UKMT January and a bit of February 2016: Marxist Theory and Danczuk Memes

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT January and a bit of February 2016: Marxist Theory and Danczuk Memes

«‹›2 »

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

I had a roast beef dinner straight after midnight. It was glorious.

Anyway we should really address the important issues this year.

What's UKMT position on Twiglets?

# ¿ Jan 1, 2016 14:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 04:00

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

ronya posted:

Labour's policy tanks still operate in a broadly neoliberal policy space - the antineoliberalism is limited to rhetoric. Even the flagship rail renationalization is, under the surface, the rather less exciting idea of running the lines as individual for-profit government-owned companies. The rhetoric invokes the vision of plowing the nebulous "profits" into reduced fares, into rail investment, into higher wages, and into the NHS all at the same time, but functionally the idea is GLCs, not Clause IV.

That's not actually going to change; the magic of Corbyn is in tricking the forgetful British left into believing that New New Labour is Old Labour, whether or not the likes of John goddamn McDonnell pens lengthy promises to reduce the deficit (noting that if you accept that basic constraint, your remaining policy options are very limited). Corbyn operates in a world of the OBR and the MPC, not the NCB and NUM; the proposals he can draw upon are limited - stuff like the People's QE that he picked up from niche advisors quickly became liabilities. Conversely, all the Labour right has to do is hold the line amongst the more cognizant members (i.e., those who accept the arguments that tuition fees are more egalitarian, that collective-welfare-through-collective-agreements really deserve to be shown the door,, that Britain in NI and the Falklands has settled into status quos which it is now committed to maintaining, etc.).

I don't disagree that New Labour has run out of ideas - I've said so myself. But the present judo makes a twisted sort of sense, if you accept that the none of the actors are really committed to innovating new ideas inasmuch as innovating new political covers for the same ideas.

We're not even 4 months in so it's hardly surprising that the policy pronouncements thus far are largely within the current frameworks. You can't just offer a magic wand vision without an idea of how you can evolve from the current institutions to new ones.

Tuition fees are not more egalitarian. The post 2012 regime imposes RPI+3 rates on debts that will surpass �40k for many ordinary students. This means that anyone who enters public sector work like teaching essentially has no hope of paying off their debts in the 30 year time limit and instead in effect pay a 9% additional tax. The only people who benefit are the very low paid (and only if you assume the 40k+ debt is legitimate in the first place) and the very high paid (who will accrue much less interest and therefore pay less back than middle income earners). It's a loving catastrophe that would never have happened if education was seen as a common good to be paid out of general taxation. And that's without even getting into the way tuition fees can distort the choices young people make in terms of what they study.

The only people I know that talk about NI and the Falklands are angry "moderates" who hate the positions Corbyn took on them in the 80s. The rest of us aren't actually trying to relive the 80s, despite the best efforts of the anti-Corbyn lobby. NI in particular irritates me (no I don't particularly think Corbyn took the right line on NI) since every single loving side whether it be the the governments, IRA, loyalist paramilitaries, or the British Army has civilian blood on their hands because the whole situation was a total cluster gently caress and there's just a lot of innocent victims so anyone getting on their high horse about Corbyn sympathising with "the other side" is a hypocrite.

Anyway, it's far too early to proclaim that Corbyn's Labour isn't going to come up with a new vision for the modern left.

Edit: Sorry it was RIP+3 not RPI+2. Students are actually paying higher interest rates than I do on my mortgage.

Lord of the Llamas fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Jan 1, 2016

# ¿ Jan 1, 2016 21:11

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

forkboy84 posted:

What's been written is that apparently Jeremy Corbyn & John McDonnell are actually Blairites, but are pretending to be socialists to fool the left.

No, it's not exactly coherent. It doesn't really stand up to examination as far as I can tell, they sure were playing the really long con if he's right. The idea seems to be that because he's trying moderate his message & not appear the full communism now monster in an entirely hostile press he's actually not a socialist, he's a Blairite?

Yes, apparently it's Blairites all the way down.

# ¿ Jan 2, 2016 00:33

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Pissflaps posted:

But you're talking about deselection as a tactic to be used or not by Corbyn - not the local party.

If these MPs are MPs it's because they've been elected to the post. That's the democratic bit.

So democratic that CLPs were forced to choose from shortlists chosen by central office.

Let us not forget that former Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont said that they tried to run Scotland like a "branch office of London" upon her resignation. The New Labour strategy took for granted people that in the end couldn't be taken for granted. Scotland is just the most salient symptom of that malaise. If the Scottish Labour leader was disillusioned it's hardly a surprise what happened. New Labour stuck their heads in the sand as they hollowed out Labour's base in pursuit of the hallowed centre ground.

The selection of a candidate should be the business of each CLP exclusively. Deselection of an MP that they were coerced to select in the first place is not an affront to democracy.

# ¿ Jan 2, 2016 01:26

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Pissflaps posted:

Then in what 'ideal world' is Corbyn doing everything he can to 'get rid of the shits'?

I'm sorry if I've misunderstood ddraig's post but it seemed he/she was advocating deselection at the behest of the Labour leadership.

Well what ddraig said was:

quote:

In an ideal world Corbyn would be doing everything to get rid of the shits who completely undermine the party and routinely don't actually bother to listen to the people they claim to represent, but his hand is forced because by doing so he's playing into the persecution fantasies of people who think that he's just as bad as they are.

Emphasis added.

Which I take to mean that Corbyn should be encouraging CLPs to deselect sitting MPs if they feel they don't represent the CLP's views. But doing so would be represented as a leadership enforced cull as opposed to wanting local parties to be in charge of their own affairs.

# ¿ Jan 2, 2016 01:37

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Pissflaps posted:

I think it would be interpreted as exactly what it was - the labour leadership seeking to deselect MPs that aren't on-side.

Why? CLPs with a Corbynist MP are free to deselect them if they don't agree.

# ¿ Jan 2, 2016 01:44

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Pissflaps posted:

Why would Corbyn be 'encouraging' something if he didn't want it to happen?

Wanting something to happen doesn't mean it's a Machiavellian tactic. You said "the labour leadership seeking to deselect MPs that aren't on-side.". That's fine with me if "on-side" means empowering CLPs to choose their own candidates. The difference between what people are proposing now and what the Blairites did is that the Blairites point blank refused to allow any candidates they didn't approve of but, as I pointed out, non-Corbynite candidates are not a problem as long as they were nominated by their local party. I'm a leftist who voted for Corbyn but our local candidate at the GE (the current leader of the council, and sadly he lost to the Tory incumbent in this marginal seat) is not in particularly that left wing but I'd vote to reselect him for 2020 in a heartbeat because he's a bloody good local candidate who has served the area well. The fantasy here is that the Blairites think Corbyn is trying to institute the exact kind of purges they did when they took control. Many of Corbyn's supporters want that (many UKMTers included) but that's not what is actually happening.

Lord of the Llamas fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Jan 2, 2016

# ¿ Jan 2, 2016 01:57

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Pissflaps posted:

I asked ddraig if, by the logic he put forward in his post, Corbyn himself should have been deselected years ago.

None of this discussion has been about wording.

If his CLP are unhappy with him then yes. How is that hard to understand?

# ¿ Jan 2, 2016 02:05

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Pissflaps posted:

Your position is not hard to understand, but you didn't write ddraig's post.

Ddraig's post was pretty easy to understand. Ddraig said that deselections have always been a part of the political process but that they only became "dirty and underhanded" because Blairites wanted to purge the Labour party of left wing influence despite the wishes of the actual party members. Now some people are eager for Corbyn to encourage deselections because it can be spun as him trying to purge the party of Blairites. However in reality the CLPs are only going to be encouraged to take control of their own affairs. This is in stark contrast to what happened under Blair. So in conclusion ddraig said that Corbyn can't be seen to advocate local democracy in the Labour party because it will be spun as attempted purges.

Edit: Of course, the Blairite strategy was not so much "deselection" as "non-selection".

# ¿ Jan 2, 2016 02:14

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Pissflaps posted:

Ddraig also said that in an ideal world Corbyn would be doing all he can to remove certain people I.e. not leaving it purely to the CLPs, which prompted my question.

Maybe ddraig is advocating Corbyn breaking into their bedrooms at night and cutting their throats but I prefer to interpret most statements in context and as they were probably meant to be interpreted.

# ¿ Jan 2, 2016 02:21

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Pissflaps posted:

I expect 'doing all he can' lies somewhere between nothing at all and murder.

And if you had understood ddraig's post you would know that the interpretation was that even something as simple as advocating local democracy in the Labour party was seen as politically problematic for Corbyn given his current opposition within. Hardly the warning signs of a ruthless cull a la Stalin.

# ¿ Jan 2, 2016 02:25

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Pissflaps posted:

Then it seems I have misunderstood ddraig's post in assuming Corbyn 'doing everything he can in an ideal world' to get rid of the shits was nothing more than suggesting CLPs deselect candidates if they want to.

Deselecting a candidate they didn't want to would kind of contradict the central principle that was being discussed so I guess you were just being pretty selective in your understanding.

# ¿ Jan 2, 2016 02:32

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Pissflaps posted:

I've also made the mistake of imagining a world where Corbyn demonstrates some leadership qualities and influences the opinions of others instead of just letting everybody get on with it. A double serving of egg on my face.

Good leaders let people get on with things. I work in the research department of a FTSE 100 tech company and the phrase my bosses use is "herding cats". Micro-management a la the Blairites leads to disaster. Corbyn has articulated a vision. The membership voted for it. The current PLP are a legacy of Blairite middle-management and need to either adapt or leave.

Lord of the Llamas fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Jan 2, 2016

# ¿ Jan 2, 2016 02:44

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Pissflaps posted:

Three terms of labour government is a funny sort of disaster.

No but the three worst turnouts since the war in the 1997, 2001, and 2005 elections along with the hollowing out of the base of the Labour vote being most clearly illustrated by the collapse of Scottish Labour is a loving disaster. Tony Blair won 3 elections despite New Labour not because of it. Anyone would've beat John Major in 1997 and it's a crying shame John Smith died and Gordon Brown pussied out and let Blair take the reigns.

# ¿ Jan 2, 2016 02:54

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Pissflaps posted:

I find the argument that Tony Blair just 'got lucky' in being leader during the three elections in the last forty years that the Tories could not win unconvincing.

'Anyone' was supposed to be able to beat Major in '92 and that didn't quite work out as planned.

He showed an incredible amount of political acumen in his path to becoming Labour leader but after that he showed a complete disdain for the Labour party base and membership. The voting figures speak for themselves. Blair quit for a reason. It was a fluke not a recipe for success.

# ¿ Jan 2, 2016 03:05

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Jeza posted:

I'm not saying what's right or wrong, merely pointing our what you hope for is never going to happen and the idea of leading an arms embargo which everyone agrees to on Saudi seems so distant as to be a mad pipe dream. If it ever happens, we will be reluctant parties, not initiators. The Al-Yamamah arms agreement is the largest UK export deal in history. A country doesn't drop that for human rights abuses, sadly.

It's not a question of the playground politics of someone else doing it too, my point is merely that we only stand to lose by taking the moral high ground. And countries with arguably more repellent foreign policies than us, like the US and Russia, will gladly take up the slack. That is how international politics functions in general.

Given the current mood in Europe I doubt it'd be that hard to stir up an EU embargo against the Saudis, and then declare that the EU will only trade with countries that also adhere. Basically it's clear we need a common EU foreign policy so we can wave a relatively moral dick around big enough to compete with US/Russia/China.

# ¿ Jan 2, 2016 20:01

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

blowfish posted:

Bets on Pigfucker doing his best to prevent an embargo against the Saudis?

Given that almost everyone in the EU hates Cameron if he suddenly came out with an amazingly moral foreign policy proposal you'd probably get the others siding with Russia just to spite him.

# ¿ Jan 2, 2016 20:20

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Pistol_Pete posted:

We don't support and trade with the Saudis because the governing establishment likes them, we do it because the governing establishment's view is that the alternatives to the current Saudi regime are either chaos, or ISIS: there is no moderate democratic replacement waiting in the wings. Given the critical importance of Saudi Arabia in the middle east, any collapse of the current regime would likely mean a Syria style conflict spreading across the entire region, which nobody wants to see and which would be a hideous nightmare to deal with.

Once you understand this view (which, frankly, seems a plausible enough one to me), you can understand why we behave as we do towards the Saudis: an unpleasant regime, able to maintain at best a brittle stability, is nonetheless preferable to the alternative of chaotic instability.

It's a view that ignores history. The Saudis are only important because we helped them build their disgusting little kingdom. Neoliberals like to abstain themselves of responsibility by citing the uselessness of unilateral action but then don't engage in multilateral talks in good faith. Given the number of clusterfucks we've already engaged in that region I don't see why destabilising Saudi Arabia would be any worse, at least we might get the weed out by its root at long last.

# ¿ Jan 3, 2016 00:44

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Namtab posted:

I agree, the problem is that we're not loving the middle east hard enough.

That's really not what I said. Do you really disagree that the Saudis are knee deep in everything that's wrong in the middle east?

# ¿ Jan 3, 2016 00:56

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

A more accurate analogy would be that we're cutting the baby heads off whilst having our collective cocks in the mouth of the grown head pissing money and weapons into its mouth.

The Saudi royal family is the most dangerous gang of criminals alive today.

# ¿ Jan 3, 2016 01:27

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

TinTower posted:

Simon Danczuk's ex-wife has outed Danczuk as a psychologically abusive oval office.

So he's a rapist. Well this doesn't surprise me for even the smallest division of time that physicists could come up with.

# ¿ Jan 3, 2016 01:49

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

TinTower posted:

Holy poo poo, I didn't notice that, I was just linking to the online equivalent of the front page.

There's always more. And it's always worse.

# ¿ Jan 3, 2016 02:05

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Let's wait and see if there is a reshuffle before we all get our knickers in a twist, eh.

# ¿ Jan 3, 2016 02:09

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Although I hear pissflaps is tipped for shadow home sec.

Actually that's a fun game. Lets make a UKMT shadow cabinet. Nominations for leader?

# ¿ Jan 3, 2016 02:11

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

I just realised I appear to be the only UKMTer in the upper house.

# ¿ Jan 3, 2016 02:24

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

XMNN posted:

Christ, I knew Danczuk was a prick, I didn't expect him to turn out to be such a monster.

Really?

# ¿ Jan 3, 2016 02:38

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

forkboy84 posted:

I still don't think it'll happen. If it does Corbyn's basically shot himself in the foot & will be out by the end of May because he'll have completely lost the PLP in a way that'll make right now seem like they wholeheartedly support him.

WEAKENED CORBYN BACKS DOWN FROM RESHUFFLE*

* that there was no evidence was going to happen.

# ¿ Jan 3, 2016 03:09

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Hey guys do you remember when this happened http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-a6707721.html

hahahahahahahahahahah.

# ¿ Jan 3, 2016 03:18

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

XMNN posted:

Yeah, if you'd asked me a month ago if I thought Danczuk might be a rapist I would probably have said no.

Without hesitation?

# ¿ Jan 3, 2016 03:24

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

XMNN posted:

It's like finding out your creepy neighbour has been dissolving people in his bathtub. It's not an enormous surprise but it's more hosed up than you expected.

You live next door to Iain Duncan Smith??

# ¿ Jan 3, 2016 03:43

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Ddraig posted:

Danczuk is creepy as gently caress, even if what he did wasn't technically illegal.

My sister is 15 years old, so not too far off the age of the girl involved in this.

It just makes my skin crawl. I'm not too far off my 30s and I wouldn't even dream of pursing any sort of relationship with anyone under 20, because it would be feel creepy as hell. If I was pushing 50 that would be so, so far off the radar it would be inconceivable.

I don't think it was a relationship he was after.

# ¿ Jan 3, 2016 21:34

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Extreme0 posted:

Quite honestly I couldn't really give a poo poo what anyone over the age of consent does within their private lives. Even if it's some old gently caress young poo poo. I've got far more important things to worry/care about then waste my remaining time over crying "creepy/disgusting" over this when I feel life is too short to argue over this nonsense. Then again, I'm someone that wants consentual adult incest (without procreation) to be decriminalised because I think it's a victimless crime. So maybe I'm just really more progressive and thick-skinned then most people.

Of course, that dosen't mean I don't find Danczuk disturbing. I think he's preety much scum in every sense of the word and deserves to be slaughtered by the press for being well...Danczuk.

Also condolences to Coohoolin for your nan passing away.

_{_{_{_{...and your failed assassination attemped at killing Farage.}}}}

Is the thick skin due to incest?

# ¿ Jan 3, 2016 22:37

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

It'd be pretty funny if Corbyn didn't have a reshuffle planned at all and Benn has just gone and volunteered to move himself out of Shadow Foreign Sec.

# ¿ Jan 4, 2016 09:54

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

I wish there was a recording of Kuenssberg telling Doughty that he'll be launching himself into the public eye and it'll really help his career etc etc. They're all so shameless and I bet the only person who'll get in trouble is the guy who wrote the blog.

# ¿ Jan 7, 2016 22:35

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35252472

The BBC posted:

Independent schools should be required to provide more support for local state schools as a condition of their charitable status, according to proposals from the Labour party.
The plans were put forward as amendments to the Charities Bill going through Parliament.
Labour called on independent schools to share music and arts facilities and careers advice.
The Boarding School Association said the plans were "built on prejudice".
The amendments were discussed in committee on Thursday, but were not put to a vote. They could be revived at a later stage of the legislative process.
The proposals from Labour would oblige independent schools to share "resources and facilities" with state schools, as a requirement of their charitable status and associated tax benefits.
Social mobility 'stalling'
Labour called for the Charity Commission to publish guidance setting out the minimum required of independent schools in how they "engage with their local communities".
And the Labour amendments, put forward by shadow charities minister Anna Turley specified that independent schools should share facilities for music, drama and arts.
They also called for more support for careers advice and work experience projects in local state schools.
Labour's shadow education secretary Lucy Powell said: "With social mobility stalling we want to see more collaboration in the system and the whole independent sector doing more to engage and work with other local schools whether that's sharing facilities or experience.
"Some of the best private schools do that, but many don't. As a result, more should be done to ensure the independent sector earn their charitable status."
'Half baked'
But the Boarding Schools' Association, representing many independent boarding schools, attacked the plans as failing to recognise the extent of existing partnerships.
"These are half-baked proposals, built on prejudice against private schools and based on ignorance about the huge amount of brilliant partnership work that happens now," said the association's national director, Robin Fletcher.
"Clearly someone has no idea that hundreds of independent schools already have extensive partnerships with local communities and state schools, often much broader than what is being put forward."
Chris King, who chairs the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference, said such a "heavy handed" legal approach would not be effective and that 99.7% of its schools already shared such facilities.
"It seems the Labour front bench has come up with the wrong answer to an important educational problem," he said.
"Whilst heads of leading independent schools fully support genuine improvements to opportunities for all pupils, the latest call to compel us into partnerships is misguided," said Mr King.
"It is pointless to force schools to do something they are already doing."
A Department for Education spokesman said: "There are many independent schools in vibrant partnerships with local state-funded schools.
"These partnerships can include a huge range of activities, from curriculum and teaching support through to the sharing of facilities and joint events, for example in sports, music and drama."

If they already meet these requirements then why are they so angry about them?

# ¿ Jan 8, 2016 21:41

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Regarde Aduck posted:

Do they have a point? Are they saying that Cameron isn't a rich posh prick because he bought some cheap asda wellies? Is that how it works? Your class is based on your last purchase? Are we supposed to be surprised that the leader of the Scottish government can afford to spend �300 on clothes?

Indeed. Clothes which probably actually belong to her. As opposed to some aide running to the nearest supermarket to buy something that will go straight in the trash after the photoshoot.

# ¿ Jan 9, 2016 20:36

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Biggus Dickus posted:

Well this is embarrasing: Saudi arms sales "In breach of International Law"

Clearly you're not a serious person who knows how to make hard decisions. :colbert:

edit: 1953 was a time before the 24/7 news cycle because a nuclear test was called this.

Lord of the Llamas fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Jan 10, 2016

# ¿ Jan 10, 2016 00:20

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

ronya posted:

"brocialism" is a recent portmanteau; the political consciousness of the problem (of male-chauvinist socialism) predates it and probably originates in campus struggles during the rise of the US New Left. e.g., Jo Freeman:

more explicitly, consider, e.g., the black revolutionary Eldridge Cleaver's concept of "pussy power" or his assertion of rape of white women as a revolutionary act. In the era of sexual liberation it became more socially acceptable for a niche of socialist men to publicly advance somewhat outr� concepts of the role of women in the revolution.

Oh lol. I saw the word brocialism and thought it was from broccoli and socialism - i.e. Green Socialists haha.

# ¿ Jan 10, 2016 13:02

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Worst derail ever.

# ¿ Jan 11, 2016 19:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 04:00

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

If only we had an organised system to gather money and pay for socially beneficial projects.

# ¿ Jan 15, 2016 02:01

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT January and a bit of February 2016: Marxist Theory and Danczuk Memes

«‹›2 »