Discussion in 'Current Affairs & Debate' started by Tetris-Rock, Jun 24, 2016.
I don't even know what all the fuss is about anyway, I'm voting Green.
How dare you say Jeremy has had nothing to say. He announced that article 50 should be triggered immediately, without giving any reason as to why, how and what should happen after...
Isn't that point of democracy?
The sooner QUEEN NIC gets us (some of us) out of this mess, the better. Though I must say it is all very fascinating.
Incidentally I wonder what will happen if we DO go independent. Will all the political parties break off and become completely independent from the rest of the party like the Scotrish Greens have already done?
I wonder if any coalition of opposition parties to help bolster Labour/Corbyn's position (as proposed on the previous page) would include the SNP, as I've seen plenty of Labour supporters be far from complimentary about them
Oh Len, not the tin foil hat again!
I WANT TO BELIEVE.
Amazing summary of what is going on, using science
Why Corbyn so terrifies the Guardian
22 July 2016
Political developments in Britain appear more than a little confusing at the moment.
The parliamentary Labour party is in open revolt against a leader recently elected with the biggest mandate in the party’s history. Most Labour MPs call Jeremy Corbyn “unelectable”, even though they have worked tirelessly to undermine him from the moment he became leader, never giving him a chance to prove whether he could win over the wider British public.
Now they are staging a leadership challenge and trying to rig the election by denying tens of thousands of Labour members who recently joined the party the chance to vote. If the MPs fail in the coming election, as seems almost certain, indications are that they will continue their war of attrition against Corbyn, impervious to whether their actions destroy the party they claim to love. Meanwhile, the Guardian, the house paper of the British left – long the preferred choice of teachers, social workers and Labour activists – has been savaging Corbyn too, all while it haemorrhages readers and sales revenue. Online, the Guardian’s reports and commentaries about the Labour leader – usually little more than character assassination or the reheating of gossip and innuendo – are ridiculed below the line by its own readers. And yet it ploughs on regardless.
The Labour party ignores its members’ views, just as the Guardian ignores its readers’ views. What is going on?
Strangely, a way to understand these developments may have been provided by a scientific philosopher named Thomas Kuhn. Back in the 1960s he wrote an influential book called the Structure of Scientific Revolutions. His argument was that scientific thought did not evolve in a linear fashion, as scientific knowledge increased. Rather, modern human history had been marked by a series of forceful disruptions in scientific thought that he termed “paradigm shifts”. One minute a paradigm like Newtonian mechanics dominated, the next an entirely different model, like quantum mechanics, took its place – seemingly arriving as if out of nowhere.
Importantly, a shift, or revolution, was not related to the moment when the previous scientific theory was discredited by the mounting evidence against it. There was a lag, usually a long delay, between the evidence showing the new theory was a better “fit” and the old theory being discarded. The reason, Kuhn concluded, was because of an emotional and intellectual inertia in the scientific community. Too many people – academics, research institutions, funding bodies, pundits – were invested in the established theory. As students, it was what they had grown up “knowing”. Leading professors in the field had made their reputations advancing and “proving” the theory. Vast sums had been expended in trying to confirm the theory. University departments were set up on the basis that the theory was correct. Too many people had too much to lose to admit they were wrong.
A paradigm shift typically ocurred, Kuhn argued, when a new generation of scholars and researchers exposed to the rival theory felt sufficiently frustrated by this inertia and had reached sufficiently senior posts that they could launch an assault on the old theory. At that point, the proponents of the traditional theory faced a crisis. The scientific establishment would resist, often aggressively, but at some point the fortifications protecting the old theory would crumble and collapse. Then suddenly almost everyone would switch to the new theory, treating the old theory as if it were some relic of the dark ages.
Science and politics are, of course, not precisely analogous. Nonetheless, I would suggest this is a useful way of understanding what we see happening to the British left at the moment. A younger generation no longer accepts the assumptions of neoliberalism that have guided and enriched an elite for nearly four decades.
Ideas of endless economic growth, inexhaustible oil, and an infinitely adaptable planet no longer make sense to a generation looking to its future rather than glorying in its past. They see an elite with two heads, creating an illusion of choice but enforcing strict conformity. On the fundamentals of economic and foreign policy, the Red Tories are little different from the Blue Tories.
Or at least that was the case until Corbyn came along.
Corbyn and his supporters threaten a paradigm shift. The old elites, whether in the Labour parliamentary party or the Guardian editorial offices, sense the danger, even if they lack the necessary awareness to appreciate Corbyn’s significance. They will fight tooth and nail to protect what they have. They will do so even if their efforts create so much anger and resentment they risk unleashing darker political forces.
Corbyn’s style of socialism draws on enduring traditions and values – of compassion, community and solidarity – that the young have never really known except in history books. Those values seem very appealing to a generation trapped in the dying days of a deeply atomised, materialist, hyper-competitive world. They want change and Corbyn offers them a path to it.
But whatever his critics claim, Corbyn isn’t just a relic of past politics. Despite his age, he is also a very modern figure. He exudes a Zen-like calm, a self-awareness and a self-effacement that inspires those who have been raised in a world of 24-hour narcissism.
In these increasingly desperate times, Cobyn’s message is reaching well beyond the young, of course. A paradigm shift doesn’t occur just because the young replace the old. It involves the old coming to accept – however reluctantly – that the young may have found an answer to a question they had forgotten needed answering. Many in the older generation know about solidarity and community. They may have been dazzled by promises of an aspirational lifestyle and the baubles of rampant consumption, but it is slowly dawning on them too that this model has a rapidly approaching sell-by date.
Those most wedded to the neoliberal model – the political, economic and media elites – will be the last to be weaned off a system that has so richly rewarded them. They would rather bring the whole house crashing down than give Corbyn and his supporters the chance to repair it.
To be honest, I have no problem with Corbyn's beliefs but he himself feels like a problem in the way he works if testimonies are to be believed.
I think Suomi's just jumped the jark.
Not that I'm advocating at return to those sorts of days, but there was once a time when Ag used to ban people for this sort of shit.
The #popgingersagainstjeremy movement is gaining strength.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">So I gave em the old MI5 dark forces gag Jeremy. Our lot lap it up! Oh Len..Youre such a card! Take that down Owen <a href="https://t.co/7YbC6IZxfF">pic.twitter.com/7YbC6IZxfF</a></p>— Mick Hucknall (@mjhucknall) <a href="https://twitter.com/mjhucknall/status/756531627015233536">22 July 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/francesbarber13">@francesbarber13</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/TelegraphNews">@TelegraphNews</a> Corbyn is is a pseudo intellectual arrogant egotist</p>— carol decker (@caroldecker) <a href="https://twitter.com/caroldecker/status/756592439482322944">July 22, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Carol Decker can FUCK RIGHT OFF, the VILE OLD FISHWIFE
Continuing the attack on Owen Smith's previous employment by a drugs company, Corbyn and McDonnell thinks that all drug research should be done by the NHS and tax relief will be scrapped for companies working in the UK and employing tens of thousands of highly skilled people.
Not that this REALLY matters as Corbyn will never be in power but it doesn't send a very good message out to the scientists working in the UK.
I mean, it's NOT a bad idea in theory... but it's obviously unrealistic.
That's a dreadful policy. I can only assume that Corbyn has absolutely no idea how difficult and expensive it is to discover new antibiotics or cancer drugs. The NHS has no experience whatsoever in drug discovery and simply could not do it, although I'm sure they could burn through billions of pounds trying unsuccessfully.
It's a terrible idea!
In reality, yes. Ideologically, the idea of drugs research not being in the hands of private companies is quite compelling.
I guess so, in the sense that any action that destroys a British industry and leads to death is necessarily compelling.
With the health portfolio Big D will have fun trying to explain how this would work.
Jeremy Corbyn's leadership launch is being streamed live on Facebook. It's a cross between a Trump rally and a jehovah's witness conference produced by a couple of 15 year olds doing a GCSE in Media Studies. Owen Smith was booed when he was mentioned and I'm expecting chants of LOCK HIM UP!
My favourite meme from the last 24 hours.
It goes without saying it's a no from me, even though she made the song her own.
Aww, Tony Banks. RIP
Did anybody ask for a GUARDIAN INTERVIEW with THANGAM DEBBONAIRE?
I don't think I did.
YOU DID TOO
Oh, my mistake
Fourth poll in a row now that shows Labour under 30%
Not that polls count, especially when a few thousand people turn up to see Jeremy at a rally.
I'm OLD ENOUGH to remember when Michael Foot used to PACK 'EM IN and FIRE 'EM UP and just look how that turned out
Is no one celebrating Andy Burnham's success in being voted Labour's candidate for Mayor of Manchesterford? Loyalty to Jezza certainly paid off.
The less said about everything else going on the better, quite frankly, although credit to Big D who is taking on her shadow health secretary role with aplomb and trying to get to grips with childhood obesity, just as Michelle Obama. Big D has yet to respond to tweets asking if her mother was a feeder.
Two poles out today, YouGov has Labour on 31% and only 7 points behind the Tories, and TNS has Labour on 26%, 13 points behind the Tories.
It doesn't matter though apparently, because several Corbynistas on my Facebook have posted a chart showing how many more members Labour have.
What's the likelihood of May calling a General Election now? I kind of assumed that if there was going to be one, it would have been announced by now.
I'm utterly disengaged from the whole sorry mess now. It's just a film with no likeable characters at this point.
Why would she call one now? It would only eliminate Corbyn from the labour party quicker, surely it's in their best interests to run against him 4 years from now.