Angepain posted:

I imagine like last time around people in general will be concerned about the screwing over of vulnerable people

goddamnedtwisto posted:

The Charlie Hebdo thing really did seem to break the brains of a lot of educated self-described progressives. I don't know if it was because it gave them an opportunity to express the racism that they'd been suppressing all those years or what, but way more than 9/11 or 7/7 it exposed a really loving nasty side of them.

Renaissance Robot posted:

I can't tell if it's what you mean, but to be clear this also includes many of the athletes.

There's a huge rant/effortpost in there but the tl;dr is that it's a problem that could be nullified entirely by a policy beginning with "m" and ending with "income".

Cerebral Bore posted:

That's not what he's saying though, he's arguing for a soft brexit as opposed to a hard one.

ronya posted:

Muslims were only ever welcome in the coalition insofar as their subordinated their demands to the wider desires of the secular (and white, educated, etc) majority, anyway.

Never mind shooting up some cartoonists, this is most obvious with LGBT issues.

Kurtofan posted:

What's wrong with defending LGBT issues?

Kurtofan posted:

What's wrong with defending LGBT issues?

ronya posted:

(note the careful avoidance of any mention where the resources will come from - i.e., PFIs. This evasion is quite noticeable if you recall Blair's speeches from 1996ish)

And this is confabulation designed to appeal to marginals:

OwlFancier posted:

I uh, think that's supposed to come from the whole "national investment bank" thing.

Breath Ray posted:

ronya posted:

along German KfW lines (ie state owned, but otherwise for-profit), rather than Corbyn's NIB backed by the BOE a la People's QE

which is not Blairite at all. indeed no Labour centrist in any capacity would preach to the City on its merits. (note the dates)

snark aside, I will note that McDonnell has dropped the more radical BOE-tieup elements in favour of the German-style proposal

ronya posted:

along German KfW lines (ie state owned, but otherwise for-profit), rather than Corbyn's NIB backed by the BOE a la People's QE

which is not Blairite at all. indeed no Labour centrist in any capacity would preach to the City on its merits. (note the dates)

snark aside, I will note that McDonnell has dropped the more radical BOE-tieup elements in favour of the German-style proposal

Kurtofan posted:

I keep reading Guardian comment and it's crazy how right wing they are, especially when it came to Muslims.

And I took a look at a Daily Mail comment section... and the most upvoted comments were basically the reverse of what you'd expect

Kurtofan posted:

What's wrong with defending LGBT issues?

feedmegin posted:

This is normal. Rightwingers go to the Guardian website to troll and/or be outraged, and I guess lefties go to the Daily Heil likewise?

Tesseraction posted:

I think you often get a little tied up in trying to defend Blair's legacy and don't appreciate that our criticisms of Blairism aren't 'literally everything' but the intellectually hollow yes-men and cult of personality he set up around himself. He had good ideas. Hell in 1982 he wrote a rather interesting letter to Michael Foot as you no doubt recall http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/jun/16/past.labour

But the thing is that for all his good ideas he still managed to gently caress up the Labour Party in his desire for control.

OwlFancier posted:

It isn't blairite because they've never done it and I doubt they ever would. They prefer PFIing everything.

Guavanaut posted:

Is that the poster for the new Trainspotting sequel?

Zephro posted:

Nothing, but it tends to seriously annoy a lot of religious types, including some Muslims, since they are convinced that their religion frowns on things like gay sex, changing gender, etc.

It's the classic problem of where you draw the "tolerance" boundary, basically. Do you let some people's religious beliefs affect someone else's freedom to shag who they like? (The evil degenerate "liberal" position would be to say no, you don't and that religion is a matter of private conscience and shouldn't inform state law-making. Fuckin' liberals amirite)

Nom Nom Ideology posted:

This is why, in our secular, choice-based societies, people who maintain a substantial religious belonging are in a subordinate position. Even if they are allowed to maintain their belief, their belief is "tolerated" as their idiosyncratic personal choice or opinion. The moment they present it publicly as what it is for them, say a matter of substantial belonging, they are accused of "fundamentalism." What this means is that the "subject of free choice" in the Western "tolerant" multicultural sense can emerge only as the result of extremely violent process of being torn out of a particular life world, of being cut off from one's roots.

ronya posted:

the liabilities/assets of the bank remain off-balance-sheet and technocratically insulated from mass politics, and are instead subject to a 'rational'/'objective' return-on-investment test, which is what really matters to neoliberalism

I will point out that the UK once had the NEDC and its subsidiary industrial committees and a vast proliferation of semi-state bodies like the National Ports Council, British Transport Docks Board, British Railways Board, British Waterways Board, yada yada to reify the concept of national infrastructure financing and management. There were important and meaningful reasons why these eventually ceased to be relevant to the process of administering the infrastructure of the UK!

Ultimately, if today you look upon the UK Export Finance Agency - one of the only remaining survivors of state-linked industrial financing - and your main thought is RAUGH IMPERIALISM ARMS SALES ABOLISH IT IMMEDIATELY, then you are your own enemy

OwlFancier posted:

I can't say I have any idea what you're on about here.

Tesseraction posted:

He's talking about tripartism again. To what end I'm not sure.

Tesseraction posted:

The thread's typical disdain for liberals is not their tolerance towards individual lifestyles, but for the 'gently caress you, got mine' attitude they extend towards people who don't share their social investments.

Praseodymi posted:

Hahahahahaha: Secret memo: older people should lose right to a guaranteed state pension that rises every year

quote:

He suggested in a series of articles in the past year that protecting pensions and benefits for the elderly, such as free bus passes, was the wrong priority. Mr Timothy argued that the Tories should remember that they are in government to help “ordinary people” and “low-paid working families”.

Renaissance Robot posted:

I thought it was more about their tendency to maintain that the answer is somewhere in the middle even when one of the positiona presented is so absolutely horrific that the middle remains loving awful.

Praseodymi posted:

Hahahahahaha: Secret memo: older people should lose right to a guaranteed state pension that rises every year

Tesseraction posted:

Which is an FYGM position to take - they aren't harmed regardless so they take a 'moderate' position so as to appear benevolent. It's what legitimate use of the term 'virtue signalling' entails.

Tesseraction posted:

The thread's typical disdain for liberals is not their tolerance towards individual lifestyles, but for the 'gently caress you, got mine' attitude they extend towards people who don't share their social investments.