarnation of the Blessed Margaret and the ERG, having tasted the public mood of relief and adulation, will come crawling for her forgiveness and mercy.

All talk of her walking away will disappear like the morning mist on a summer's day and she will bask in the glow of the affection of the Mail, Express, Sun and (apparently) all right-thinking British people everywhere.

I think the relevant Conservative MPs suspect that as well, hence the briefings about getting a commitment from her to step down in order to win their vote for the MV (MV3, by the sounds of it).

But who do they to replace May with ?

I don't think they know, which is because I don't think the desire to replace her is that much to do with Brexit either.

EDIT: plus of course that wing doesn't necessarily have enough votes to get whichever candidate onto the ballot paper anyway.

And I don't think the membership are blindly going to vote for the "most Brexit" candidate - though there are certain Remainer candidates whom I believe would almost certainly lose regardless of opponent (a la Ken Clarke).

The Leave victory at EUref may have led to an early "Brexit" for England in Euro2016, but it inspired Wales to reach the semis, and perhaps even more importantly, it inspired Team GB at both the 2016 Olympics and the Paralympics to unparalleled gold medal glory!

And let's not forget England's semi-final appearance at World Cup 2018!

Regarding the next Con leader, I would divide the contenders into 4 categories:

Hardline remainers e.g. Greening, Rudd
Pragmatic remainers e.g. Javed, Hunt
Pragmatic leavers e.g. Gove, Leadsom
Hardline leavers e.g. Boris, Raab

In my view, the MPs will block a hardline leaver and the members will never vote for a hardline remainer sio we are left with the middle 2 categories.

I think Gove is a good bet.

There’s someone very ostentatiously trying to occupy that ground at the moment who you haven’t mentioned.

Williamson? I think he fancies himself as a leadership candidate but I can't see it happening.

MarqueeMark said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1103616002569441280

Jennie Formby, he's looking at you....

Why should she resign while the Party leadership backs her? Corbyn didn't resign when 80% of the MPs said they wanted him gone.

david_herdson said:

MarqueeMark said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1103616002569441280

Jennie Formby, he's looking at you....

Why should she resign while the Party leadership backs her? Corbyn didn't resign when 80% of the MPs said they wanted him gone.

Depends how many more MPs they think Formby is worth losing.....

JosiasJessop said:

OblitusSumMe said:

JosiasJessop said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Fascism, in theory as well as practice, is abhorrent. Communism as practiced has been abhorrent, but the theory is not. The question for me has been whether the practice follows directly from the theory or whether this was a case of opportunists using the rhetoric to justify their personal barbarism.

Resolving this question is made more difficult because so many people excuse the practice of Communism in order to defend the theory.

I think it's a theory that will always corrupt people into abhorrent acts if they get power. That's why it's more dangerous than fascism: people believe there's a veneer of good around it, yet it always ends in evil. Whilst fascists are obviously shits.

Yes, there are a worrying number of people with an ends justify the means mentality on the far left, and that has been a factor.

I don't believe that's inevitably part of a collective alternative to capitalism.

No, but we're not talking about a 'collective alternative to capitalism'; we're talking about communism - which is just one alternative.

As a matter of interest, am I right in saying that a pure capitalist system has never been attempted?

Well, but then we're arguing about names and definitions, and maybe when I think of Communism I think of something a bit broader than the Leninist tradition.

TOPPING said:

kjohnw said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1103617732896083968

Now you are just having a laugh Dan.

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1103619503814893569

It was never in serious doubt. She would have been out of Downing Street toot sweet if she'd tried to pull that stunt.

yes Brexit has been successfully thwarted , parliament has successfully blocked the will of the people, the establishment has yet again stitched up the longsuffering British people, I hope they understand the damage they are creating for this country and its democracy by ignoring the vote of 17.4 million people. If we don't leave and take back control of our borders, laws and money then, I and many like me will never vote for any mainstream party again, and I suspect the more extreme and populist parties will replace the mainstream who ignores the silent majority. I am sure Theresa May is a sleeper agent for the EU / Remain, and getting the worst of all deals has been her gameplan from the beginning

Theresa May's deal is leaving.

Theresa Mays deal will never pass parliament and she knows it

Strangely quiet from the Cult on twitter this morning.

Can't think why.

kjohnw said:

TOPPING said:

kjohnw said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1103617732896083968

Now you are just having a laugh Dan.

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1103619503814893569

It was never in serious doubt. She would have been out of Downing Street toot sweet if she'd tried to pull that stunt.

yes Brexit has been successfully thwarted , parliament has successfully blocked the will of the people, the establishment has yet again stitched up the longsuffering British people, I hope they understand the damage they are creating for this country and its democracy by ignoring the vote of 17.4 million people. If we don't leave and take back control of our borders, laws and money then, I and many like me will never vote for any mainstream party again, and I suspect the more extreme and populist parties will replace the mainstream who ignores the silent majority. I am sure Theresa May is a sleeper agent for the EU / Remain, and getting the worst of all deals has been her gameplan from the beginning

Theresa May's deal is leaving.

Theresa Mays deal will never pass parliament and she knows it

Irrelevant to your contention.

First of all I happen to think the deal will pass. Second of all you criticise May for being a remainer when she has presented to parliament a deal for leaving.

philiph said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Mr philiph, May and Brown present a low bar

As do many PMs of the last 60 years

Heath, ADH, MacM, May, Brown all uninspiring,
Callaghan, Major, Wilson shall we be charitable and say almost achieved acceptability?
Blair Cameron together as they had a common thread in style of government
Thatcher, love her or loath her, she was able to force you to have an opinion, and that is a plus in a PM

Of the last 11 PMs, I would suggest at least 8 were below the standard we would like.

It is a low bar

Heath was arguably the one with the most lasting influence, in his flagship policy of joining Europe.

Wilson won four elections, and gave us the Open University, open homosexuality and equal pay for women; he put an end to hanging and ran a referendum without fracturing the party, let alone the country.

Mrs Thatcher decimated the armed forces and doubled inflation. She saw the first successful foreign invasion of British territory since the second world war. On the plus side, she discovered not one but two magic money trees although she squandered the proceeds on mass unemployment.

rottenborough said:

Strangely quiet from the Cult on twitter this morning.

Can't think why.

No doubt trying to work out if they can get away with characterising the EHRC as a Blairite invention.

Casino_Royale said:

kjohnw said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1103617732896083968

Now you are just having a laugh Dan.

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1103619503814893569

It was never in serious doubt. She would have been out of Downing Street toot sweet if she'd tried to pull that stunt.

yes Brexit has been successfully thwarted , parliament has successfully blocked the will of the people, the establishment has yet again stitched up the longsuffering British people, I hope they understand the damage they are creating for this country and its democracy by ignoring the vote of 17.4 million people. If we don't leave and take back control of our borders, laws and money then, I and many like me will never vote for any mainstream party again, and I suspect the more extreme and populist parties will replace the mainstream who ignores the silent majority. I am sure Theresa May is a sleeper agent for the EU / Remain, and getting the worst of all deals has been her gameplan from the beginning

I don’t think she is. I think she’s someone who on balance backed Remain and took ownership of the Leave mandate and is trying to honestly and tenaciously implement it as best she can. Despite personally disagreeing with the verdict she respects those who voted for it and is trying to make the best of it.

I’d have more sympathy for this viewpoint if true Brexiteers had come up with anything more than empty platitudes and rhetoric for Brexit, since none have laid out an alternative credible strategy to May’s.

The only one I’d have had confidence in to do this would be Michael Gove, but I guess we’ll never know now.

Gove’s plan was always to use the threat of leaving to get concessions from the EU. He didn’t want to invoke article 50.

rottenborough said:

Strangely quiet from the Cult on twitter this morning.

Can't think why.

I don't know, chief cheerleader Rachael Swindon is back from her suspension and rapidly tw@ttering propaganda again.

kjohnw said:

TOPPING said:

kjohnw said:

TOPPING said:

kjohnw said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1103617732896083968

Now you are just having a laugh Dan.

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1103619503814893569

It was never in serious doubt. She would have been out of Downing Street toot sweet if she'd tried to pull that stunt.

yes Brexit has been successfully thwarted , parliament has successfully blocked the will of the people, the establishment has yet again stitched up the longsuffering British people, I hope they understand the damage they are creating for this country and its democracy by ignoring the vote of 17.4 million people. If we don't leave and take back control of our borders, laws and money then, I and many like me will never vote for any mainstream party again, and I suspect the more extreme and populist parties will replace the mainstream who ignores the silent majority. I am sure Theresa May is a sleeper agent for the EU / Remain, and getting the worst of all deals has been her gameplan from the beginning

Theresa May's deal is leaving.

Theresa Mays deal will never pass parliament and she knows it

Irrelevant to your contention.

First of all I happen to think the deal will pass. Second of all you criticise May for being a remainer when she has presented to parliament a deal for leaving.

yes a deal she knows will never in a month of Sundays be passed, she ignored her Brexit ministers and Canada Plus options, and settled for a crap deal, and TBH I wouldn't be surprised if she intentionally kept quiet during the referendum campaign as a back up plan should remain fail to win, to ensure we never leave the EU. She speaks with forked tongue. Still - what did we expect, the establishment were always going to win.

You mean the Jacob Rees-Mogg/Boris Johnson/Nigel Farage establishment cabal?

Casino_Royale said:

kjohnw said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1103617732896083968

Now you are just having a laugh Dan.

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1103619503814893569

It was never in serious doubt. She would have been out of Downing Street toot sweet if she'd tried to pull that stunt.

yes Brexit has been successfully thwarted , parliament has successfully blocked the will of the people, the establishment has yet again stitched up the longsuffering British people, I hope they understand the damage they are creating for this country and its democracy by ignoring the vote of 17.4 million people. If we don't leave and take back control of our borders, laws and money then, I and many like me will never vote for any mainstream party again, and I suspect the more extreme and populist parties will replace the mainstream who ignores the silent majority. I am sure Theresa May is a sleeper agent for the EU / Remain, and getting the worst of all deals has been her gameplan from the beginning

I don’t think she is. I think she’s someone who on balance backed Remain and took ownership of the Leave mandate and is trying to honestly and tenaciously implement it as best she can. Despite personally disagreeing with the verdict she respects those who voted for it and is trying to make the best of it.

I’d have more sympathy for this viewpoint if true Brexiteers had come up with anything more than empty platitudes and rhetoric for Brexit, since none have laid out an alternative credible strategy to May’s.

The only one I’d have had confidence in to do this would be Michael Gove, but I guess we’ll never know now.

May was never a true believer in Leave, but she was a true believer in her ability to get rid of the backstop.

SandyRentool said:

"Greggs vegan sausage roll boosts sales"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47480247

I always knew that mincing up vegans and turning them into sausage rolls was a good idea.

A big part of the reason for that is the viral furore on social media.

Many brand consultants will now advise firms to do this, and encourage controversy, because it generates headlines and keeps them in the news for longer, thus driving up brand awareness and sales on both sides. I think Greggs was even prepared in advance to troll Piers Morgan about it.

I think it’s dangerous in the long term but, for now, this is becoming a pretty mainstream tactic.

rottenborough said:

Strangely quiet from the Cult on twitter this morning.

Can't think why.

Behind the scenes, it's chaos in the spin-lines department....

Casino_Royale said:

SandyRentool said:

"Greggs vegan sausage roll boosts sales"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47480247

I always knew that mincing up vegans and turning them into sausage rolls was a good idea.

A big part of the reason for that is the viral furore on social media.

Many brand consultants will now advise firms to do this, and encourage controversy, because it generates headlines and keeps them in the news for longer, thus driving up brand awareness and sales on both sides. I think Greggs was even prepared in advance to troll Piers Morgan about it.

I think it’s dangerous in the long term but, for now, this is becoming a pretty mainstream tactic.

I seemed to remember there was an article on BBC website the other day saying that lots of fashion brands were using this idea of encouraging controversy to generate publicity.

OblitusSumMe said:

JosiasJessop said:

OblitusSumMe said:

JosiasJessop said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Fascism, in theory as well as practice, is abhorrent. Communism as practiced has been abhorrent, but the theory is not. The question for me has been whether the practice follows directly from the theory or whether this was a case of opportunists using the rhetoric to justify their personal barbarism.

Resolving this question is made more difficult because so many people excuse the practice of Communism in order to defend the theory.

I think it's a theory that will always corrupt people into abhorrent acts if they get power. That's why it's more dangerous than fascism: people believe there's a veneer of good around it, yet it always ends in evil. Whilst fascists are obviously shits.

Yes, there are a worrying number of people with an ends justify the means mentality on the far left, and that has been a factor.

I don't believe that's inevitably part of a collective alternative to capitalism.

No, but we're not talking about a 'collective alternative to capitalism'; we're talking about communism - which is just one alternative.

As a matter of interest, am I right in saying that a pure capitalist system has never been attempted?

Well, but then we're arguing about names and definitions, and maybe when I think of Communism I think of something a bit broader than the Leninist tradition.

But that Leninist tradition *is* Communism. You may argue there are other ways of doing it that have not been tried, but I fear any system you nominally come up with will fall into all the same traps that we saw in the USSR, Cambodia, DPK, and in China in the 1960s (I'd argue that China is not currently a Communist state, but a curious hybrid).

MarqueeMark said:

rottenborough said:

Strangely quiet from the Cult on twitter this morning.

Can't think why.

Behind the scenes, it's chaos in the spin-lines department....

There 's still plenty of the fringe zoomer types claiming the EHRC have been 'leant on'. Or trying 'but what about the Toooooorrrriiiies?'

https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1103632466739380225

https://twitter.com/JoeMurphyLondon/status/1103632984522084352

FrancisUrquhart said:

Casino_Royale said:

SandyRentool said:

"Greggs vegan sausage roll boosts sales"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47480247

I always knew that mincing up vegans and turning them into sausage rolls was a good idea.

A big part of the reason for that is the viral furore on social media.

Many brand consultants will now advise firms to do this, and encourage controversy, because it generates headlines and keeps them in the news for longer, thus driving up brand awareness and sales on both sides. I think Greggs was even prepared in advance to troll Piers Morgan about it.

I think it’s dangerous in the long term but, for now, this is becoming a pretty mainstream tactic.

I seemed to remember there was an article on BBC website the other day saying that lots of fashion brands were using this idea of encouraging controversy to generate publicity.

It doesn’t always work. I’ve been avoiding Gillette since their “be a better man” lecture, but they’re lucky because there aren’t many good alternative razor products on the market. As their prices will attest to.

Nigel_Foremain said:

malcolmg said:

williamglenn said:

Similar to the one posted by @oxfordsimon

https://twitter.com/politicsjoe_uk/status/1103596379589541889?s=21

These idiots are actually surprised given the mess they are making of the country.

Not sure I understand your point. Are you suggesting online abuse of a woman politician is acceptable if they are Tory?

What I am saying is that these morons are useless , they are wrecking the country, put only themselves and party first and should not be surprised that people are angry and hurl abuse at them. The fact they are Tories is irrelevant other than fact that they are the nasty self seeking cretins currently doing the wrecking. Opposition , hapless Lib Dems should expect the same as they again have no interest in the country but just plot to enrich themselves and push their party interests.
If they do not like it stop taking the huge amounts from the public purse or start acting in the interests of the people as they were elected to do.
Personally I think they get away with far too easy a life in UK given their incompetence and f***wittery.

Interesting quote from Phil Hammond in Paul Waugh's update:

"The Labour Party has been talking for a long time about the idea of a customs union grafted onto the PM’s deal. Those of my colleagues who feel very strongly against that proposal need to think very very hard about the implications of voting against the Prime Minister’s deal because we will then be in unknown territory where a consensus will have to be forged across the House of Commons and that will inevitably mean compromises being made."

As the Lords voted for customs union last night by a substantial margin, maybe this is moving into the frame as the front runner?

Anorak said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Anorak said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Anorak said:

Communist theory does not take human nature into account. It's as simple as that.

I don't agree with that argument. I think capitalism encourages our worst impulses - selfishness, fear, etc - and in principle you could encourage our better impulses - empathy, cooperation, etc

Communism requires highly centralised control. Inevitably this hands power to a small number of people. Human nature takes it's course, as that power is sought and gained by exactly the *wrong* people to have it.

Whether capitalism encourages our worst impulses or not is a completely separate discussion.

I think communism requires highly localised control. If the individual does not have control over their own work then they are not free. It requires cooperation over large scales, but centralisation is a danger.

This is one reason why I'm so disappointed with Corbyn's old-fashioned calls for nationalisation, which simply replace private managers with state managers and more centralisation rather than less.

And as we've seen within the party, he is rather partial to cronyism and nepotism. The state managers would be political animals, not businessmen/women, and the organisations would rapidly deteriorate. Remember British Rail?

In defence of British Rail, they did a reasonable job at efficiently running the network given the constraints they were under. They were far from perfect, and had too much of a negative, shrinking attitude: but they could have been much worse.

One of the things privatisation brought in was a can-do attitude that BR all too often lacked.

Endillion said:

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

kjohnw said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1103617732896083968

Now you are just having a laugh Dan.

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1103619503814893569

It was never in serious doubt. She would have been out of Downing Street toot sweet if she'd tried to pull that stunt.

yes Brexit has been successfully thwarted , parliament has successfully blocked the will of the people, the establishment has yet again stitched up the longsuffering British people, I hope they understand the damage they are creating for this country and its democracy by ignoring the vote of 17.4 million people. If we don't leave and take back control of our borders, laws and money then, I and many like me will never vote for any mainstream party again, and I suspect the more extreme and populist parties will replace the mainstream who ignores the silent majority. I am sure Theresa May is a sleeper agent for the EU / Remain, and getting the worst of all deals has been her gameplan from the beginning

I don’t think she is. I think she’s someone who on balance backed Remain and took ownership of the Leave mandate and is trying to honestly and tenaciously implement it as best she can. Despite personally disagreeing with the verdict she respects those who voted for it and is trying to make the best of it.

I’d have more sympathy for this viewpoint if true Brexiteers had come up with anything more than empty platitudes and rhetoric for Brexit, since none have laid out an alternative credible strategy to May’s.

The only one I’d have had confidence in to do this would be Michael Gove, but I guess we’ll never know now.

Gove’s plan was always to use the threat of leaving to get concessions from the EU. He didn’t want to invoke article 50.

Oh, right. Like all those people who voted Leave to maximise our chances of eventually joining the Euro?

He has a consistent record of arguing that “flirting with a future outside” would increase our influence, and during the referendum campaign he argued against invoking article 50. Watch this from 15:20.

https://youtu.be/5NLc9i_O14Q

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

kjohnw said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1103617732896083968

Now you are just having a laugh Dan.

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1103619503814893569

It was never in serious doubt. She would have been out of Downing Street toot sweet if she'd tried to pull that stunt.

yes Brexit has been successfully thwarted , parliament has successfully blocked the will of the people, the establishment has yet again stitched up the longsuffering British people, I hope they understand the damage they are creating for this country and its democracy by ignoring the vote of 17.4 million people. If we don't leave and take back control of our borders, laws and money then, I and many like me will never vote for any mainstream party again, and I suspect the more extreme and populist parties will replace the mainstream who ignores the silent majority. I am sure Theresa May is a sleeper agent for the EU / Remain, and getting the worst of all deals has been her gameplan from the beginning

I don’t think she is. I think she’s someone who on balance backed Remain and took ownership of the Leave mandate and is trying to honestly and tenaciously implement it as best she can. Despite personally disagreeing with the verdict she respects those who voted for it and is trying to make the best of it.

I’d have more sympathy for this viewpoint if true Brexiteers had come up with anything more than empty platitudes and rhetoric for Brexit, since none have laid out an alternative credible strategy to May’s.

The only one I’d have had confidence in to do this would be Michael Gove, but I guess we’ll never know now.

Gove’s plan was always to use the threat of leaving to get concessions from the EU. He didn’t want to invoke article 50.

You’re relying on something he said in an article several years ago.

Many people’s “plans” have changed since then, including Boris’s, Theresa’s and countless others.

malcolmg said:

williamglenn said:

Will this be enough from Bradley?

https://twitter.com/politicsin/status/1103626804915519488?s=21

weaselly words to cover her nastiness. As ever with Tories, she will not do the right thing but keep her nose firmly in the trough.

Classic non-apology. Apologise for the offence caused rather than for what she said, say that her "language" was wrong rather than the content of what she was saying.

Sean_F said:

OblitusSumMe said:

JosiasJessop said:

_Anazina_ said:

JosiasJessop said:

NickPalmer said:

This rather overstates the horrhat few other newspapers care about - oppression of trade unionists around the world, etc.

People who say they'd support a Labour government but would be highly critical friends and might vote against a particular policy are in principle fine with me (depending on the details). The position is different if someone stands on a Labour platform, gets Labour votes, but says they won't support a Labour government. I think they are deceiving the electorate, the party and themselves, and should quit.

A clarification: it's like believing in a Santa that has killed millions and not noticeably improved the world in any way. It's like believing in a Santa that is lying in a p*ss-laden gutter, eight cans of Tennants Extra lying by its side.

Communism matters, because it is an evil system wrapped up in a comfort blanket that is liked by likewise evil people and idiots.

Nope. That's ludicrous pearl-clutching hyperbole.

I much prefer (I think) Sir John Major's definition: "It's a noble idea. It just doesn't work."

It really isn't ludicrous. Communism has killed many millions - probably far more than fascism (although such counts are often ludicrous in themselves - best just to say they're both evil).

Yet unlike fascism, you have people defending communism to the hilt as if it was just some youthful folly. It isn't. It's sick - and it's even more sick to compare it so something like Santa.

Fascism, in theory as well as practice, is abhorrent. Communism as practiced has been abhorrent, but the theory is not. The question for me has been whether the practice follows directly from the theory or whether this was a case of opportunists using the rhetoric to justify their personal barbarism.

Resolving this question is made more difficult because so many people excuse the practice of Communism in order to defend the theory.

Communism requires the extermination of class enemies, so to that extent, violence is inherent in the ideology.

Anti-semitism and waging wars of imperial aggression are not part of the theory, but seem to be part of the practice.

Didn't the antisemitism and waging wars of imperial aggression occur because they were already Russian characteristics and Soviet Russia was the first Communist power? China seems to have managed without the antisemitism (insofar as they had the matériel) and their imperial aggression seems mostly of the economic type nowadays.

Theuniondivvie said:

Sean_F said:

OblitusSumMe said:

JosiasJessop said:

_Anazina_ said:

JosiasJessop said:

NickPalmer said:

This rather overstates the horrhat few other newspapers care about - oppression of trade unionists around the world, etc.

People who say they'd support a Labour government but would be highly critical friends and might vote against a particular policy are in principle fine with me (depending on the details). The position is different if someone stands on a Labour platform, gets Labour votes, but says they won't support a Labour government. I think they are deceiving the electorate, the party and themselves, and should quit.

A clarification: it's like believing in a Santa that has killed millions and not noticeably improved the world in any way. It's like believing in a Santa that is lying in a p*ss-laden gutter, eight cans of Tennants Extra lying by its side.

Communism matters, because it is an evil system wrapped up in a comfort blanket that is liked by likewise evil people and idiots.

Nope. That's ludicrous pearl-clutching hyperbole.

I much prefer (I think) Sir John Major's definition: "It's a noble idea. It just doesn't work."

It really isn't ludicrous. Communism has killed many millions - probably far more than fascism (although such counts are often ludicrous in themselves - best just to say they're both evil).

Yet unlike fascism, you have people defending communism to the hilt as if it was just some youthful folly. It isn't. It's sick - and it's even more sick to compare it so something like Santa.

Fascism, in theory as well as practice, is abhorrent. Communism as practiced has been abhorrent, but the theory is not. The question for me has been whether the practice follows directly from the theory or whether this was a case of opportunists using the rhetoric to justify their personal barbarism.

Resolving this question is made more difficult because so many people excuse the practice of Communism in order to defend the theory.

Communism requires the extermination of class enemies, so to that extent, violence is inherent in the ideology.

Anti-semitism and waging wars of imperial aggression are not part of the theory, but seem to be part of the practice.

Didn't the antisemitism and waging wars of imperial aggression occur because they were already Russian characteristics and Soviet Russia was the first Communist power? China seems to have managed without the antisemitism (insofar as they had the matériel) and their imperial aggression seems mostly of the economic type nowadays.

Mao conquered Tibet, and his immediate successors tried to conquer Vietnam.