OwlFancier posted:

Liberals have been, and are, primarily concerned with the freedom of the wealthy, even modern liberals who buy into the concept of social liberalism are overwhelmingly concerned with what the law allows people to do, or ending "social ills" like racism, but if you suggest that a major attack on racism would be to just hand out money to black people in America because one of the most material effects of racism in America is that race correlates strongly with poverty, they will cry about taxes and people needing to get jobs.

Jose posted:

its probably easier to just talk about identity politics than liberalism all the time

Jose posted:

no i'm saying that identity politics is generally effective which is why liberals adopt it as times change and things are more acceptable

ThomasPaine posted:

No, identity politics is poison because it's individualist bullshit that directly harms a proper socialist reading. All discrimination is rooted in class, and by attributing essential significance to social groups (e.g. 'woman', 'black person', 'homosexual') you immediately buy into into a classic misdirection and harm the cause of real solidarity. Identity politics is the reason self-proclaimed progressives can merrily cheer on someone like Clinton becoming president. Socialism incorporates all that is necessary for all liberation and provides a consistent and convincing framework. Try arguing this as a white guy in some circles though and just lol.

El Grillo posted:

I'm not sure what exactly concern trolling is but yeah, a group of idiots pitching up at an MPs office and literally shooting incoherently at them for voting no confidence is not holding that MP to account.

El Grillo posted:

What the hell do you think is going to happen if talk of deselections starts though? There's already been trouble in various constituencies, decent MPs who signed no confidence being confronted by interventions at their offices, people yelling incoherently at them.

El Grillo posted:

I'm not sure what exactly concern trolling is but yeah, a group of idiots pitching up at an MPs office and literally shouting incoherently at them for voting no confidence is not holding that MP to account.

El Grillo posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SZFZtTHOOM

OwlFancier posted:

Next week's daily express title.

Pissflaps posted:

I suspect they are not.

Jose posted:

quote:

On the surface, the letter warning a parent that their child would be isolated from other pupils at lunchtime if they didn’t pay for school meals may seem draconian – but there is an underlying contract with pupil, parent and school that ensures the school’s success and emphatically justifies the letter’s tone. In truth, it was not, as some have suggested, about punishing the child, but about shaming the parent to meet their obligation (upon enrolment a contract is signed which sets out what is expected from all parties).

waffle posted:

Guess the NEC election wraps up this week, will they have the results pretty quickly? I don't remember how quickly Corbyn was announced as winning last year, I think it was pretty quick.

goddamnedtwisto posted:

Police in NI - where terrorists have been targeting coppers families for almost half a century - manage to get along without dressing up like NPCs in a Call of Duty game.

(There are valid reasons for armed Plod while on actual assault duties to wear that sort of gear, but claiming they were dressed up for this photo-op like that to protect them from retaliation (or for any reason other than "LOOK HOW TOUGH WE ARE") is hilarious)

ronya posted:

but as the Marxists (and indeed the Marxier of post-Keynesians) would point out, there is already too much investment: the crisis of overaccumulation. There is not enough consumption. Further increases in investment can only be destructive, since investment increases productivity and thereby the gap between production and effective demand still further. The additional investment is costly - costs surplus labour, if you like - but fails to produce things which are consumed.

So there's less than zero purpose in investing further.

serious gaylord posted:

A lot of wasted £25 quids there. They're also banning anyone that uses blairite.

http://www.thecanary.co/2016/08/04/use-one-simple-word-labour-will-now-ban-leadership-election-vote/

Guavanaut posted:

It means "I love TTIP, American capitalism, the Monroe doctrine, and the forever wars against drugs and terror, also the CIA and regime change."

Pork Lift posted:

If it has Salmon it is called Eggs Royale and is the worlds most bougie food

Guavanaut posted:

At least it's upfront. That's better than sinister but covered by a veneer of fake happiness, like Friend Computer, or a Kafkaesque nightmare of bland terms that are neither threatening nor comforting, and produce a feeling of vague unease.

That is better, right?

Guavanaut posted:

I'm vaguely aware of them. I remember an episode of Countryside 999 on in the background a while back when I was with family, where the police drove 20 miles to apprehend some kids camping to celebrate their GCSE results, then found a single cannabis plant growing on the same land and pulled it up and acted sincerely like they'd done a great public service, which generated a round of eye-rolling and "what a loving waste of everyone's time and money" even from more conservative family members. Is that the same sort of thing?

Vitamin P posted:

This is hefty revisionism. There was a lot of Buck Fush! opposition and the UN decision became a flashpoint but that's hardly the whole story.

Under capitalism every soldier that goes to fight is going on a lie to some degree, but there was so much spin and dishonesty in the run up to the war. The biggest reason for the mass opposition was that even apolitical people get angry when our lads and our treasure are being thrown away and there's Some Bullshit involved. War is a really big deal and not realising how deeply people feel it, and don't forget about it, was probably New Labours second biggest gently caress up.

Alchenar posted:

Labour polling through the spring was a steady 25-33% of 2015 GE voters abandoning Labour.

That's such a crucial point because you can't understand the when and why of the coup without it - the PLP didn't throw away a situation where Labour was drawing level/pulling ahead in the polls, they were looking at steady polls saying that their vote was collapsing across the board and suddenly a snap General Election loomed.

Cerebral Bore posted:

This is an outright lie. Corbyn busted his rear end off campaigning for Remain, which said MPs must be aware of. Furthermore it is clear through leaked poo poo that the coup wasn't about the poor PLP finally being fed up, it was planned well in advance and they were just waiting for a opportunity.

Gammymajams posted:

Hi, I'd just like to ask, what is the official rationale the labour party is offering for why people who joined in 2016 can't vote?

Pantsuit posted:

It basically boils down to the fact that Labour seems to HATE having new members. Imagine the arse licking May would be getting in the media if the Tories had the same influx Labour have had.

Cerv posted:

though the £25 are subject to all the same anti-entryism checks to make sure they're not Trots.

El Grillo posted:

It's the 'crucial to the outcome today...' paragraph which is bollocks. The 'new argument' referred to, which McNicol's barrister attempted to make submissions on, was actually expressly dismissed by the court. See, paragraphs 33 & 34 of the judgement: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/christine-evangelou-and-others-v-iain-mcnicol-appeal. In other words it played no part in their decision (as you can see from the rest of the decision which follows those paragraphs).

quote:

33. In the notice of appeal, there are references to Chapter 4, clause II(1), of the 2016 Rule Book and the skeleton argument develops a freestanding ground that that
provision enabled the NEC to vary the rules framework in Chapter 4 and thus that it had sufficiently broad powers to override the rules framework in a particular case so that, insofar as (contrary to the appellant’s primary case) the six month continuous membership condition is contrary to the rules framework, the NEC was permitted to override it and put in place a different rules framework and, accordingly, the appeal should be allowed on this ground. Mr Goldstone objected to the court considering this ground. First, it was not pleaded below or in the grounds of appeal. Secondly, it was not a pure point of law. It would have needed evidence as to whether the NEC was in fact purporting to override the Rule Book. If the position was not clear, there would be questions as to whether those who supported a proposal that was said to be within the rules would also have supported one to override the rules. Evidence would have been required. Finally, had the appellant relied on a general power to vary and override the rules, the respondents might have raised a rationality challenge. None of these things had been canvassed before the judge and it was not right to include them now.

34. We accept Mr Goldstone’s submissions. In our view, the only relevance of Chapter 4, clause II(1) is an aid to the construction of other powers and requirements in the Rule
Book, which has to be construed as a whole.

quote:

VI. Grounds of appeal
31. There are two grounds of appeal. Ground 1 is that the judge erred in law in concluding that the NEC had no power under the Labour Party’s Rule Book to restrict members who are able to vote in the leadership election to those who had had continuous membership since 12 January 2016. Reliance was placed on the breadth of the NEC’s powers within the Rule Book as a whole and, in particular, on Chapter 4, clauses II(1)(A), II(2)(C)(iv) and/or (vii).

quote:

50. In view of our conclusion on the power to define the “precise eligibility criteria”
contained in Chapter 4, clause II(2)(C)(vii), it is not strictly necessary to consider the arguments based on the express reference to “freeze date” in sub-paragraph (iv) of that provision. We observe that sub-paragraph (iv) in itself does not confer power to
impose a freeze date: it is only concerned with the need for the timetable, including
the freeze date, to be approved by the Independent Scrutineer. But, read together with the requirement in Chapter 4, clause II(1)(A), that the NEC issue “procedural
guidelines on nominations, timetable, code of conduct for candidates and other
matters relating to the conduct of these elections”, it is clear that the NEC has power
to impose freeze dates. The question is whether it is only empowered to impose a
freeze date that is the date of the commencement of the election process or a later date, or whether it is empowered to impose a freeze date that is earlier, as was done in this case if one takes the freeze date to be in substance a composite of the date of 12 July 2016 and the earlier cut-off date of 12 January 2016. Alternatively, each date
might be regarded as a distinct freeze date for timetable purposes, with the 12 January
one being set retrospectively. The judge stated (at [79]) that there was force in
regarding the freeze date as a matter of substance but that, even given the wide area of judgment allowed to the NEC in applying the rules, for the reasons we have summarised at [31] above, he concluded that on the true construction of the rules a freeze date could not be retrospectively imposed.

Pissflaps posted:

Yes the public would probably conclude he's a bad leader.

Which they have.

And they're right.

Random Integer posted:

The only thing I take away from that is that most people still have no idea who Owen Smith is. Which I guess is a path to electoral victory. The problem with the 'Anyone But Corbyn' campaign is that at some point 'anyone' has to turn into 'someone' and inevitably that someone is both poo poo and even more unpopular with the general public than Corbyn.

hakimashou posted:

I just hope it isn't a portent of things to come in November and that we keep this poo poo quarantined on your side of the Atlantic.

hakimashou posted:

Anyway there's a pretty obvious argument that many of them either don't believe Orange Judas is really on their side, or else believe that him winning would be much worse for them long term than him losing.

Grouchio posted:

I'm having a hard time figuring out why Corbyn appears to be so reviled within his party (and the public...?) and why he doesn't have more popular support than he should, considering that the Tories just sold the economy's soul away. I have never thought that Britain was more conservative a place than in the states but Brexit seems to be proving me skeptical.

OwlFancier posted:

I'm trying to figure out what accent rhymes "sincere" with "year" and whether it's a posh one or not because if it is that's even better.

Cos up here it's "sin-see-yuh" and "yurrr"

Junkozeyne posted:

You'd think with Corbyn being left and all the comparison would be to the "Roter Frontkämpferbund", the communist party equivalent to the Sturmabteilung.

But I guess that wouldn't be enough. drat you communist trotsky Hitler sympathiser Corbyn!!!!

OwlFancier posted:

Well yeah I do it in my posh voice but it definitely doesn't rhyme in a proper northern accent. The biggest problem is pronouncing the E in year, yee-urr. Here the word year is monosyllabic. Yuhhh. Also we like finishing words by swallowing. Hence "sin-see-yuh" where the tongue bounces to the back of the throat.

I still think that Terry Pratchett said it best when he described posh people as communicating via modulated yawning.