Jack the Sipper

Yeah, a German Shepherd no less. Dog-whistle politics of the worst kind.

Of course, but they are also morons that have a vote and help decide elections. To bury your heads in the sand and they 'that's not how it should be, so I'll carry on as if it isn't' is a hallmark of the left in this country. I'm also pointing out that the argument that it's ok to be 'electable' (even without being elected), and 'doing well' isn't the winning argument some think it is when the other side can point to what they delivered and promised and did better than doing well and were elected. Would it be fair for someone to say that austerity, hostile environments, fucking over the poor etc have all been vindicated as people elected the party that ran on those tickets?

I guess that would make you Melissa Poulton.

That tweet and accompanying graphic represent the worst type of disingenuous politician's spiel, and to defend it, and continue to defend it, and say that it's all true reflects badly on you IMO. The point of that tweet, even by yours and Momentum's terms, is meaningless. Labour lost both elections. I'll say that one more time: Labour under Corbyn lost both elections. And they lost to a party that delivered austerity, promised cuts to public services, privatisation, tax cuts for the wealthy. increased homelessness, foodbanks and poverty. Doing well at elections just isn't enough when the party promising the exact opposite does even better.

Sad to say, Angry, but you're not really helping explain why Momentum would use terms like 'electable', 'voters responded', 'Theresa May humiliated' and, erm, 'Labour won' to describe Labour losing two elections on the spin. They claim Corbyn's Labour were electable, even though they were never elected. They compare Corbyn's Labour favourably to Blair's Labour of 2001, even though the latter won whilst the former lost. They claim that voters responded to anti-austerity proposals, which means they responded even more favourably to Cameron's austerity measures, May's hostile environment and opposition to Corbyn ever being PM. and Boris fucking Johnson - all of whom were elected. They say that May was 'humiliated', even though she actually got her party more seats than Oh, Jeremy Corbyn won his. If they're not claiming that's winning, they're doing a great job of showing what winning's like. That's like the political version of that Taff's Tavern board. Or maybe they're using the Chomsky definition of 'winning': https://pa.media/blogs/fact-check/the-conservative-party-won-the-2017-general-election/

This is what winning looks like to a cultist: losing two elections in the space of two years, and giving the country another seven years of Tory government. Utterly fucking deluded.

Yeah, I figured it might be something like that after I posted.

Anyone know what an 'ocean going dud' is? Just seen Starmer called one in the Heil, and a quick check on Twatter shows it's been used before, mostly by those on the right, but with no context.

Having read the article, and the fact it was in the Torygraph, it's pretty obvious what he was trying to do, which was to draw a distinction between a Tory leader who was strong, successful on her own terms and who got on with things, and the current Tory leader, who, by contrast, is weak, hesitant, and in hoc to the different wings of his party. A fair point to make in itself - it's not as if we don't say similar shit on here about Tories who "at least had convictions", "at least showed compassion" etc, even sometimes in contrast to Labour leaders. I've even seen people here talking up the likes up Rory Stewart, Ken Clarke and Crispin Blunt to make points about other politicians they don't like. But it was never going to be received that way. It was always going to be portrayed as a Thatcher love-in by his opponents, even though they know the point he was making. And Starmer should have known that. It was also never likely to win over any Thatcher-loving Tories who read the Torygraph anyway, so I don't really see what he was gaining from it, aside from trolling the left. A misstep here, then, although I'm still supporting Labour and hoping they win big next year because I want the Tories out and dead and buried.

"That money was just resting in my account"

Best result for me, this, especially the thumping. Since the points deduction it's been about how they've messed with the wrong club, how it will galvanise the players, the fans, the club. Watch out mid-table here we come! The first test, at home, and they play like shit with, I would guess, the usual booing from the fans. And to top it off, the obligatory fume at the penalty. Man U aren't troubling us or even the top 4 this season, so let the Bitters suffer.

The Who?

I had a drink with him in Camden about 15 years ago. It's not every day I end up feeling pity for a millionaire that's shagged Kate Moss, but he attracts parasites like shit attracts flies.

After a lifetime of not really giving a fuck I've built a little portfolio over the past couple of years once inflation started getting out of hand. Most of it's in index funds like Vanguards Vusa that tracks the S&P 500, with small amounts in individual stocks and Bitcoin/Ethereum. I'm in it for the long term, but if I cashed in now I'd be around 20% up all told, which is a good return, especally considering the markets. My advice, if you want it, would be to do plenty of research, stick to funds rather than companies at first, and diversify.

I realise you're not speaking for KevinD, but when you say 'those responsible' for a terrorist attack in London I hope you're talking about the terrorists, and it's them saying 'what have we done?' when they realise they they've killed innocent people, perhaps including those marching for Palestine, in a misguided attempt to show their anger at the decisions of a political elite. What the fuck is retaliatory about someone killing Joe Average going about his business because Rishi Sunak didn't call for a ceasefire or whatever else they might want to pin on him or his peers and predecessors? I just can't be doing with this blame-shifting, mitigating, even justifying terrorist cunts deliberately killing and blowing innocent people up. They're to blame for that, no cunt else.

Sounds like the members forum here, minus the 'non-disabled' bit.

Who's 'we' exactly?

It might have been mentioned already, but a lot of the fume from the Bitters seems to be based on the 'fact' that they've been heavily punished, while Chelsea and City will get off lightly as they're part of the shady cabal called the 'big 6' that runs football. If those clubs are found guilty and don't receive proportionate punishment then fair enough, whinge away, but as it stands they've got fuck all to complain about. They broke the rules in a big way and other clubs were relegated potentially suffered as a result of their cheating. It's them that should feel hard done by. And a 10 point deduction couldn't have come at a better time, when there's at least 3 clubs that probably wont be getting over 25 points this season. I hope they get sued. Fuck em.

So you haven't noticed any correlation between being on the left or right and stances on a ceasefire, at least in the west? Interesting that you also equate being against a ceasefire with being in favour killing babies. Incredibly crass and offensive view IMO. And was Jon Lansman a baby killing zionist when he was one of Corbyn's closest allies?

Right, but I'm not so sure that ethical concerns and 'doing the right thing' regardless were uppermost in all these MPs minds. Also interesting to note that we're supposed to believe Jess Philip's (to take one example) view on a ceasefire is to the left of Bernie Sanders, or that she's more ethically sound on this issue.

I was referring specifically to their stance on a ceasefire (neither of them see the merits in one), not their overall view of the Israeli government's actions. And, seeing that in a years time Starmer may well be the PM, I'm not sure if it's a great idea for him to be calling the leader of a major ME ally (for better or worse) a reactionary racist. But that's just me. I think most people nowadays are calling Hamas terrorists, regardless of ethnicity. I'm not sure why you would see his Jewish identity as significant here. Do you think it clouds his judgement in some way?

I've only just found out that Bernie Sanders takes the same line as Starmer re a ceasefire. he also has no problem calling Hamas terrorists. I'll be honest, I never had Sanders down as a pro-genocide war criminal, but there you go. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/14/sanders-israel-gaza-cease-fire/

And she's gone! Good fucking riddance.

"There's no black in the Union Jack" "Allah, Allah, who the fuck is Allah?" Real upstanding members of the community there, and that's before we even get to the goon at 30s. And what exactly is their stated reason for 'counter-protesting'? I mean the real reason is pretty fucking obvious, but were they claiming to be preventing damage to the Cenotaph, or protesting against pro-Hamas sentiment? I'd imagine there'll be serious and hurried talk among the Tory hierarchy about changing the rules for electing leaders, 'cos when Sunak gets the boot Braverman will surely be putting herself forward as his successor. As it stands, if she makes the final two, there'll be a flood of newly joined racists looking to elect her leader. The problem is, she's too rich even for the Tories blood. Fuck what the noisy minority think of her, she's electoral poison.