Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
do you want to talk about this? Looks ace. Someone got hit with an egg, which is a good thing, I think.
all starting their 'make me the next PM!' pitches. What a time to be alive!
Can pretend the economy is fixed and that he had anything to do with it, has plenty of skeletons in the closet to keep him under control, marginally somehow more popular than SARS.
Be such a weird election if it is him v Corbz though.
Five years of weak opposition will give them licence to indulge their most ideological instincts. Javid is the perfect representative of that.
And then he got hit on the forehead by an egg.
I'm not a fan of taking-the-highground or any of that old bollocks, get the eggs out and lob 'em at the baddies, that's what I say
that's been going on by certain folk is fucking disgusting. Not just disgusting but idiotic and counterproductive.
I know it's a very, very small amount of people doing it. But it's completely unjustified in ANY context.
except for the egging. great british tradition.
But completely blown out of proportion tbh when you consider the hundreds of peaceful protesters.
Just gives the right wing media another excuse to vilify rather than address the issues, so it's pretty reductive.
Must admit I find egging a bit funny and less disgusting than the other stuff though.
get all upset about it this week, but be perfectly happy with it when it happened to Ed Miliband.
They're gleefully ruining the country. People are dying.
The rage is fantastic to see. It proves that we're not beaten.
Politicians should be scared of the people they rule. You might think that spitting and abuse is "disgusting", "idiotic", and "counterproductive", but I can't possibly see how you can argue that it's unjustified.
There are better ways to make your point, yes. But the tories aren't listening. It's hard to ignore an egg to the face, though.
and drafting more shitty laws that fuck over more and more people?
But I can't stand the idea that they're sat there in their ivory towers and their flimsy majority convinced that they represent the will of the country.
A crowd of 60,000 stretching back 1km CANNOT be dismissed as a "minority". Especially not if they're throwing eggs.
I'm not too happy when the party I despise gets in, no.
you can disagree with the government.
one of the absolute pillars of democracy.
Spitting, abuse, and rape threats are not.
You understand this distinction, I know you do.
were they aimed at?
just seen a number of people on twitter say that they've heard them whilst taking part in demonstrations.
I'm unaware of any presently being investigated by the police.
Several people going in to the conference were accused of being rape apologists, which if government policy is anything to go by, isn't an unjustified accusation.
Louise Mensch's twitter reaction to this, you haven't seen her mention it once?
She just gets retweeted into my timeline when she says something stupid or nasty. Which is a lot)
why not have a look
because the only minority or majority they care about is at the ballot box.
storm in, rip their shirts off and make them have to climb over fences. That's the way to do it.
in May to serve another term of government. That's how it works. Plenty of lines for dissent with the current government - but how does `rage` and criminal behaviour `prove` anything?
And no - spitting, rape threats, throwing eggs at indiscriminate targets (including journalists) IS unjustified. It'd be just as unjustified the other way round (and I'm sure you'd have much to complain about with regards to it).
You mean if the Tories spat at, threatened, and threw eggs at the public?
They're doing much, much, much worse.
if a proportion of protestors claiming to be `on the right` went to the Labour conference last week and started abusing them and spitting on them, calling them evil etc. Pretty sure you'd have much dissent about that.
Whilst your relativism there is a bit of a stretch - I agree that this government is passing some vindictive and rather unsightly legislation. Best way of countering that is to attempt to build an electable opposition, as opposed to spitting on people.
(There were small protesting crowds at just about every Labour conference when they were in government from the likes of the Countryside Alliance, Taxpayers Alliance, Migration Watch, Guido, Anti-War groups), and sometimes it was violent, the general reaction from hose in Labour was acceptance that they had a right to be there, glowing write-ups in the press, and indifference to the disorder created.
But I have no recollections from which to argue so I'll have to take your word for it.
Shut up and kiss already
reponsible for it might reap the anger.....of course often the targets are not those that fully deserve the anger, but thats the danger if you divide and upset people, it gets worse if you make peoples lives impossible and unpleasent......it has little to do with 'being justified' by a technical election result.......participating in a democratic charade does not mean that you give up your human feelings and reactions towards people behaving abonimable and hurting people in very real ways, perhaps for the rest of their lives.......egging or spitting is really very small beer as an injury compared with the effects that the cruelty that spurious ill thought out ruling can cause
And how is it possible that they just look like tories? Even if they weren't in suits they just look smug and hateful.
jeremy hunt says we'll feel more dignified if we do that
'Tax credit cuts will motivate people to work hard like the Chinese'. Fuck off.
to be more communist.
Like if she liked badminton, he'd be all like "the country needs to be more like BADMINTON, hitting the shuttlecock of investment over the net of regulation".
whooping and geeing up a crowd at a county sports day and saying "Hertfordshire!" in a really weird way. I think he's an odd man
"iiiiiiiinnn HERTFORD-shiiiiiirrrrre!!" with the same inflection every time. I assume he'd practised it.
for the government to barely bother to disguise their contempt for everyone below aristocracy level. They know they can do what they want now.
But I reckon now The Sun and some right wingers are calling bullshit on the tax credits thing they're going to water it down/at least delay it pretty sharpish.
I did hear that they've gone a lot more quiet with the 'repeal the Human Rights Act!' stuff because a poll they did said nearly everyone doesn't give a shit.
the implications of abolishing it were in terms of Scotland, Northern Ireland and the EU and then they shat themselves a bit when they finally realised. (Don't think Cameron's ever been that fussed anyway.)
who think Europe and the human rights act just means that we can't deport terrorists.
but didn't they make more a thing of it in the run up to the election as they were worried about the UKIP vote?
But there's not actually *that much* appetite across the Tory party for abolishing the Human Rights Act and it's never really been much of a vote-winner.
It's basically a policy that's been driven almost exclusively by two key stakeholders...
... and they only want rid because European privacy laws are stronger than ours. It's another triumph for democracy really.
that was designed to shore up the UKIP waverers, with the intention that it could be dropped in a coalition agreement and blamed on the LibDems.
No one planned for an outright majority.
Afterwards, I'd expect the hardline anti-EU bunch to demand the promise is kept in return for agreeing to carry on voting for the rest of Cameron's remaining programme. Regardless of how the referendum ended.
if the Lib Dems were actually doing a decent job after all. The Tories were never this full-on cuntish before.
b) The Lib Dems were their enablers
c) The Lib Dem collapse gave the Tories their majority, so it's their fault - AGAIN
Which is interesting*.
except people should stick to what they believe in. Don't be a pussy, essentially. I like the current situation and think its healthy.
Anarchy flags (what's that got to do with anything?) guy fawkes masks, throwing around threats and vapid insults (in one video I saw purely because they cross paths with someone wearing a suit on their way home from work). Doesn't surprise me at all that people would rather bend over for the Tories than live in the kind of society where these people are empowered.
so definitely a major brand refresh needed on both sides.
that's not the fucking left.
At times it's practically like saying that this http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2015/01/09/50-sentenced-following-violent-birmingham-edl-protest/ is the tory party.
But for some reason, it gets tarred with the same brush. Whatever.
It's inevitable that the election of the charmless marrow grower El Steptoe would act as a rallying point for street protest and open the sewers up for every dissident, yob, jihadi Left, bennies slob and SWP/Stopper thugs to join in common cause and encourage incitement, unrest and national disruption. Trouble is - that when this feeble man let's them down - as he will - it'll only get worse. The decent Left need to break for cover and make plans. Or reasoned debate is doomed. I also don't understand why Plod is standing by...
The Boys in Blue
deciding what 'reasoned debate' is. It's a bearpit of frothy-mouthed racism, homophobia sexism, smears and slurs.
Not because it's even completely wrong. If social inequality increases, violent reactions will get worse and more frequent- that's a global trend.
But inequality doesn't *need* to get worse, and the fact the right won't budge and that the presumption of it getting worse is probably correct means "reasoned debate" is pretty much already dead.
i'm quoting from order-order. it's dystopian at best.
what would the outcome have been at the GE?
UKIP would have had 80 MPs or so, which would have been funny at least seeing them handle that responsibility
I can't decide if that would have been better or worse.
the reaction on here
but the balance of power would still presumably lie with the conservatives (perhaps teamed with the Ukip-ers). Pondering democracy and all that.
Some more Greens and Liberals.
Sounds much funnier than what we've got atm in all honesty.
A lot of people are put off voting for 'minor' parties because they won't get in, but it's impossible to know how many people would actually switch away from the main parties under PR. Also, the campaigns and the manifestos would be entirely different as parties would (possibly) focus more on their core vote. Hard to know though. Certainly not a Tory majority, that's for sure.
almost pointless speculating.
but on the other hand, there would probably have been lots of different voting going on if things had been entirely proportional, so it's hard to say for sure.
Boris hit by shower of plastic balls from protesters
LOCK EM UP THROW AWAY THE KEY
Still, first I've heard of it.
since the election there's been little I've been disagreeing with in his columns, funnily.
Still can't bring myself to actually like him mind. He's too vindictive and spends too much time criticising without actually outlining what a positive policy platform might look like (which is easy journalism really). I liked seeing him get edgy when Owen Jones challenged him on this.
nuclear bombs on civilians too?
HAMMERING the other day.
I was principally referring to his writings on the Labour Party/mechanics of British politics.
is because being a right wing Labour party member is his USP. There's no other reason for his career or column to exist otherwise.
'May threatens "retaliatory measures" to countries that do not cooperate with Britain's asylum policy'
Surely relaxing legal requirements for "affordable" homes for rent will result in less homes being affordable to rent, not more homes affordable to buy?
and whether you think there is a housing crisis, and what form it takes.
It certainly won't make housing, whether it be rented or owned, more affordable to the majority of the population.
If you see the current situation as an intermediate step towards a rentier economy, or if you want to drive a wedge between those that were lucky enough to be born in the right decade and as a consequence are owner-occupiers and the rest of the country, then this will help speed up the process.
as with all Tory housing policy is that it enhances the Conservatives' brand as `the party that helps people own their home`. Or similar. Or, rather, clunky attempt after clunky attempt to stimulate the kind of electoral alchemy that Right To Buy had in the 1980s.
Notice David Cameron's new line `Turning Generation Rent into Generation Buy`. Nothing about enhancing the conditions of those in the private rented sector. What Cameron should be saying is `Turning Generation Rent into Generation Tory`. Because that's the crux of the policy.
It just seems like a concerted effort to ensure all houses on the market are unaffordable, no matter what you want to do.
for understanding the specifics and its impact on the housing market - but I'm with you. And like I said, the point of the policy is to develop future generations of Conservative voters above all else because home ownership = voting Tory. Saying that without cynicism btw.
There are many ways to increase the number of home owners in this country (some of which, counter-intuitively, involve making renting less unappealing to cool the market), but none of these measures will do that, on balance.
(Guntrip knows more about this than me, tbh, and can give a better explanation as to why this will not only fail, but actually make the situation worse)
It's an absolutely dreadful idea.
It's basically a sop a towards the development industry. Affordable housing contributions are a pretty contentious subject, particularly as development makes it a very 'razors-edge' industry - the nature of how it works means you have to buy land based on a speculative value for when it's finally developed years down the line. Affordable contributions usually take the form of working with a housing association or local authority and conveying them either finished units or land or a cash settlement in lieu of the first two. I would guess there's also a feeling that, with many local markets skewed towards provision of high-end market housing right now, that sticking a bunch of povvos in the same place will negatively affect what you're doing (hence 'poor doors' and stuff like that).
With stuff like this, and with the provision of subsidised rental housing, there's a really solid argument to be made for direct government investment. For rental housing, it's cheaper in the long term than paying out housing benefit. For housing, both for sale and rental, it just generally helps - kids do better at school if they have a stable home life, owners (in theory) take better care of their homes, it avoids some wider social issues.
The problem is that this current iteration of the Conservative party doesn't care about stuff like that. They're so utterly sold on this idea of 'working hard' as a basis for solving all of society's ills. Their argument is that we don't need to build housing to bring down the benefits bill in the long term, because if those receipt just worked harder that would happen anyway. They're using moral judgements over facts, and... how can you argue with that?
Furthermore, this is stupid because the lack of affordable homes for sale isn't caused by the provision of subsidised homes to rent - it's caused by a land market where owners can charge what they want, and a development industry where over half the homes nationwide are delivered by about half a dozen companies, and by our national inability to maturely discuss greenbelt policies, and a whole raft of other things.
And it's also stupid because £450k in London and £250k elsewhere isn't exactly 'affordable'.
As the faceless mob of flesh eating cannibals paws at the glass outside the conference hall.
where the baddie reveals himself and his plans. Like when Palpatine told everyone he was a Sith Lord.
It must be the Tory MP equivalent of coming out to your family.
have been so hilariously ghastly, it makes you wonder if this is all ACTUALLY trolling. And to think Cameron has the nerve to talk about Compassionate Conservatism...
*doesn't answer the question*
I keep having to tell myself we only get the politicians we deserve, but it's difficult when they give answers like that.
Now THAT'S a power dress! Theresa May, 59, takes to the Conservative party conference podium in £1,395 dress by Victoria Beckham's favourite designer
Cameron comes out to call Corbyn a Britain hating terrorist sympathist.
Of all the examples Cameron could have used to present Corbyn as a terrorist-sympathiser he went with taking a quote out of context.
That understands the cultural and historic reasons people have turned to political violence out desperation without supporting the acts themselves bd
But he doesn't does he, and that's why Cameron's being unfair and scaremongering.
Think on balance it's probably fine to have a position on terrorism that opens avenues for political dialogue and tackling its causes even if it may be twisted into appearing to be an outright terror advocate, tbh.
Some of Corbyn's views in general e.g. on a united Ireland, are verging on misguided however.
seems almost like a compliment
He's only ever recognised what a shit deal Ireland had, and attempted to give them a legitimate political platform where possible - which is ultimately how we were able to reach a peace agreement anyhow?
rather than merely trying to facilitate a peaceful solution.
When you it comes down to it, Ireland will only ever be unified or separate as it is at the moment. If he believes unity by consent can make be a lasting peaceful solution that the process has so far not allowed, that's not supporting the IRA's actions.
Saw this today, pretty good tbf
The agreement of unity being enacted only with consent is a neutral statement of the conditions under which would come about, not a statement on whether or not it should come about. He believes it should come about.
Some people wish to remain in the UK, while others wish for a united Ireland. The agreement reached was that Northern Ireland would remain part of the United Kingdom until a majority of the people of Northern Ireland and of the Republic of Ireland wished otherwise. It is a neutral position of going with what the majority of people want.
He recognised and worked with the IRA because Northern Ireland had been economically/politically ostracised in the hopes of forming a lasting peace process. He was ahead of his time in that regard.
It's not like the peace process is pefect by any stretch, he may be right that a united Ireland could create a better peace - but he wouldn't push it without greater consent. Facilitating a peaceful solution, as you put it, rather than a dogmatic hope for a united Ireland.
There’s another big social problem we need to fix.
In politicians’ speak: a “lack of social mobility”.
In normal language: people unable to rise from the bottom to the top, or even from the middle to the top, because of their background.
Listen to this: Britain has the lowest social mobility in the developed world.
Here, the salary you earn is more linked to what your father got paid than in any other major country.
I’m sorry, for us Conservatives, the party of aspiration, we cannot accept that.
"On Murphy, Cameron said: “He’s written a book. It’s called The Joy of Tax. I’ve got it. I took it home to show Samantha. It’s got 64 positions and none of them work.”"
oh god I have been sick
I'm gonna allow him those #bants actually. Pretty good.
"“Thousands of words have been written about the new Labour leader,” he told party members. “But you only really need to know one thing: he thinks the death of Osama bin Laden was a ‘tragedy’.”"
real classy, David
Just shows they have no fear of any media scrutiny at all these days.
taps you get in offices where boiling comes out of nowhere.
It's such an obvious misinterpretation, and such a ludicrously far-fetched line of attack, that it will hold no water at all and just makes Cameron look silly. There are lots of things Cameron could go after Corbyn for that would tap right in to middle England's fears about him. He's got an embarrassment of riches in that area. And he's plumped for something really silly instead.
Don't think it matters, cause they're winning the PR battle anyway, and I don't think Corbyn really has much idea of how to win on that front, but it was all a bit weird.
what a cynical world he must exist in ... to twist someones words so blatantly. YOU'RE TRAGIC DAVE!
Without really understanding what it shows.
There were a couple of nasty, untrue smears in there to keep the crowd happy, as well as a few vaguely racist digs, but the rest of it was just vague positioning. But unlike Blair's positioning, it has no connection to the policies actually being put in place and the inevitable effects of them.
The strategy seems to be to have the press push the line that Cameron is in the centre ground, while ignoring the policies that are virtually all to the right of Thatcher and the consequences that will result.
If we thought that the last parliament was devoid of necessary scrutiny and discussions on policy, this one will be even worse.
being able to determine the political commentators who are complicit in the charade or who are so bad at their jobs that they'll take the sentiment in one speech at face value and ignore the policies that unmask it as a lie.
Eg Dan Hodges, Jane Merrick...
and not a single one un-punchable
about the content of the Tory speeches at this conference yet? Haven't heard owt, but I haven't looked too hard tbf.
(He's whinged about Cameron being nasty I think?)
as much as everyone's trying to get excited about these conferences, the election is miles away, this is all about vague positioning and I don't think anyone really cares.
That post-Brown period in 2010 in which the Tories nailed Labour to the fiscal irresponsibility mast was so long ago, nancy...
Obviously, barely any newspaper has covered it.
Corbyn needs to be careful here. He risks taking up his airtime by talking about/rebuking* the Conservative attacks on HIM personally as opposed to the country. Which isn't a good place for messaging cut-through by my reckoning.
* - Of course this needs doing. But balance, balance, balance...
when pretty much every other word they've said all week has shown they're absolutely buzzing with the new found freedom his election has given them.
That plus Cameron's `assault on poverty` gaining the headlines is putting them rrrright in the `New Labour` defined centre ground. Cameron's beaten Corbyn to framing the argument about 21st century poverty. Terrifying.
Never forget that.
Been a bit of a renewed interest in D. Hodges on DiS of late. Here's his take http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11917236/David-Cameron-is-the-new-leader-of-the-British-Left.html
with a faux-left veneer to win the media argument, but I think the righter side of the party will be pretty happy with the next five years. Already, much of the reported discomfort among back-benchers is that they're going too far, at least with the tax credit cuts.
think Cameron's speech today was about signalling a `new direction of travel`. To be fair to Hodges he makes a hefty concession in his piece to Cameron's words today vs. policy reality given the dreadful bills they've just enacted.
Of course we've seen this all before with Cameron re: Big Society etc. so he could actually end up rodding his own back. Too far left in vernacular; too far right in policy does not a trustworthy leader/party make.
as incompetent, out of touch and economically naïve, I don't think it matters too much.
I think Cameron's luck will run out one day. Not sure the Labour party will be in a position to capitalise on it though.
Got a feeling this/next week's opinion polling could be reasonably chilling.
if Corbyn says something, he's doing it wrong, and all the while this 'framing of the argument' has been done by the press and cowed BBC who have already decided that he mustn't become Prime Minister.
I'm beginning to think that you want the Tories to win and people to suffer just so you can accuse Corbyn supporters of doing the same.
There's only one way that this regressive, punishing government, acting the interests of their millionaire and billionaire backers and protected by half a dozen tax exiles in the press, will be defeated or have their wings clipped, and it certainly isn't by taking snippy, lazy mock-insightful potshots at Corbyn whatever he does and claiming the moral high ground when huge swathes of the population are plunged into poverty.
The only way an opposition party acting to curtail these vested interests will succeed is through people who care actually start campaigning and helping - the Labour party is never going to be able to compete on individual financial donations, but it now has the biggest and most motivated membership of any party in the UK by a considerable distance. Whether Corbyn won or not, the only way Labour can possibly win in 2020 is for that membership to start doin their bit.
`I'm beginning to think that you want the Tories to win and people to suffer just so you can accuse Corbyn supporters of doing the same`
If you think that then you're a fucking idiot. I'm not even going to respond to the rest of that drivel. `Mock-insightful?` Same as you, pal. `Moral high ground?` Not a bit of it.
`Whether Corbyn won or not, the only way Labour can possibly win in 2020 is for that membership to start doin their bit`
I voted for a candidate who I felt best placed to win a general election for Labour in 2020. Although I take it you wouldn't accept that as me `doin my bit` or whatever. If you want to direct your ire somewhere re: Corbyn - why not do it to the thousands of people who voted for him whilst seemingly not giving the faintest bit of a shit whether he wins an election or not.
without giving the faintest bit of a shit whether he wins the election, but I also think they did vote for the candidate who would do the most to provide an opposition and to set out an alternative to the narrow, regressive policies and politics that we have now.
No other candidate offered this, no other candidate suggested that they would do any better than Corbyn in a General Election and no other candidate would have been able to harness the party membership at election time.
Who are the people out there campaigning for the rights of others? Who are the ones highlighting the effects of this government's policies? Who are the ones setting out alternatives and reasoned and researched policies?
It's not the so-called Blairites using their column inches to push the narrative of Corbyn that the Tory party want them to.
I know a fair few people who did - and several on here voiced it too. Corbyn's election was as much the Labour party membership attempting to purge the Blairites as much as beat the Tories.
You seem to be painting Corbyn as something akin to the most capable and noble politician of his era (pretty sure I've never seen you criticise anything about him which is... odd) who would doubtless galvanise the electorate, if it weren't for the media who simply won't let this happen. As such - this is all a bit simplified for my tastes. But fair enough.
is a good thing in itself, and that it would be the most effective way of shifting the debate back towards the centre or even centre-left in the long term.
There are things I disagree with Corbyn on (and have stated that I do) but of the candidates who stood for leader, yeah, I think he was the most noble and capable.
He certainly wouldn't have been my first choice for leader out of all the MPs in the party, and I think that personally Cooper is closest to where I stand, but Corbyn was the only candidate who showed that he was capable of independent thought, was capable of listening and was willing to work with people across all wings of the party.
It's not doubtless either. Everyone knows that it is always going to be a huge struggle to win people over, and everyone knows that it is a task made even more difficult by the press, but it would be even harder without the party membership as large and as motivated as it is now.
You were away when this report came out, so probably didn't read it, but it's worth looking at:
The reasons for defeat in 2015 were numerous, but having read all that, I think that Corbyn stands a better chance than Cooper, Burnham or Kendall would have done. I liked Ed, but didn't think he was a good leader. He did better than his brother would have, but he shied away and was then locked out of the news cycles as the Conservative's English Nationalism squeezed Labour's share in England and in Scotland.
"As such - this is all a bit simplified for my tastes. But fair enough."
Think this might be the most conceited thing I've ever read on DiS. Well done.
I have no issue with any argument which states that Corbyn's positioning of the Labour party could prove to be beneficial long-term. No issue with it. I don't agree with it, but that's fine.
`a task made even more difficult by the press`. Completely agree. Although not impossible. And if Corbyn was going to be so roasted by the press and, therefore, face an uphill struggle then why put him/the Labour party in that position? Maybe that's putting pragmatism over principle a bit too much but... the media aren't going to go away.
I did read that report actually. I certainly didn't reach the conclusion that Corbyn was the best option, but then again I don't think that report told us anything massively new (although it was handily collated). I too don't buy the idea that Labour lost the election simply because it was too left-wing. Too simplistic.
Personally my take is that there is no way that approach will work (ie work enough to win a GE). As I think I've said before, my view is that the only way the tories lose the next election is by leading the country into massive economic crisis, something that they are well capable of, and that any Labour leader, with any bunch of policies could do little more than be ready to jump into the gap if and when that happens.
To be honest though I envy your conviction, because I doubt literally everything these days.
just that it's the only way it can. I think you're right about an economic crisis being the only thing that will see Labour returned to power in 2020 (and I think that a large part of the government's policies will be directed at postponing the inevitable until after 2020), but even then it will still need a large, motivated party membership, which wouldn't have happened had any other candidate won the leadership election.
I expect the correction to 'assault on those in poverty' will come soon.
even if they nuked us first
I'm gonna have to vote Tory until we get nuked now, after which I may reconsider and vote for whichever party has the best stance on studded leather jackets and cannibalism